Sitting of 8 August 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
Resolutions [August 7] reported.
Resolutions in Committee—NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1880–81.
PUBLIC BILLS—Select Committee—Union Officers' Superannuation (Ireland)* [75], Mr. Attorney General for Ireland discharged, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland added.
Committee—Citation Amendment (Scotland)* [267]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Royal Irish Constabulary [264]; Expiring Laws Continuance [266].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Prison Charities [270] and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Government Annuities and Assurance* [190]; Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund)* [256]; Lunacy Regulation Amendment [230]; Somersham Rectory* [232]; County Courts (Advocates' Costs) [188], and passed.
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday* [182].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in rising to move the following new Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 173:—
  "That, in the case of any Bill promoted by a Municipal Corporation or Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority or public body having powers of local government or rating, the Committee on the Bill shall consider the Clauses of the Bill with reference to the following matters:—

  (a.) Whether the Bill gives powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with or excess of the provisions or powers of the general law;

  (b.) Whether the Bill gives powers which may be obtained by means of Bye-laws made subject to the restrictions of General Acts already existing;

  (c.) Whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loan under the Bill exceeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not in any case allow to be exceeded, or any period disproportionate to the duration of the works to be executed or other objects of the loan;

  (d.) Whether the Bill gives borrowing powers for purposes for which such powers already exist or may be obtained under General Acts, without subjecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill to approval from time to time by the proper Government Department;

  1130
  And the Committee shall report specially to the House—
  In what manner any Clauses relating to the several matters aforesaid have been dealt with by the Committee; and
  Whether any Report from any Government Department relative to the Bill has been referred to the Committee; and
  If so, in what manner the recommendations in that Report have been dealt with by the Committee; and
  Any other circumstances of which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable that the House should be informed,"
  said, that a number of Private Improvement Bills were introduced that Session by various local authorities, containing provisions, including the regulation of the police and sanitary matters, which were considered to trench somewhat on the general law of the country. Opposition was, therefore, shown to those measures; and it was agreed that they should all be referred to a Select Committee, of which he was the Chairman, with special reference to the manner in which they conflicted with, or were in excess of, the general law. The Committee arrived at certain general conclusions, which they embodied in a Report that was submitted to the House; and the new Standing Order which he now proposed was merely the natural logical sequence of the recommendations contained in that Report. The Bills so referred to the Committee were carefully considered, and their provisions were modified, and cut down considerably, so as to induce hon. Members who objected to them in their original form to withdraw their opposition. The Committee presented their Report on the 9th of June, and the Bills so reduced and so cut down were brought before the House within a week of the time that the Report was presented. A debate arose; the action taken by the Committee was canvassed on the one side and on the other, and the House, by an overwhelming majority, approved of the action of the Committee. In the course of his remarks as Chairman of the Select Committee, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) intimated that he should be prepared to take some action before the expiration of the Session, with the view of securing that, in succeeding Sessions, Improvement Bills should be considered by Private Bill Committees on an uniform system, and on the financial principles laid down in the Standing Order which he now submitted to the House. It was a question at the time

  1131
  how such uniform action could be best secured—whether by the appointment of Special Committees, or by Standing Orders; and, after having had communication with the authorities, and his Colleagues on the Committee, he had prepared the Standing Order which he now desired to submit. That Standing Order would be found to be an exact reflex of the four propositions which were contained in the short, clear, and intelligible Report of the Select Committee; and there was nothing therein laid down, with regard to the future action of Private Bill Committees, which was not done with the assent of all parties. The objection which he understood had been made to this Standing Order was, that it tended too much to support the centralizing action of Government Departments in regard to their Reports on Private Bills; but what the Committee found was, that the recommendations of Government Departments had hitherto received but little attention from Private Bill Committees, especially in cases where the Bills were unopposed, and the object of the Order was to secure that Private Bill Committees in future would have regard to the principles there laid down, whether the Bills came before them as unopposed Bills or otherwise. With regard to the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, or the Home Office, it was not their wish to set the recommendations of those Departments on a pinnacle, and say they were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which were not to be altered. On the contrary, the feeling and desire of the Committee was that the recommendations of those Public Departments should be simple, clear, and reasonable; that they should have due attention on the part of the Committee; that officers on the part of the Departments should be examined and brought face to face with the promoters of the Bill, who would hear what they had to say, and have liberty to reply if they thought it necessary to do so. In that way they might arrive at an uniformity in the future action of Private Bill Committees beyond what had hitherto been the case, and in a way which all parties who had had experience in these matters must desire to see adopted. The only other point to which he should refer was the question of borrowing powers, which it was desired by this Standing Order to be restricted to a period of 60
  1132
  years. There were very good reasons why the term of 60 years should be fixed as the normal period for the repayment of loans. It was the same period as fixed for the repayment of moneys borrowed for Public Works by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and likewise the outside period fixed by the Public Health Act; but there was nothing in the Standing Order to restrict Parliament from extending it beyond 60 years if desirable. He might observe that, whereas he had received from an association of Municipal Bodies certain comments on the language of this Standing Order, he had seen no objection from them to the period of 60 years. They pointed out that the language of the Standing Order imposed on Private Bill Committees the duty of reporting more directly than the necessity of the case required; and, to meet their objection, he had struck out one of the sub-sections, so, as far as it was possible, to render the action of the Private Bill Committees less onerous to them. It was no new view of his that Parliament should take some action in this matter; and he should like, by way of justification of his own individual action, to refer to two speeches which he made when holding the Office of President of the Local Government Board, on the occasion of introducing what was called "The Local Budget," in the years 1876 and 1877. In 1876, he had occasion to notice the inconvenience which arose from the enormously lengthened periods for which local authorities were permitted to borrow by means of Private Bills, the Government Departments being restricted by the Public Health Act to an outside period of 60 years. On the 4th of July, 1876, in his speech introducing the Local Budget, he said—
  "I think that some additional precautions should he taken by Parliament to secure uniformity between the practice of the two Houses of Parliament as to the provisions which are inserted in Private Bills. I am not sure that the principles which are acted on in the Local Government Office might not, with advantage, he communicated to the Private Bill Committees of both Houses of Parliament. And there is no security that those who direct the action of the Committees of both Houses will take the same views of the subject. Indeed, within the last two or three years, there have been cases where the money proposed to he borrowed has been spread over such a long series of years as certainly would not he sanctioned by any Government Department. As a general rule, the repayment of a loan should he conterminous with the estimated duration of the works for which

  1133
  the money is required; hut I do not Bay that that should he a rule without an exception, for there are some works or objects which are almost permanent."—Hansard, ccxxx. 958–9.
  Again, next year, on April 23rd, 1877, he said—
  "Parliament would do well to pay a little more attention to Private Acts of Parliament, not with the view of checking the expenditure which the local authorities thought advisable to incur, but with the view of securing a greater efficiency of financial arrangements. Whereas it was an axiom with the Local Government Board that the period for repayment of any loan should be in accordance with the probable duration of the works to be constructed, they found great difference in the practice of Parliament with regard to Private Bills; and, again, that whereas the Departmental view was that repayment of the capital should commence at the earliest possible date, Committees varied very much on that point. As instances of Private Acts granting what he thought must be considered, primâ facie, an undue period for the duration of loans, he would mention the Birmingham Gas Act of 1875, giving 85 years; the Birmingham Waterworks Bill, 90 years; and the Rochdale Bill, 100 years. And in 1876 the term named in a Leicester Bill was 80 years; in a Stockton and Middlesborough Bill, 90; in two Halifax Bills, 100 and 110 years; and in a Huddersfield Bill the term for the repayment of the loan was 100 years."—[Ibid. ccxxxiii. 1723.]
  To show how difficult it was to control the action of Private Bill Committees, he might mention that while the Committee to which he had alluded was holding its sittings, and cutting down the period for the loans to 60 years, a Committee, presided over by a Friend of his own in another room, granted 120 years for the repayment of a loan, he being ignorant of what was going on in the other Committee. The object of the reform which he proposed was to secure a certain uniformity of action in future, and a greater efficiency of financial arrangements. Opinion was so strong among many hon. Members on this subject that he was informed that unless this Standing Order was passed this Session, every Private Improvement Bill with respect to which the slightest suspicion was entertained that it would transgress the reasonable limit laid down by the Committee as to the extent of the powers to be given by a Private Bill, and laid down in the proposed Standing Order, would be blocked. The block system now applied to public measures would be applied to Private Bills; and next year would, therefore, witness a dead-lock of the Private Bills. He would, in conclusion, ask the House to
  1134
  accept his proposal as the logical con-elusion of the action taken by the House in the present Session, and pass this Standing Order, and see if it would work satisfactorily.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of any Bill promoted by a Municipal Corporation or Local Board, Improvement Commissioners, Town Commissioners, or other local authority or public body having powers of local government or rating, the Committee on the Bill shall consider the Clauses of the Bill with reference to the following matters:—

  (a.) Whether the Bill gives powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations in conflict with or excess of the provisions or powers of the general law;

  (b.) Whether the Bill gives powers which may be obtained by means of Bye-laws made subject to the restrictions of General Acts already existing;

  (c.) Whether the Bill assigns a period for repayment of any loan under the Bill exceeding the term of sixty years, which term the Committee shall not in any case allow to be exceeded, or any period disproportionate to the duration of the works to be executed or other objects of the loan;

  (d.) Whether the Bill gives borrowing powers for purposes for which such powers already exist or may be obtained under General Acts, without subjecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill to approval from time to time by the proper Government Department;

  And the Committee shall report specially to the House—
  In what manner any Clauses relating to the several matters aforesaid have been dealt with by the Committee; and
  Whether any Report from any Government Department relative to the Bill has been referred to the Committee; and
  If so, in what manner the recommendations in that Report have been dealt with by the Committee; and
  Any other circumstances of which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable that the House should be informed."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERsaid, that Municipal Bodies were of opinion that this proposed Standing Order would injuriously affect public improvements; and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) ought to draw a distinction between securities upon real estate and securities invested upon mere local improvements. He (Sir Charles Forster) felt that on an evening such as the present, when important Public Business was about to be brought before the House, it would be impossible to go fairly into the question. Therefore, trusting it would receive a

  1135
  more lengthened consideration on a future occasion, he begged to move that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON,in seconding the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, said, that the proposed Standing Order involved matters of very considerable importance to Corporate Bodies and other local authorities throughout the country; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that strong representations had been made to him (Mr. Serjeant Simon) with reference especially to the hard-and-fast line laid down as to the period for the repayment of loans. When the varied circumstances of the different Corporations and other local bodies were considered, he thought they ought not to lay down a hard-and-fast line, and say that within a given period, no matter what the circumstances of the case might be, repayment must be made. It should be remembered that the expenditure which necessitated these loans was not always a matter of choice with the local bodies, but was often forced upon them by the Local Government Board for sanitary purposes, and by River Conservancy Boards; and when they were obliged to raise considerable sums by way of loans, it was very hard on them that they should be bound to repay the money within a certain period. Under these circumstances, he seconded the Motion of adjournment. The matter ought to be discussed when the House would be more likely to consider it deliberately than at present.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir Charles Forster.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—EMBODIMENT OF MILITIA REGIMENTS.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the constitutional obligation to call Parliament together in the event of the Militia being embodied, and of the fact that the extended training of the regiments now kept up for duty, will, pro-
  1136
  bably, in many cases have expired within ten days after Parliament has been prorogued or adjourned, the Government have any intention of taking steps during the present Session to embody the regiments now kept up, or any other regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I think it may interest the House that I should, in replying to my right hon. and gallant Friend, state that the offers we have received from Militia battalions, not only seeking to be embodied, but placing themselves at Her Majesty's disposal for active service in Egypt, are quite without precedent. Fifty-two battalions, representing nearly 50,000 men, have expressed a wish to be embodied, and of these, 37, representing nearly 35,000 men, have volunteered for active service; and I may congratulate my right hon. and gallant Friend on his battalion, the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment, being the first to offer to go to the front, which they did some days ago. At present, and before the approaching adjournment, we have no intention to advise Her Majesty to embody any Militia battalions; but should it be necessary to do so, the offers we have received are an earnest of the strong feeling in the Militia, and, considering the strength of the Militia and the Reserves, show what a great addition to our military power is at our hand within a few days of Her Majesty's Proclamation.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (MANCHESTER)—POWER TO GRANT DEGREES IN MEDICINE.
  MR. AGNEW (for Mr. SLAGG)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is intended
  "To place the Victoria University, Manchester, without delay, on the same footing as the older Universities with regard to the granting of medical degrees,"
  in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners on the Medical Acts?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I understand that an application is about to be made to Her Majesty in Council for a Supplemental Charter to enable the Victoria University to grant medical degrees, and that the initiatory steps will be taken at the usual meeting of the Court

  1137
  of Governors in November next. When the Petition is received, it will be submitted to the Queen at the next ensuing Council. I may add that the grant of such a Charter would not be inconsistent with the recent Report of the Royal Commission.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACTS—ISSUE OF CONTRIBUTION TABLES.
  MR. STEVENSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Friendly Societies' Act, empowering the Friendly Societies' Office, with the approval of the Treasury, to cause to be constructed and published tables for the use of Friendly Societies, it is proposed to issue such tables; and, if so, when the Societies may expect them to be published?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this point has already been considered by the Treasury; and I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that a scheme for the preparation of new tables has been approved, and will be commenced in the course of the present financial year. The work will, however, I am sorry to say, necessarily take several years to complete.

  ARMY—ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, while all other Departments of the Army have had their position improved with regard to pay and retirement, the chaplains' warrant has continued unimproved since 1861, and compares unfavourably with the warrants of the other Departments (i.e. the Army Medical Department, the Commissariat, Transport, and Ordnance Staff Corps, and the Veterinary Department); whether a very large proportion of the chaplains now serving entered the Department before the compulsory retirement clause was introduced; whether they are now compelled to retire from the Service at the age of sixty years at the same rate of half-pay granted prior to the introduction of that clause; and, whether it is intended to take any steps to improve the position of the chaplains?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that we find no difficulty
  1138
  in obtaining a satisfactory supply of competent chaplains, and, looking to the the general emoluments of the Clergy, whether of the Church of England, Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian, I see no necessity to improve their position, either as to stipend or retirement. They stand upon an entirely different footing from other Departments of the Army, and I should not hesitate to deal with their emoluments, independently of those Departments, if I thought it desirable. This question was well considered by my Predecessors, and I agree with their decisions.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ISSUE OF COMMISSIONS IN THE CAVALRY TO YEOMANRY CORPS VOLUNTEERING FOR FOREIGN SERVICE.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether commissions in the Cavalry will be given to officers of the Yeomanry or of any Mounted Volunteer Corps who volunteer and are accepted for service in Egypt?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir. There are no regulations which would admit of the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman being adopted, and at present I see no occasion for changing the present system.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE RESERVE—FRAUDULENT ENLISTMENTS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Judge Advocate General, If he will state to the House, or lay a Return upon the Table, of the number of men of the Army Reserve who have been tried and convicted of fraudulent enlistment between the 1st July 1880 and 30th June 1882?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Sir, there will be no objection whatever to this Return being given. I am sorry I cannot state the exact numbers at once; but the cases referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend—which are not, technically speaking, cases of fraudulent enlistment; but cases of false answers on enlistment punishable under the 33rd section of the Army Act—are not classed under a separate heading in my Office, and it will take some time to eliminate them.

  VACCINATION—ALLEGED DEATH OF CHILDREN AT NORWICH FROM EFFECTS OF OPERATION—REPORT OF INSPECTORS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has yet received the Report of the Medical Inspector of the Board in regard to the vaccination fatality at Norwich; whether he is aware that other similar cases have since occurred there: instructions forbidding the use of the and, whether he will issue immediate lymph which has produced such results?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I am as disappointed as my hon. Friend can be that I have not yet received the Report of the Inspector; but the circumstances in connection with these eases, which are very complicated, have required a more detailed examination than was anticipated, and the inquiry is not complete. I am, however, pressing for its completion with the least possible delay. I find that two other cases of erysipelas in recently-vaccinated children have occurred since the original case was brought under my notice; but one of them did not occur in the practice of the public vaccinator. Until I have received the Inspector's Report, I cannot form any opinion as to the origin of the fatality.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS—REGULATIONS.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether all the newspaper correspondents now in Egypt have signed the Rules laid down by him for their guidance; whether, in accordance with paragraph 7, a staff officer has been named to supervise all Press matters; whether, in compliance with paragraph 8, the article relative to the picket of the King's Own Rifle Corps was sent through him; and, if so, why, in accordance with the power granted to him, it was not stopped; and, if it was not submitted to him, whether that correspondent will be allowed to remain with the Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that the rules laid down for newspaper correspondents only took effect from the 4th of August, and will be transmitted this week to the General commanding in
  1140
  Egypt. Sir Garnet Wolseley will, on his arrival, appoint a Staff officer for the purpose of supervision. The telegram of which my hon. and gallant Friend very properly complains appeared on the 2nd of August. As the correspondent in question will certainly not be allowed to be employed under the new regulations, I do not think any further notice of the telegram necessary.

  BURIAL BOARDS—BURIAL FEES—20 & 21 VIC. CAP. 31.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will present a separate Return of such of the tables of fees of Burial Boards comprised in the unpublished Returns of 1880 as are in contravention of the seventeenth section of the 20th and 21st Vic. c. 81, which requires that the fees paid to incumbents, clerks, and sextons, shall be extra charges in the consecrated parts of cemeteries only; and, whether he will take steps to secure a revision of such illegal charges?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the question was one for the Courts of Law; but he would see what could be done.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—CRIMINAL LUNATICS—THE COMMISSION OF 1881—REPORT.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Commission appointed in 1881 to consider questions relating to criminal lunatics?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he had not yet had time to read the Report on the question; but he would lay it on the Table of the House when it had been duly considered.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE COLLECTION OF RATES IN MANORHAMILTON UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the guardians of Manorhamilton Union have passed a Resolution proposing to lower the Poundage Rate for collection from ninepence to sixpence; whether the Local Government Board have refused to allow

  1141
  the proposed reduction to take place; if so, on what grounds; whether Allen Nixon, one of the collectors, has been decreed at Petty Sessions for getting paid twice over for same amounts; and, if so, whether he will be dismissed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is the fact, as stated by the hon. Gentleman in his Question, that the Guardians of the Manorhamilton Union have passed a resolution, proposing to lower the poundage rate for collection from 9d. to 6d., and the Local Government Board have declined to sanction the proposed reduction, as they are of opinion that, having regard to the length of time the collectors have been in office, the generally satisfactory manner in which they have discharged the duties, and the increased difficulties which of late have arisen in the collection, it would not be just to the collectors, or conducive to the interests of the Union, to reduce the poundage as proposed. With regard to the case of the collector, Allen Nixon, the Local Government Board have received a complaint stating that he summoned a man for rates which had been previously paid, and that he had been decreed in the manner mentioned; but I am informed that the second demand was made through accident, and, therefore, the Local Government Board have not dismissed him. With regard to the question of the poundage and the power of the Local Government Board, I shall be in Ireland soon, and shall think it my duty to make further inquiries, so that the hon. Member must not take my reply as final. As to Nixon also, I may say that, before taking any definite action, I have required the Guardians to forward explanations.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN FOR BELHUBET, CAVAN UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the election of Poor Law Guardians for electoral division of Belhubet, Cavan Union, Mr. J. Boland was decided by the returning officer not to be elected, he having taken for Mr. Boland's opponent seven proxy votes in the name of Mr. James O'Lawder, when, in fact, the legal title to the property was not vested in Mr. Lawder, but in the Receiver of the Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice;
  1142
  and, whether he will have the case reheard?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, at the election of Poor Law Guardians referred to, the Returning Officer recorded Mr. Lawder's proxy votes for Mr. Boland's opponent. The Local Government, having some doubt as to the legality of the decision, procured a legal opinion on the question, which was to the effect that the Returning Officer had acted legally. There is, therefore, under the circumstances, no reason for ordering a rehearing of the case.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—OFFICIAL VALUATORS—MR. JAMES BUTLER.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as publicly stated, that Mr. James Butler, secretary to the Carlow Grand Jury, has been appointed valuator to the Land Commission?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. James Butler, who is secretary to the Carlow Grand Jury, was appointed a valuer under the Land Commission on the 30th of May last. I understand that the terms of his appointment are that his whole services are to be at the disposal of the Land Commissioners; but I am strongly of opinion that he should be called on to elect which office he should resign, and I will communicate my views on the subject to the Land Commissioners.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF MARY KEANE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the circumstances of the case of Mary Keane of Waterford, the Government will remit a portion of the sentence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mary Keane was sentenced to one month's imprisonment without hard labour, and His Excellency sees no reason for any mitigation of the sentence.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF MICHAEL LARKIN.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his Excellency has considered a Memorial on behalf of Michael Larkin, of Salford,

  1143
  signed by sixty inhabitants of that borough, praying for restitution property alleged to have been taken from him on sentence to penal servitude for life for passing a bad half-crown, which sentence was annulled, and a free pardon granted in 1879; and, whether, if that pardon was an acknowledgment of Larkin's innocence of the offence for which he was convicted, on the evidence of a woman of notoriously bad character, his claim for compensation for unjust imprisonment during fifteen years will be regarded by the Irish Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I find that the Memorial in the case of Michael Larkin, referred to by the hon. Member, was carefully considered by the late Lord Lieutenant, who decided that Larkin had no claim upon the Government. The facts of the case are shortly as follows:—Larkin was convicted before the Chairman of the County Limerick in 1862, on a charge of uttering base coin. It was his second conviction for this offence, and he had been previously tried on a similar charge in 1856, when he was acquitted. The County Court Judge sentenced him to penal servitude for life, being under the erroneous impression that the sentence meant in reality only confinement for 12 years. Larkin appears to have memorialized the Government in 1862, 1863, 1865, 1867, and 1873, and on each occasion the Lord Lieutenant at the time decided that the law should take its course, the Chairman having reported that there was no question as to his guilt. Larkin was released on licence in 1877, having served 15 years; and in 1879 the remainder of his sentence was remitted on the recommendation of Lord Chancellor Ball, who made the recommendation on the ground that the County Court Judge was under the impression that the sentence he imposed, meant 12 years of actual confinement.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—SUEZ CANAL, &C.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have discussed or concluded any engagement with other Powers for the regulation of the political condition of Egypt, and of the Suez Canal, when order shall have been restored in that country; if so, with what Powers the discussion
  1144
  has been carried on, or the engagement undertaken; and, what is the nature of such engagement, or basis of engagement?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; no such engagement has been concluded, or, indeed, discussed.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government is already in possession of information to show that permanent arrangements insuring the safety of the lives and property of Europeans in, or passing through, Egypt, might now be secured from the "de facto" Government at Cairo, without any further military operation whatever, provided Her Majesty's Government were now to promise to Egypt that they will "guarantee it a constitution compatible with International engagements," in terms of the suggestion made by Sir Edward Malet on 20th January last, as shown in page 52 of the Blue Book, 3230, of 1882, and which he stated "he thought to be the only way out of a situation which was rapidly driving both us and the Egyptians to extremities?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government have no such information as that alluded to in the Question.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether steps have been taken to prevent statements in this House with regard to Egypt, and also the movements and strength of our forces in Egypt, or on the way to Egypt, being communicated to Arabi Pasha by telegraph?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must acknowledge the very considerate manner in which the hon. and gallant Baronet has acted with regard to this Question; but, at the same time, from regard to the public interests, the only answer I can give to it, which I hope will be satisfactory to him, is, that measures have been adopted such as the case seemed to call for. It would not be desirable to enter upon any details.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received a Memorial from the letter-carriers of Belfast, and to what extent they will benefit by his proposed new scheme?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that the Memorial had been received, and that the letter-carriers of Belfast, as of other places, would receive increased pay, together with good conduct stripes and other advantages.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALTAR DENUNCIATIONS—THE REV. P. BRIODY.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the altar denunciations of the Rev. P. Briody, C. C., Mount Nugent; and, whether it is proposed to take any steps in regard to him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the attention of the Government has from time to time been given to the utterances of the Rev. Mr. Briody; but it has not been deemed advisable to take any notice of them.

  EGYPT—THE EGYPTIAN BUDGET—THE CHAMBER OF NOTABLES.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will give the dates and particulars of the Documents which Her Majesty's Government hold to be International engagements, and of which they have held that the voting of the unassigned portion of the Budget by the Egyptian Chamber of Delegates would be a breach; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of all such alleged International engagements (as distinguished from municipal ones) which the Government hold as binding the Egyptian State to submit its finances to European control?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I stated in the House on Saturday, the 15th of July, that the question of the powers of the Egyptian Chamber of Notables was one that was still pending, and that the English and French Governments had agreed that it would be unadvisable to publish at present the Papers relating to it. It would, I feel sure, be equally unadvisable to make a statement on the subject at present.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—"THE TUAM HERALD"—CASE OF RICHARD J. KELLY.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to
  1146
  the following resolution signed by all the seven local magistrates present at the committal for trial of the proprietor of the "Tuam Herald,"—
  "We, the undersigned local justices of the peace for the county of Galway, assembled in petty sessions in Tuam, having heard the case of the Queen v. Richard J. Kelly, although feeling that we have no other course open to us but to send forward the case, yet we desire to express very strongly our opinion that the declaration of the defendant is true; that the letter complained of, purporting to he a transcript of a letter hearing the name of James Redpath, was printed by misadventure during the defendant's absence from home, and that he repudiates same, and expresses his intense regret that it should have appeared; and we wish to state that we have, known the defendant for many years, and to our knowledge the 'Tuam Herald' has been at all times a supporter of law and order, and we respectfully suggest under such circumstances that this prosecution be dropped;"
  and, if, in consequence of this strong expression of opinion from the bench, he will direct all further proceedings against Mr. Kelly to be dropped?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the resolution of the magistrates referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member has not been officially brought under the notice of the Government; but, nevertheless, I will take care that the matter is referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, whose function it is to decide whether or not the prosecution should be proceeded with.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland answer the Question now?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I think I had better get the document before me before I answer the Question.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Then I will repeat the Question.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—HIGHWAY EXPENDITURE—THE GRANT IN AID.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will lay upon the Table a statement showing the terms and conditions under which it is proposed to distribute the sum of £250,000 in aid of local highway expenditure before the Supplementary Vote for that amount is taken?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, that he would state the proposals of the Government when the Vote was taken.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on Friday last Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R. M. addressing the Police of the city of Limerick on parade, condemned their conduct in agitating for an improvement of their position, and informed them that, if they had been soldiers their conduct would have brought upon them an extreme penalty; whether that statement was received by the constables with cries of "We are not soldiers," and whether the constables, on the conclusion of the parade, declared their determination not to parade again before Mr. Clifford Lloyd; whether, on a subsequent parade, Colonel Bruce, Inspector General, declared that the movement of the men was unprecedented in military history, and was an absolutely disloyal combination; whether, on a demand from the men for an apology for what they denounced as an insult, Colonel Bruce explained that he had not meant to insult them; and, whether, after four other parades, the proceedings closed with a refusal on the part of the police to retire from the movement in which they have engaged? He wished also to know, whether, at a meeting of constables yesterday, a resolution was passed calling on Mr. Clifford Lloyd to make a public apology for what he had said on Friday last?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have not yet got the official report upon the subject-matter of this Question, therefore I cannot answer it now; indeed, I do not see any reason for an immediate answer in this case. It may become of importance, as a matter of history; and, therefore, before I reply, I should like extremely to know what happened both from Colonel Bruce and Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and if the speeches, so far as they can be given, can be given in extenso. With regard to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member, it is one upon which I have received no information, and I can hardly believe that such is the case. If it is the case, it is an extremely imprudent and improper step to take.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would repeat the Question.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that a communication had been sent to the newspapers by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, giving his version of the story, and practically acknowledging the state of facts as published?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have read Mr. Clifford Lloyd's published letter to the newspapers, and I have also received a private letter from him; but my impression is that it is not an affair that calls for Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Clifford Lloyd is supposed to have used a particular word, and it is rather important to know whether he used it or not; but it seems to me that a gentleman like Mr. Clifford Lloyd, occupying the position he does, has a right to go and try and do all he can, in the interests of duty and discipline, to endeavour to bring the men to a proper condition of mind.

  METROPOLIS—THE PARKS—A NEW PARK FOR PADDINGTON—THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the honourable Member for the Isle of Wight, Whether, as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales, he can state what is the present position of the negotiations between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the other owners of the Paddington Estate on the one hand, and those who have interested themselves in the creation of a public park for Paddington on the other hand; and, whether he can give any assurance that, during the pendency of those negotiations, the area of the ground now open will not be encroached upon or diminished by building operations?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, last year the Ecclesiastical Commissioners offered to sell their interest in the land—which they estimate to represent nearly one-half—for £1,500 an acre. This offer the Park Committee have neither accepted nor declined. Last March the Commissioners authorized their surveyors to join in any conference which might be held between the promoters of the proposed park and the trustees of the Paddington Estate with a view to arrange the price which should be paid for the joint interest of the Commissioners and trustees, without reference to any ques-

  1149
  tion as to the apportionment of the money. The only answer I can give to the second part of the Question is the same as that given to a deputation last year—namely, that, while the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are anxious to afford every facility in their power for the acquisition of the land for a public park, they cannot, consistently with the proper execution of the trusts imposed upon them by statute, give a pledge to withhold their sanction to the letting of any further portion of the estate for building. I may add that there is another suitable tract of land which as sole owners they have offered to sell for £1,250 an acre, or less than half the total sum required for the other. It comprises about 94 acres, and lies at Kilburn, forming the site of the Royal Agricultural Show in 1879.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE SPANISH TARIFF—DUTY ON CURED FISH.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the first Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Spain has been in the habit of buying yearly about 200,000 cwts. of fish cured in Newfoundland; that from the 1st of August such fish will be charged a duty of 2s. per cwt. in excess of that charged on fish from Norway, Denmark, and other countries; and, whether, as such an extra duty will entirely prohibit the importation of British cured fish into Spain, and will seriously injure our fisheries, he intends taking any steps towards remedying this injustice?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that the Colonial Office had received, through the Foreign Office, information to the effect stated in the Question, and explanations had been asked for from the Minister at Madrid; but they had not yet been received. At the same time, he could say that, if the intelligence proved to be true, however much he might regret the policy which the Spanish Ministry had thought fit to pursue as regarded the trade of this country, he was not aware that it was in his power to take any measures, if, indeed, there were any, to obviate the consequences, or to relieve the people of Spain from the disadvantages which, as the Government believed, would be inflicted on them.

  ARMY—DRUNKENNESS AT ALDERSHOT CAMP.
  MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, How many punishments for drunkenness have been inflicted on soldiers stationed at Aldershot during the year 1881?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORN MORGAN): Sir, I am sorry that, for the reasons I have already given, I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise information he asks. But, from what I have already told him, he will gather that the number of individual men punished for drunkenness in the Army during 1881 was between 120 and 130 per 1,000, and the number of punishments inflicted for the same offence about 230 per 1,000. Now, the average number of troops at Aldershot last year was about 11,500. If, therefore, he will multiply the figures I have given him by 11½, he will get the number both of men punished and punishments inflicted for drunkenness, assuming, that is to say, that the state of Aldershot as regards drunkenness is a correct specimen of that of the Army generally. I think, however, that it will be found that Aidershot contrasts favourably in this respect with barracks which are situate in the heart or on the outskirts of large towns, such as London or Manchester. But, even making allowance for this, and for the fact that a soldier is constantly punished for drunkenness where a civilian would escape with impunity, I must admit that the catalogue, though showing a decided improvement upon the state of things which existed only five or six years ago, is a very black one, and I can assure my hon. Friend that both my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) and myself are fully persuaded of the importance of the subject, and that whatever we, or the military authorities, can do shall be done to diminish the evils to which my hon. Friend—greatly, if he will allow me to say so, to his own credit, and greatly, also, to the advantage of the Service—has called attention.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in rising to move that these Amendments be now considered, I think it will be found, for the convenience of the House, as the scope of the Amendments is limited and capable of being drawn to one head and centre, that I should state, at once, the course which the Government proposes to take in regard to those which they consider as in the least degree material; but I shall not take any notice, in making this brief statement, of changes of a character plainly secondary or purely verbal. On occasions such as this, Sir, when grave and serious differences of opinion arise between the two Houses of Parliament, they are attended with various inconveniences. One of them is that they tend to revive controversies and to set going discussions of various theories which it is better, for the peace and progress of the country, should be let sleep—["No, no!"]—and another is—["Oh, oh!"]—well, I am not going to ask the House to vote upon the question; but hon. Gentleman will see why I refer for a single moment to the subject—the other inconvenience is that they undoubtedly appear, on such occasions, to pave the way and lead to the promulgation of extraordinary, novel, and exceptional doctrines. I understand, for instance, that on this very occasion a doctrine has been set up, entirely new, so far as my knowledge goes, and not likely, I think, to receive any countenance from this House, which is that the House of Lords is not only entitled, as it undoubtedly is entitled, to impose an absolute veto upon a measure sent to it from this House of Parliament, but that it is likewise entitled to lay down the doctrine that such a Bill is not likely to be ever received from the existing House of Commons, however long that House of Commons may sit and hold to it, however often it may think fit to revert to the subject again and again, and from year to year, such a measure shall never be received by the House of Lords from the existing House of Commons; Well, Sir—[Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That is not the case.]—I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I do not know why he interrupts me. I have stated, what I have heard and understood, that such a doctrine had been put forward. If that doctrine be supported here, it is a doctrine that we shall be prepared to contest. I refer to
    1152
    it for the sake of excusing myself for not taking any detailed notice of it, because I think no advantage to the country and ourselves can arise from entering upon subjects of that class, and my desire is upon the present occasion to pass them altogether. The duty of the Government is to approach a question of this kind with a firm resolution on no account, whatever pressure maybe exerted upon them, to swerve from the great public objects they may have in view; but, while remaining faithful to that principle, to avoid, as far as they can, and eschew all reference to matters which can do nothing but promote angry controversy. That is the intention with which we have addressed ourselves to the consideration of the Amendments of the House of Lords, and that is the intention with which we have considered the whole of them, from the beginning to the end. The first Amendment in this Bill is the Amendment which introduces, in a somewhat complex form, the principle of joint or concurrent action of the landlord and tenant as the means of setting the Bill in motion, in lieu of the sole action which was the basis on which we recommended it to the House of Commons, and upon which it was adopted by the House of Commons. The form in which this Amendment has been introduced is, as I have said, one rather of complication. In the first place, it appears to us to contain, perhaps as a consequence of haste and inadvertence—of that I know nothing—but, at any rate, it does, in our view, contain a change in the Bill which is faulty upon the ground of its placing the two parties, not upon a footing of equality, but subjecting the landlord to an absolute disability in respect of the initiative. As the Bill left this House, the two parties were treated with entire impartiality, and either the landlord or the tenant could put the Bill in motion; but, as the Bill came from the House of Lords, the landlord cannot put the Bill in motion at all; and as we are of opinion that there are many cases in which it may be desirable that the landlord—[An hon. MEMBER: The tenant.]—I beg your pardon, the landlord, as the Bill has come down from the House of Lords, cannot put the Bill in motion at all—and what I say is, that as we are distinctly of opinion that there are many cases in which justice to the landlord requires that he

    1153
    should have the power of putting the Bill in motion, that is one of the grounds upon which we shall ask the House to substantially dissent—not to disagree, but substantially to dissent from the main object of the Amendment, as regards the tenant having the right to put the Bill in motion, subject to the veto of the landlord. The introduction of this Amendment into the Bill has made it our duty to consider whether we can make what we think would be a very injurious change in the Bill, and, in fact, I need not hesitate to say, one quite fatal to the Bill; whether we can make that change the occasion of introducing into it any Amendment not at variance with the objects of the Bill as we ourselves sent it to the House of Lords, and we are of opinion that such an Amendment can be made in this way, by restoring both parties to that equality which we gave them when the Bill passed through the House of Commons, and by requiring either of them to give to the other previous notice of his intention to go into Court and take advantage of the Bill. According to our proposal, he would be perfectly free to go to the Court and take advantage of the Act, subject to the conditions of it; but he must give previous notice to the other party. A notice of 10 days is what we should require. I do not know whether it is necessary or convenient that I should state the exact words at the present moment; but that can be done, I think. The Lords Amendment is rather complicated, but substantially the words we propose are these—
    "It shall be open to either of them, after 10 days' notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the landlord or his agent, to go into Court."
    That is the form which the Amendment will take, if the House adopt it according to the proposal of the Government. I will assume, therefore, that the question lies between the Amendment in that shape, and the Amendment as it came to us from the House of Lords. I wish the House to consider in this discussion, and I must say I hope the House, without any distinction of Party, will be disposed to consider what is the real nature of the change that has been made. There is no doubt whatever that the landlord has in equity, and I believe there is not the smallest doubt that he had, accord-
    1154
    ing to our Bill, a locus standi in reference to the application of the tenant. If tenants who are able to pay the whole of their arrears under this Bill seek to obtain an exemption from apart of them, that would be, as we think, an injustice to the landlord. One of the essential conditions of the Bill is the inability of the tenant to pay. We have done everything we could to make the investigation into his inability a real investigation. We have embodied in the Bill the right of the landlord to be heard. The landlord will be, in this investigation, the natural defender of his own interest against the tenant really able to pay, who endeavours to take advantage of a measure not intended for him, but intended for other people; and the landlord, in this respect, will be the ally of the State, and the public interest will run in the same direction as his interest. He will, therefore, be the natural ally of the State in the case of a tenant able to pay. Therefore, we hope that the Bill is perfectly effective for the purpose of giving a fair and open field to the landlord; but then it is something over and above this that the Amendment of the House of Lords desires, and what is it? It is this—that in the case of a tenant unable to pay, it shall rest with the landlord to determine whether he shall or shall not come under the Bill. I wish most carefully to avoid all semblance of exaggeration. I beg that the terms of my proposition may be strictly tested. I affirm that the effect of the Lords Amendment, as distinguished from and going beyond that which we are ready to agree to, and have embodied in the Bill, is to assume to the landlord the right of preventing a tenant unable to discharge his arrears from going into the Court, and from reaping the benefit, for the sake of securing which benefit to him Parliament has been content to confront all the difficulties and the disadvantages of the objections which I admit to attach to such a Bill as this. After having confronted all this, we are to be met, it appears, by the simple veto of the landlord, founded upon what I might almost call his arbitrary will, but which I will call his private choice. Now, Sir, if that be so, and I believe it to be strictly and literally so, surely it is impossible that such a claim can be seriously advanced, and can be made the basis of conflict between the

    1155
    two Houses of Parliament. That is the case with regard to the first Amendment, and I have not thought it desirable to enter at any great length into it, for I believe that the simple explanation of its effect, the simple interpretation of the Act as it would stand, if that Amendment were adopted, is better than any amount of argument, however clear, which it would be possible to advance in respect to it. The second Amendment is not one without difficulty; but it is of a less formidable character, and that Amendment we shall ask the House not to reject, but to amend. It gives to the landlord the right, in the event of a sale of the holding subsequently to the operation of the Act, to charge his arrears of rent upon the proceeds of the sale. Now, Sir, here there are arguments which tell both the one way and the other. Against the Amendment there tells the great desire we have always had that the operation of the Act should be a clear, decisive, and final operation. On that account, when my right hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Goschen) proposed to retain a charge for the State on the holding in the event of a sale, and when, afterwards, from the opposite side of the House, it was proposed to retain this charge for the landlord, to neither of these propositions did the House agree. I admit, however, that there was something to be said on the other side, and that is, that in Ulster, under the old custom of the Province, the landlord has had a lien on the proceeds of the tenant's interest in case of this sale, and he has been able to recoup himself from the proceeds of the sale for his arrears of rent; and when we proposed last year that a legal tenant's interest should be created and recognized all over Ireland, we pointed out the great advantage that, in ordinary circumstances, the landlord would derive from having that tenant's interest as a new security for his rent. I do not admit that it would be reasonable in any way to recognize that claim upon the tenant's interest irrespective of the amount of arrears, because, again, in order to have a true comprehension of this subject, we must fall back upon the fact that a practice has existed in Ireland on certain estates—not very few in number, but far from being the generality—of keeping alive arrears for a course of years, not so much regarding them as an asset capable of being com-
    1156
    pletely realized, but rather, perhaps, retaining them as a powerful leverage over the tenant, by which to obtain any object which the landlord might desire. It is, therefore, only to a certain extent, and when reaching over a moderate term, that arrears can be regarded as representing in Ireland a true and substantial asset. The Bill, independently of the Amendment I am now considering, has made provision for the recovery of the two years of arrear. It may be said that bonâ fide arrears may, in certain cases, go a little beyond that, and we are content to recommend to the House to accept this Amendment, amended as follows:—
    "That in the case where the tenant right is sold within seven years from the application of the Act to the holding, the claim to arrears shall be a lien on the proceeds to the extent of one more year's rent;"
    so that in such a case where the tenant right is so sold, the landlord will have received, or may have received, in the way of compensation for arrears of rent a sum equal to three years' rent. There is another limitation which we propose to place on the Amendment, which would only, we think, be material in cases of very small holdings, and in times of very great depression; such cases, for instance, as the Donegal holdings may have presented two or three years ago—that is, that the one year's rent so payable to the landlord shall not exceed one moiety of the value of the tenant right. Those who are conversant with tenant right in Ireland are aware that, in general, the rule would be inoperative; but I believe it is a rule that does exist already in Ulster—to what extent I cannot exactly say—and I think it would be a just and beneficial rule in reference to a certain class of holdings under certain circumstances. That Amendment, therefore, we propose to accept subject to three limitations—that the sale of the holding must be within seven years; that the amount of the landlord's claims upon the proceeds shall not exceed one year's rent; and that the one year's rent shall not be more than a moiety of the whole proceeds. The third and the last of the Lords Amendments relates to a controversy which was also raised in this House. The Bill as it went to the House of Lords provided that the Commissioners, in considering the question of the tenant's ability or inability to pay, might, if they should think it reason-

    1157
    able, "take into account the interest of the tenant in his holding." My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) moved an Amendment against those words; and he proposed to substitute for the words "may, if they shall think it reasonable," the words "shall, so far as they think it reasonable." That was the point upon which we joined issue in this House. We were opposed upon that by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, of course, by my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock); but I do not recollect whether any other hon. Gentleman voted in the minority from this side of the House; but that was the issue joined in this House. Now, the House of Lords have struck out the whole of the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and have inserted the simple word "shall." Now, in our opinion, that is distinctly too stringent, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case. Be it remembered that most of these holdings are holdings which, at the present moment, cannot be said to have a tenant right at all, because the man, being in arrear, is liable to eviction, and because, being in arrear, he has never had the power of having a judicial rent fixed, which is the only natural basis of his future tenant right. In a multitude of these cases, of small holdings particularly, it will happen that there is no assignable value which can be attached to the tenant right; and I think I may say that was the universal feeling of this House, because the demand made in this House was, not that the Commissioners "shall" take the interest into account; but that they "shall take it into account so far as they think it reasonable." But being anxious to accommodate all controversy that we can, without vitally impairing the enactments of the Bill with reference to its purposes, we are prepared to accept the view then sustained by the minority in this House, and to agree to ask the House to substitute for the words "may, if they think it reasonable," the words "shall, so far as they think it reasonable." That will leave the Commissioners with a sufficient discretion, not as wide as that we obtained from this House, but still a discretion with which we think they may safely be invested. The next Amendment of the Lords I will read if the House thinks fit; but the simplest description of it will
    1158
    be "Lord Waterford's Amendment," or the "hanging-gale Amendment." This hanging gale has been a subject of much trouble and vexation to many of us in the various stages of the present Bill. Nor can I think that their Lordships have been perhaps as successful as we were in our attempt to comprehend the question, and to deal with it in an appropriate manner. We cannot ask the House to adopt this Amendment, and I will give three reasons why we are driven to that conclusion. The Amendment has been considered very carefully indeed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland; and, so far as it is possible to convey to a non-legal mind a legal question, they have put me in possession of what appears to me a very good reason against the Amendment, and it is this—that this Amendment is subject to the most dangerous ambiguities and uncertainties of construction. It is quite conceivable that it might be construed in a sense in which it would leave the Bill precisely as it was when it left this House. It provides substantially that the rent, which, in any holding, by the custom of that holding, ought to be paid in 1881, shall be, for the purposes of the 1st clause of this Act, the rent for the year 1881. Now, we are advised that it is perfectly possible that that might be construed to mean that it should be the rent for 1881, in such a sense as to prevent the landlord from obtaining any other rent for 1881; and, if it is so construed, why, then the Amendment has no effect or operation whatever on the Bill as it went from this House. My first reason, then, for objecting to the Amendment is, that it is subject to a most dangerous ambiguity of construction, it being liable to a construction which reduces it to zero; and also to another construction, which magnifies it to very dangerous and formidable proportions indeed; and that second construction, so far as I can understand, is undoubtedly the construction which it was intended to bear by the House of Lords. According to that construction, the rent which ought to be paid in 1881—and here I had, perhaps, better suppose the case of an estate where there is a double hanging gale, or a gale extending over 12 months—the rent which ought to be paid in 1881 on such an

    1159
    estate as that in November or December would be taken as the rent of 1881, simply and solely for the purpose of enabling the tenant to enter the Court and make an application to obtain the benefits of the Act. That is the other construction, totally contradictory, absolutely and immeasurably remote from the construction I before described; but I believe the least sustainable on the words of the section. I will now enter into a detailed explanation of the consequences of that construction; but I will say this, upon the part of my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends and myself, that we are prepared to show, I think undeniably, not by argument, but by simply setting forth the operation of the words of the Bill, that if that be the true construction of Lord Waterford's Amendment, then, under this Bill, it will be open to a landlord, as to a 12 months' hanging gale, to obtain as compensation for two years' arrears, either two years and a-half, or even three years' rent, and as compensation for three years' arrears, either three and a-half years' or four years' rent. Now, these are words that are not used lightly and unadvisedly by us. We have carefully, and with much pain and labour, closely examined into the operation of the Bill; and I would almost undertake to appeal to an enlightened and intelligent mind like that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), to say whether that would not be the result of the Lord's Amendment; and then I would ask him, whether he could commend it, and was prepared to contend for it? That is my second objection, and I think a pretty strong one; but the third objection is this, and it will be one which will be at once intelligible to the whole House. If there was one thing more clearly than another proposed by us, and accepted by the entire House as the basis of this Bill, it was that we should relieve the tenant absolutely from all liability for rent down to a certain date, and that date was by consent made the 1st of November, 1881. I do not consider the concession we have made about a lien on the produce of the tenant's interest is an infringement of that principle, because that is a claim which only arises when a man is going to leave his holding; and the object of this Bill is not that he
    1160]
    should leave it, but that he should continue in it. If there was one thing more distinctly understood over the whole House than another, by hon. Gentlemen on that Bench just as by those on this Bench, it was this—that up to or down from a certain date, whichever you like to call it, by the operation of the Act, the tenant should be absolutely set free from all claims with respect to rent. Well, if this Amendment were adopted, if it be construed according to the intentions with which it is quite evident it was introduced, the tenant, instead of being set free from rent, would be liable for a claim of rent anterior to the date of November, 1881, and the pledges of the Government would be utterly falsified, and the purposes of the Bill would be destroyed. Therefore, I am obliged to ask the House to disagree to that fourth Amendment. The fifth Amendment that I have to name is rather low down in the second page of the Paper of Amendments distributed to the House. The first thing to which I need call attention is the insertion in line 30, after "Sub-Commission," of the words "being a barrister-at-law." Now, the substance of this Amendment we are prepared to concede; but I wish to make two Amendments in it—at least, one Amendment, and another strictly consequential upon it—but I have not the least doubt those Amendments will be approved. We take it that the object of the Amendment made by the House of Lords is that there shall not be a single person to whom a delegation is made by the Land Commission, unless he is a legal person; but we wish to specify "being a barrister-at-law, or a solicitor." [Mr. GREGORY: Hear, hear!] I am glad, Sir, to find that the hon. Member for East Sussex is prepared to stand or fall with his order—a very good order, an order as essential to the existence of a well-constituted society as any other order in it. Well, we propose, as consequential upon that, to introduce another Amendment, as we do not believe it was the intention to exclude the delegation of the duties to a single member of the Land Commission itself—it was not the intention to exclude Mr. Vernon, for instance. That clearly was not intended, though it would be an accidental consequence of the Amendment, and we shall, therefore, propose an Amendment providing for it. The next Amendment

    1161
    is in line 33, after the word "shall," to insert—
    "Subject to an appeal to the Land Commission on, and in, such conditions and circumstances as may he prescribed."
    We certainly do not consider that Amendment is an admissible Amendment. There is not sufficient ground for it, and the burden of it in reference to the amount of money that would generally be in question would really be enormous; and, wherever that is the case, the power of the appeal, intended for equity, really becomes an instrument of oppression, enabling the power of the stronger party to be exercised upon the weaker. We must, therefore, ask the House to virtually reject the Amendment, and to stand substantially to the arrangement come to before—that is, to confine the appeal to an appeal upon points of law which, we think, may be justly granted, and which is an essential change in the character of the proposal. Sir, there is only one other point which I have to name, and it is one which only requires a word of explanation. There was a clause, Clause 17, as it went from the House of Commons, which related to certain payments in respect of which there was to be a recoupment allowed to the landlord. That clause was passed in this House in great haste, and at the last stage; but when it came to be discussed in the House of Lords, it was agreed there by the Government that the clause had better be dropped, and an amended clause inserted in the House of Commons. We shall, therefore, bring up an amended clause, which we shall ask the House to insert in the Bill in place of the old Clause 17. We only ask it for the sake of clearness; and though it is a change made in the Bill as it came from the House of Lords, we shall, in fact, only amend our clause, adapting it to the purpose we have in view, instead of dropping it entirely. It is not a substantial difference from the Amendment arrived at by the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I need not trouble the House any longer on this matter. I have gone through the different Amendments, and I hope I have gone through them in the spirit I expressed at the opening of my remarks. I set aside all questions of general controversy; I will not enter into that wide and dangerous field. We have not taken this matter in hand in what I may call an huckstering
    1162
    spirit—giving something, and retaining in our hands a little more, to be given up under a little more pressure. We have endeavoured to go at once the whole length we feel to be admissible, and both to endeavour to make these Amendments the occasion of introducing any secondary improvements that might be practicable into the language of the Bill, and likewise to offer every reasonable concession which we could make without impairing the substance and purpose of the Bill. As to that substance and purpose, I need not remind the House how vital and significant in our view they are. This is a Bill, not to relieve distress, but partly to prevent evictions, partly to afford access to the Land Court; and, in both the one capacity and the other, intimately and vitally associated with the great question of peace, order, and tranquillity in Ireland. Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than the limits that are imposed upon our powers of concession, and these limits must be observed. What we offer, we offer freely, and desire to offer without the slightest invidious remark or observation; we desire to offer it in the way which, by men of experience and knowledge, it is most likely to be accepted. We desire to lighten as much as we can the responsibility that must rest upon ourselves, if, needlessly, we carried this House into conflict with the other; and we likewise desire to declare that if conflict arises, it is well understood that the responsibility does not rest upon us. I will not refer to that subject; I will only reiterate to the House the assurance I have already given as to the purpose with which we have examined these Amendments, and with which we make our present proposal; and I conclude with the fervent wish, for the sake of all Parties alike, for the sake of England, and for the sake of Scotland, and for the sake of Ireland, that these proposals may be accepted by the goodwill of the House, and may take their place as law on the Statute Book of the land.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I need not say that I do not

    1163
    rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) into the details of the Amendments which he has just described to the House. I admit, however, that it has been exceedingly convenient that we should be given in a general view an account of the course which Her Majesty's Government propose to the House to pursue. But it is perfectly clear that the Amendments, and the mode of dealing with the Amendments which he has suggested, must require careful attention on the part of the House, and that we shall, therefore, do better to discuss them as they arise, and when we have them properly submitted to us. I only wish to express my own earnest hope that the discussion of these Amendments will be conducted in the same spirit as that which has characterized the greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. At the same time, I must say it is true that there were one or two expressions at the opening of his speech which, I admit, filled me with some uneasiness. He spoke of his unwillingness to open old controversies, which had better be let sleep, and there I quite agreed with him. But it did seem to me that he was a little tempted, if he laid aside old controversies, to spring upon us some new controversies, for he told us that there were extraordinary and novel doctrines promulgated; and he instanced as one of them some doctrine he had read or heard of somewhere, that the House of Lords was entitled to lay down the doctrine that such and such a Bill should never be received from the present House of Commons. I do not know from what source that statement was derived; but, to me, it is a novel and extraordinary doctrine. What I do think the House ought to bear in mind, and it ought to govern their consideration of all this matter, is this—that in discussing this Bill, and especially in its final stage, we are engaged in a complicated and difficult matter. The largest possible additions have been made to the Bill since it was first introduced; and it is enough to point the House to the first copy of this Bill as it was brought into the House of Commons, and the last copy as it went to the House of Lords, and to the fact that the Bill had actually doubled in its length—a Bill of 12 clauses becoming one of 24, and that, from time to time, grave matter
    1164
    arose in the course of our discussions. It was not, therefore, to be wondered at that the House of Lords, in coming to examine a Bill which went through so much modification in this House, when they saw how important were many of the principles which it contained, and the principles which underlie these provisions, it was not at all unreasonable that they should deal in such a manner as they thought proper, and thought it to be their duty to do, with the provisions of the Bill. The House is aware of the Amendments which the House of Lords have suggested. I do not wish to make any statement or observation with regard to these Amendments, as a whole, which would in any way hamper or impede the action of the House in considering them. I only hope that they will be considered with candour and with fairness; because it is very easy indeed to get up prejudice—to get up a cry—and as we have seen quite enough of in various parts of the country, and in various organs of the Press, most extraordinary statements, which seemed, if they meant anything, to mean that this House would not be free to consider the Amendments of the House of Lords upon their merits; but that we were to be hampered by predictions of the most mysterious character as to what might happen. It seems to me—and I claim to exercise in the discussion of these Amendments the same freedom as in the discussion of the Bill in its earlier stage—if the suggestions of the Government commend themselves to us, of course they are such as deserve consideration and assent. On the other hand, if they do not commend themselves, we have a perfect right to maintain our position, and to refuse to agree to them. I hope the House will not be led into any general discussion of this sort. I have felt bound to say what I have done in consequence of the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope I have said nothing which can in any way impede or hamper the House in its proceedings; and, for my part, I shall be very glad that we should go into a business-like discussion of these Amendments, and that we should endeavour to see what is their real meaning and effect when we have them really and substantially before us, and in what way it will be possible for us to deal with them.
    MR. PARNELL: I have heard, Sir, with very great regret, and, I confess, with considerable misgiving, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, descriptive of the concessions which he proposes, at this very early stage in the proceedings, to make to the action of the other House. Even if we had been told that the right hon. Gentleman had now announced his finite judgment upon the Amendments of the House of Lords, and if we could forget the history of the Land Act of last Session, when concessions, made upon the stage of that Act similar to that of the one we are now engaged on, were followed, at a subsequent period, by much more important concessions, we should still regard the very important concessions which the right hon. Gentleman now makes to the House of Lords with the utmost misgiving. I look upon these Amendments which have been foreshadowed as, in all probability, likely to he most mischievous to the operation of the Bill. I do not propose now to examine them in detail; but I hope and believe that, when the time comes for doing so, we shall be able to show this House reasons of a very important character against the adoption of several of them. I do not wish to refer to the special Amendments which we shall be obliged chiefly to deal with; but what I wish to do is to ask the Prime Minister, in regard to the statement he has now made that he is going to stand by his concessions in the further stages of the Bill, whether, in the event of this Bill being returned from the "other place," as the Land Act was returned last year, he has told us his mind, and his whole mind, upon the present occasion; and, whether, if we support him, as regards these Amendments, by our votes, and in every way we can on the present occasion, we may feel confident he is going to stand by the announcement he has now made to the House, and that he is not going to be impelled any further into the mischievous course, which, I regret to say, he has adopted, of whittling down this valuable measure to suit the dictates and the feeling of an irresponsible Body in that "other place?"
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think it wise or prudent at this stage, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), that I
    1166
    should enter into further details; because, when I stated that we would not enter into the discussion of the Amendments to this Bill in a huckstering spirit, and disclaimed such a mode of going to work, I would he understood as not using those words for the purpose of mere declamation. When I stated that we asked ourselves, as strictly as we could, what Amendments we could reasonably agree to, I thought I had made a full and ample disclosure of the general mind of the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    The following Amendments agreed to:—In page 1, line 10, leave out "either;" and in line 11, leave out "or," and insert "and."
    Page 1, line 11, after the word "holding," insert the words—
    "Or of the tenant with the assent of the landlord (such assent to be presumed on the expiration of ten days from the service upon the landlord in the prescribed manner of notice of such application, in the absence of any notice of dissent from such landlord or his agent),"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment—
    To leave out after the words "or of," to the words "from such," inclusive, in order to insert the words "either of them after ten days notice in the prescribed manner by the landlord or his agent to the tenant, or by the tenant to the,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Amendment now proposed by the Prime Minister made a material alteration in the Bill as it had left that House. The Amendment of the Prime Minister introduced the element of notice, and also recognized the independent right of the landlord, as well as the tenant, to resort to the Court. With regard to notice, it was a distinct improvement upon the original drafting of the Bill as sent up to the "other place," because it would secure that the landlord should have notice of the tenant's application, so that he would be informed of what he meant to do. But, beyond enabling the land-

    1167
    lord to make certain inquiries as to the tenant's circumstances, there was nothing of a very efficacious character in that concession. Something more was, however, required; and, as the Lords held, it was only fair, reasonable, and expedient that the landlord should have, not merely notice, but some potential voice in reference to the application. "When the Bill was in that House, his (Mr. Gibson's) right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition urged that the landlord should be given the power of concurring in the application. The Lords were more moderate, and they had considered the question from a most temperate point of view. They proposed that the landlord should have the power of joining with the tenant if he pleased; but that the application of the tenant in default of such concurrence should not be sufficient. Well, no doubt, that left a power of veto with the landlord which might, in exceptional cases—such as where he considered it would be for the interest of the tenant and the good of the estate—be made use of; but Parliament did not legislate for exceptional cases, and it seemed to him (Mr. Gibson) that there were sound arguments adducible in support of that veto. The Lords Amendment, it seemed to him, was, on the whole, fair and reasonable. It would remove, to a great extent, if not entirely, the confiscatory character of the proposal. It would enable the landlord or his agent, who knew the property and the position and character of the tenant, to take care that neither the landlord himself was defrauded, or, what was as important, that the taxpayers were not defrauded by claims put forward by tenants who had no right to make them. It had been objected that the veto removed one of the cardinal principles of the Bill—gift and compulsion. He could not see the connection between them. At present the Bill in some of its most important provisions was voluntary—for instance, in the landlord's acceptance of the one year's rent, which he might, if he pleased, remit, and in his joining with the tenant in an affidavit for the latter's benefit. This latter provision was a most important one, and would, he believed, tend largely to obviate that litigation which was a rock ahead to the Bill. A further instance of the essentially voluntary character of the Bill as
    1168
    latterly drafted was, that the landlord had to join with the tenant to enable the latter to avail himself of the very important Loan Clauses. Now, surely, if the voluntary element was recognized throughout the Bill, it was no great stretch of principle to apply it to the Amendment now under consideration. It might be said that the landlords would abuse the power proposed to be given to them. That might happen in exceptional cases; but, as he had already remarked, it was the business of Parliament to legislate, not for isolated individuals, but for the masses. To his mind the Lords Amendment seemed to be perfectly just and reasonable, and he should feel bound to support it with his vote.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he thought it his duty to say that, from the experience he had had in the spring and winter, and from carefully watching this question, he was convinced that the acceptance of the Lords Amendment, as it was sent down to them, would defeat the real object of the Bill. He would not trouble the House with the arguments he used in support of the original measure on its second reading, except in so far as to state his belief that they were now dealing, not with those small tenants who were able, though unwilling, to pay; but with the class of poor and small tenants who were really unable to pay. It was the latter class that the House had declared, by a large majority, they wished to relieve. The other House also wished to relieve them. They were the very class who, in the two or three years of undoubted great distress, had accumulated arrears which they were unable to pay, and which prevented them from being able to go into Court. To the landlords had been given the power of evicting such tenants, and of clearing their estates, if they thought it necessary to do so. It was to meet the case of such tenants that the present Bill was introduced. He did not wish to blame individuals, much less classes; for it must be expected that all persons would, to a certain extent, act according to their interests. The consequence was that they found evictions largely increasing, and that was a great cause of anxiety to him when he held Office, and he felt sure it must cause anxiety to his Successor, for they would be mainly evictions of poor

    1169
    cottier tenants for non-payment of arrears. One great object of the Government was to stop the evictions, and the other was to enable the tenants to get into the Court; and, in connection with those two points, what would be the effect of the Amendment under notice? Why, it would put it in the power of any landlord to prevent them from getting into the Court, and to evict them from the estate. In some cases, it was the interest of the landlord, and not mere caprice, to prefer getting possession of the land and to get rid of the tenant, instead of obtaining one year's rent from the taxpayers and one year's rent from the tenant. He need not now go again into the argument as to whether the landlord ought to be prevented from so securing his own interest. He had watched carefully what had been said in both Houses, and he did not find that anybody had advocated that the landlords should take that course. He heard the remarks of Lord Salisbury, who had taken the most prominent part in this question in the other House, and who treated any attempt by a landlord to clear his estate as a matter of caprice and wantonness, of hardship and of violence, which his Lordship did not believe any landlord would commit. But there were many landlords who would consider it merely their duty to improve their estates by evicting those who were unable to pay their rents. But what they had to consider was, whether it was for the interest of the State, for the interest of peace and order in Ireland, that there should be these evictions on a large scale? Parliament had come to the conclusion that it was not, and had called on the people of England, through their Representatives, to make every possible sacrifice in order to prevent these evictions. The Lords Amendment would make that sacrifice of no use. It would put it in the power of a landlord to act just as if the Bill had not been passed, for many of the cases for which the Bill had been brought in would be the very cases in which this Amendment would be brought into operation. He could not say how glad he was to see the spirit in which this matter had been dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). He was convinced there was a general feeling that this was not a matter for any
    1170
    great political crisis, or for any grave quarrel between the two Houses. It was hardly sufficient for that, although he thought it was quite clear, at the same time, that it was a matter in which the Government could hardly be expected to go further than they had gone. He only alluded to the possibility of another result on account of what he could see would be the most serious and alarming consequences in Ireland. At present, matters were better in that country, and he must congratulate his right hon. Friend and Successor (Mr. Trevelyan), who, he thought, had an easier time before him. Sometimes he fancied he saw symptoms of considerable improvement in the state of Ireland. But would hon. Members consider what would be the effect in the immediate future if, after the Government had thought it right to bring forward such a Bill as this, to meet the particular cases which he had described, the Bill were lost altogether—which he was glad to think was practically impossible—or that it should be so amended in the manner desired by the House of Lords, as really to lose all its power, and lead to the eviction of tenants who were unable to pay, not through dishonesty, but simply from the great distress with which they had been visited two or three years ago?
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to base his objections to the Lords Amendment on the effect it would have on the poor tenants who could not pay their rents; but he (Mr. Chaplin) failed to see how the case of the poor tenants would be made worse by the Amendment. One of the essential conditions of the Bill was that they were to pay down a twelvemonth's rent. How was it possible they could pay that if they were in the position described by the right hon. Gentleman? If that were the case, the sole ground of the right hon. Gentleman's object would be cut away. He (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment of the Lords on another ground, because it removed what, according to the admission of Members of the Government themselves, constituted the most demoralizing tendency of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was now advocating the principle of compulsion, when, with his

    1171
    own mouth, he told them last Session that any measure of compulsion was not only demoralizing, but very demoralizing. So far as he (Mr. Chaplin) remembered, the sense of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman were—"To force upon either Party a measure of this kind would not only be demoralizing, but very demoralizing indeed." Those words of the right hon. Gentleman were well known.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked, that he had used these words in regard to a measure in which there was no necessity for proof of inability to pay.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that raised another question. It was quite true that all of the essential conditions of the Bill were proof of inability to pay; but that was also a question to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded last Session. But what was his view upon that point? Why, that to give to the Court, or to anyone, the power of ascertaining who could or could not pay would be to impose upon the Court an impossible task. On that ground, also, he (Mr. Chaplin) should support the Amendment, because he was anxious to see this provision of inability a real, and not a sham, condition to the benefits of the Bill, and he thought that might be effected by the House accepting the Lords Amendment. If the joint application of the two parties were required, probably the information obtained from the landlord would be the best evidence procurable of the tenant's ability to pay. When hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House declared that this measure was absolutely necessary in the interests of peace and prosperity in Ireland, they must forgive hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side if they did not place implicit trust in their promises. Ever since he (Mr. Chaplin) himself had been in the House, when Irish measures had been introduced by a Liberal Government, they had always been accompanied by assurances of perfect success, and in every instance, he might say, the results had been disastrous.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he did not see any objection to the proposal of the Government, requiring a 10 days' notice from either of the parties, seeing that it was reasonable in the interests of both, and a proposition which could not generally lead to injurious consequences. But, as regarded the graver question,
    1172
    whether the Bill should be put in motion only upon the action of the landlord and tenant, if they were to adopt the Amendment of the Lords, that would completely deprive the Bill of any force or efficacy. When it was said it was impossible to adduce evidence of the ability or inability of a tenant to pay, it was forgotten that the Judges of the High Court of this country were every day engaged in inquiries of that kind. In Chambers, particularly, they had to deal with judgment debtor summonses, which raised questions that it was now contended it was impossible for any tribunal to decide; and not only so, but they did it under conditions that were by no means favourable, for the evidence consisted mainly of affidavits, while those who administered this Bill would have every means of sifting the cases—they could summon witnesses and obtain whatever materials they thought necessary to the formation of an accurate judgment. Moreover, it was, in the first place, a primary condition of the application of the first clauses of the Bill, that the inability of the tenant to pay should be established to the satisfaction of the Court; and if the inability of the tenant was clearly proved, was the landlord to be able to deprive the tenant of free access to the Court under the Act of 1881? Was it to held that the landlord should be allowed, to the detriment of, and interference with, the peace of the country, to pursue the strict limit of right which the law had given him? It was said that in dealing with questions which affected large classes, Parliament should not legislate for exceptions, but for majorities; but it was also admitted by a noble Lord in "another place" that the Lords Amendment would not touch 99 out of 100 cases; and at the Conservative meeting held yesterday at Hatfield it was said by the Marquess of Salisbury that the question raised was not one of great practical importance. And it was certain that in Ireland the Amendment would be regarded with the greatest possible distrust, therefore he did not see why the House of Commons should be asked to adopt it. Having regard to the action of the House of Lords with reference to the Land Act of 1870 and the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880, which Ministers responsible for the government of Ireland thought necessary for the preservation

    1173
    of the peace of the country, any yielding now on the part of the House would have disastrous consequences. The Bill was not brought forward in the interests of landlords only or of tenants only; and, from the letters he had received, he did not believe that any considerable section of landlords in Ireland viewed the Amendment of the Lords with great favour. The Bill subserved the interests of both landlords and tenants, and it was proposed, above all, in the interests of tranquillity. After the disastrous years experienced by Irish farmers, it was incumbent on Parliament to give Irish tenants the chance of a new starting-point, as proposed by the Bill; and for that reason he hoped the House would reject the Lords Amendment. Remedial legislation had not yet had a fair chance, for these arrears obstructed the entrance to the Court, upon which everything depended, and until that was secured the position to those who owed arrears was the same as if the Land Act had never been passed.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, there was one consideration which had not been pressed very much by hon. Gentlemen from his (Mr. Raikes's) own side of the House, and that was the taxpayers' view of this question. It seemed to him that, by the measure, they were asked to be generous to a certain class of people in Ireland; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) seemed to forget the importance of being just before they were generous. They were asked to deprive themselves of the best method they could possess of sifting the claims made upon the British Exchequer and determining that public money should be used only to meet destitution. If they could secure, on the side of the Government, the natural self-interest of the landlord, they would have the best protection they could have for the British Exchequer. But if they were to rely, as the Government proposed, upon the judgment of the Sub-Commissioners, who could not know as much of the circumstances of the tenants as the landlords did, they would lack the perfect security of the enlightened self-love of the landlords, who would not refuse a good composition in the case of a tenant whom they knew to be insolvent. But there were some landlords of a different kind—what were called improving landlords. These landlords were
    1174
    suspected of a rather hard-hearted desire to improve their estates, irrespective of the results to their tenants. He would not venture to say a word in defence of such landlords, certainly not a word more than had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford; but it was a question of political economy how far they were justified in giving temporary relief to the tenants of such landlords. A gift of £10, £5, or less, would not rehabilitate a man in a state of destitution; so that this question would come up again year after year, and they would have Session after Session devoted to further remedial legislation, which might be avoided by adopting the Lords Amendment. The result would be that before long they might wish they had relieved themselves of the responsibility they were now undertaking.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that he was among his constituents when the Bill was in the House of Lords, and he was assured that it would not be worth having with the Amendment of the Lords in it. If it were allowed to remain, the Bill would be worse than useless.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not question the motives of the House of Lords in regard to the Amendment; and, so far as it was intended to secure that only those tenants who really could not pay should take advantage of the Bill, he sympathized with it. It was said that if the landlord could get 10 s. in the pound, he would be willing to take it; but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) could assure the House that there were many landlords to whom the exercise of absolute power was much dearer than the pecuniary benefit to be derived from the payment of 10 s. in the pound. On the other hand, concessions-were refused to tenants from mistaken notions of duty; and, in either case, the retention of the Amendment would operate most injudiciously. He knew landlords who, considering they were trustees for their infant children, would refuse to make any concession, on the ground that, by so doing, they would be perpetrating a fraud on their children. By disallowing the Lords Amendment, the House would not be casting any imputation upon the motives which prompted it.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not propose to discuss the question of option and compulsion at that moment, because it was manifest, from the appear-

    1175
    ance of the Front Opposition Bench, that the Tory Party did not intend seriously to reject the concessions which the Government had offered them on this Amendment. What he wished to know from the Irish Law Officers of the Crown was the effect of the Amendment relating to the 10 days' notice upon Clauses 2 and 13? Under Clause 2, a tenant evicted for non-payment of rent was entitled to apply for an extension of the period of redemption by three months. He wished to know whether, by the Amendment, that extended period of redemption would not be limited by 10 days? He also wished to know whether, under Clause 13, a tenant should make his application to the Court under this Bill before applying to have any ejectment proceedings then pending against him set aside? If so, it appeared to him that, during the continuance of the 10 days' notice, the Court would have no power to interfere with the proceedings, or to grant the postponement provided by Clause 13. These were matters of importance, and he hoped an answer would be given to the question.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),in reply, said, he had no hesitation in saying that the period of redemption would not be limited in the manner suggested by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Parnell), and that it was provided by Section 13 that the application might be made either before or after proceedings had been taken, those proceedings being stayed pending the decision of the Court.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that the state of the Front Opposition Bench showed that there was no serious objection to the proposal of the Government, it was, no doubt, a very pleasant fiction to indulge in; but he (Sir Stafford Northcote), would not like the hon. Member's challenge to pass unnoticed, and he would, therefore, remind the hon. Gentleman that in a matter of this sort, which had already been thoroughly discussed, and with respect to which the opinion of the Government was well known, the Members of the Opposition could do no more than express their dissent and argue, without taking up the time of the House by
    1176
    unnecessary discussions, against the views of the Government, taking a division by way of protest. They, on that side of the House, were undesirous of delaying the decision; but he, and he hoped all his Friends, intended to adhere to the sound doctrine laid down in Committee, and which was now embodied in the Amendment sent from the House of Lords. They wished that their gravest objection to the Bill might yet be removed by its acceptance. It was to be remembered that the Bill had recently been enlarged by the introduction of clauses into which the principle of compulsion did not enter; so that it might be expected to work without the retention of that principle in the 1st clause. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) pointed to that particular class of tenants who alone were benefited by the Bill, and urged that, for the peace of Ireland, they ought not to be evicted. Now, if it was a question of the peace of Ireland, he (Sir Stafford Northcote), should like to know why these cases only were to be considered, and whether the tenants above £30 rental would not require the same indulgence? As it appeared to him, no solid reason could be put forward at any future time against an extension of the principle of the Bill, and against more violent propositions than those which this Bill sanctioned. The House might depend upon it that such propositions would be made as the conviction grew among the people that they had only to ask and to agitate in order to obtain. Compulsion might, and, as he had shown, probably would lead to confiscation; but, under the voluntary principle, no such result need be apprehended, because "volenti non fit injuria." But if the landlord was to be compulsorily overborne, a dangerous principle would be allowed, of which he would venture to say the House had not by any means heard the last application. As had been said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), they had introduced a great safeguard against extravagance in the interposition of the landlord, who knew the circumstances of the tenant. Though the 10 days' notice was important as far as it went, it did not touch the real subject of complaint; and, therefore, he should think it his duty, and that was the feeling of his Friends, to divide in support

    1177
    of the Amendment of the House of Lords.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if a tenant had to give 10 days' notice at the time when his period of redemption was on the point of expiring, he might be ousted from his farm. It would be, therefore, only right that the Government should insert a consequential Amendment, extending the time for redemption to a period not exceeding three months and 10 days. He also wished to know whether the tenant was to be put under the liability of paying 1s. for the originating notice to be served, or whether it was to be free of cost? The Amendment of the Government had about as much relation to the Amendment of the Lords as Goodwin Sands had to Tenterden Steeple.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 293: Majority 136.

    AYES.

    Alexander, Colonel C.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

    Aylmer, J. E. F.

    Dawnay, hon. G. C.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Dickson, Major A. G.

    Baring, T. C.

    Digby, Col. hon. E. T.

    Barne, F. St. J. N.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

    Eaton, H. W.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Ecroyd, W. F.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Egerton, hon. W.

    Beresford, G. De la P.

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Biddell, W.

    Emlyn, Viscount

    Birk beck, E.

    Ennis, Sir J.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.

    Boord, T. W.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Bourke, rt. hon. R.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Broadley, W. H. H.

    Finch, G. H.

    Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

    Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Brace, Sir H. H.

    Floyer, J.

    Brymer, W. E.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Burghley, Lord

    Forester, C. T. W.

    Burnaby, General E. S.

    Fowler, R. N.

    Buxton, Sir R. J.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Freshfield, C. K.

    Carden, Sir R. W.

    Galway, Viscount

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Garnier, J. C.

    Chaine, J.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Chaplin, H.

    Giffard, Sir H. S.

    Christie, W. L.

    Gorst, J. E.

    Clarke, E.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Cobbold, T. C.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    Coddington, W.

    Collins, T.

    Harcourt, E. W.

    Coope, O. E.

    Harvey, Sir R. B.

    Cotton, W. J. R.

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

    Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    1178

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Hinchingbrook, Visc.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Rankin, J.

    Hope, rt. hn. A.J. B. B.

    Repton, G. W.

    Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Rolls, J. A.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Ross, A. H.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Ross, C. C.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Round, J.

    Leigh, R.

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Leighton, S.

    Salt, T.

    Levett, T. J.

    Sandon, Viscount

    Lewis, C. E.

    Schreiber, C.

    Lindsay, Sir R. L.

    Scott, M. D.

    Loder, R.

    Severne, J. E.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    Mac Iver, D.

    Stanley, E. J.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Sykes, C.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Master, T. W. C.

    Taylor, rt. hon. Col. T. E.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Monckton, F.

    Thomson, H.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Thornhill, T.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Murray, C. J.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Tyler, Sir H. W.

    Newport, Viscount

    Warburton, P. E.

    Nicholson, W. N.

    Warton, C. N.

    North, Colonel J. S.

    Welby-Gregory, Sir W. E.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Whitley, E.

    Northcote, H. S.

    Wilmot, Sir J. E.

    Onslow, D.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Paget, R. H.

    Wroughton, P.

    Pell, A.

    Wyndham, hon. P.

    Pemberton, E. L.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Percy, Lord A.

    Phipps, C. N. P.

    TELLERS.

    Phipps, P.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Winn, R.

    NOES.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Agnew, W.

    Bright, rt. hon. J.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Bright, J. (Manchester)

    Allen, H. G.

    Brinton, J.

    Allman, R. L.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Anderson, G.

    Brogden, A.

    Armitage, B.

    Brooks, M.

    Arnold, A.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Asher, A.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Bryce, J.

    Baldwin, E.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Burt, T.

    Balfour, J. B.

    Buszard, M. C.

    Balfour, J. S.

    Butt, C. P.

    Baring, Viscount

    Buxton, F. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Caine, W. S.

    Barran, J.

    Callan, P.

    Bass, H.

    Cameron, C.

    Bass, M. T.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Bellingham, A. H.

    Campbell-Bannerman, H.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Blake, J. A.

    Carbutt, E. H.

    Blennerhassett, R. P.

    Carington, hon. R.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Causton, R. K.

    Brand, H. R.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Brett, R. B.

    Chambers, Sir T.

    1179

    Cheetham, J. F.

    Henderson, F.

    Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

    Heneage, E.

    Clarke, J. C.

    Henry, M.

    Clifford, C. C.

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Cohen, A.

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

    Hill, T. R.

    Collings, J.

    Holden, I.

    Colman, J. J.

    Hollond, J. R.

    Commins, A.

    Holms, J.

    Corbet, W. J.

    Holms, W.

    Cotes, C. C.

    Hopwood, C. H.

    Courtauld, G.

    Howard, E. S.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Howard, J.

    Cowen, J.

    Illingworth, A.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Inderwick, F. A.

    Craig, W. Y.

    James, C.

    Cropper, J.

    James, Sir H.

    Cross, J. K.

    James, W. H.

    Daly, J.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Davey, H.

    Jenkins, Sir J. J.

    Davies, W.

    Johnson, W. M.

    De Ferrieres, Baron

    Labouchere, H.

    Dickson, T. A.

    Lalor, R.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Lambton, hon. F. W.

    Dodds, J.

    Lawrence, Sir J. C.

    Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

    Lawrence, W.

    Duckham, T.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Duff, R. W.

    Lea, T.

    Earp, T.

    Leahy, J.

    Edwards, P.

    Leake, R.

    Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

    Leamy, E.

    Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

    Leatham, E. A.

    Errington, G.

    Lee, H.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

    Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

    Lloyd, M.

    Fay, C. J.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Ferguson, R.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Findlater, W.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    M'Arthur, W.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Flower, C.

    M'Clure, Sir T.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    M'Coan, J. C.

    Foljambe, F. J. S.

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Fowler, H. H.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Fowler, W.

    M'Minnies, J. G.

    Fry, T.

    Magniac, C.

    Gill, H. J.

    Maitland, W. F.

    Givan, J.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Martin, P.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Martin, R. B.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

    Gordon, Lord D.

    Mason, H.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Matheson, Sir A.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Meldon, C. H.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Mellor, J. W.

    Grafton, F. W.

    Milbank, Sir F. A.

    Grant, A.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Gray, E. D.

    Monk, C. J.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Moore, A.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Morley, A.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Muntz, P. H.

    Hardcastle, J. A.

    Nicholson, W.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Noel, E.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Norwood, C. M.

    Healy, T. M.

    O'Brien, Sir P.

    1180

    O'Connor, A.

    Sheil, E.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Shield, H.

    O'Donoghue, The

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

    Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

    Slagg, J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    O'Shaughnessy, R.

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Otway, Sir A.

    Stanton, W. J.

    Paget, T. T.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Palmer, G.

    Stewart, J.

    Palmer, J. H.

    Storey, S.

    Parker, C. S.

    Stuart, H. V.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Pease, A.

    Summers, W.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Synan, E. J.

    Pender, J.

    Tavistock, Marquess of

    Pennington, F.

    Taylor, P. A.

    Philips, R. N.

    Tennant, C.

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Porter, A. M.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Portman, hn. W. H. B.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Potter, T. B.

    Tillett, J. H.

    Power, J. O'C.

    Torrens, W. T. M'C.

    Power, R.

    Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Price, Sir R. G.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Vivian, A. P.

    Ralli, P.

    Wallace, Sir R.

    Ramsay, J.

    Walter, J.

    Rathbone, W.

    Waterlow, Sir S. H.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Watkin, Sir E. W.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Reid, R. T.

    Whalley, G. H.

    Richard, H.

    Whitbread, S.

    Richardson, T.

    Whitworth, B.

    Roberts, J.

    Wiggin, H.

    Robertson, H.

    Williams, S. C. E.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Williamson, S.

    Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

    Willis, W.

    Roundell, C. S.

    Wills, W. H.

    Russell, Lord A.

    Willyams, E. W. B.

    Russell, C.

    Wilson, I.

    Russell, G. W. E.

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Rylands, P.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Samuelson, B.

    Woodall, W.

    Samuelson, H.

    Seely, C. (Nottingham)

    TELLERS.

    Sexton, T.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Shaw, W.

    Kensington, Lord

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he proposed to meet cases where difficulty might be experienced in giving the 10 days' notice, by moving the following addition to the Amendment as amended:—
    "Provided that, for the purpose of application under the provisions of Sections 2, 10, and 13 respectively of this Act, the Land Commission may, in respect to such notice, extend the periods in the said sections respectively mentioned, for any time not exceeding 10 days."
    Amendment to said Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    The following Amendments agreed to:—In page 1, line 18, leave out "by,"

    1181
    and insert "on or before;" in page 2, line 7, after "shall," insert "subject as hereinafter mentioned."
    Page 2, line 14, after the word "security," insert the words—
    "Provided, That, in the event of the next subsequent sale of the tenancy, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' "
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he proposed to amend this Amendment in the manner he had described, by providing that the sale of the tenant right must be within seven years, and that the amount of the landlord's claim must be limited to one year's rent, and that the claim should not exceed one-half of the saleable value. He would accordingly move, as the first of these Amendments, that the words "the next subsequent," in line 2, be left out and "a" inserted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, this was the first Amendment of the series, which would make the sub-section read as follows:—
    "Provided, That, in the event of a sale of the tenancy within seven years from the making of such order, the arrears of rent not satisfied by payment or remission shall, to an amount not exceeding one year's arrears nor one-half the saleable value of the tenant's interest, be a sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881.'"
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would point out that they were dealing under this section with the proceeding of a sale, and not a hypothetical value. He would therefore suggest that instead of "saleable," the word "sale" should be inserted in the third Amendment.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was very objectionable to make the sale a sale according to the meaning of the Land Act; because, if a tenant desired to dispose of his tenancy, the landlord might apply to the Land Court to have the "true value" fixed. He would therefore suggest to further amend the same Amendment by omitting, after "sale," the words "within the meaning of the Land Act of 1881," and inserting the words "in open market." The provision as it stood would debar tenants from emigrating, because so
    1182
    many obstacles would be raised to the sale of the holding. In any case the provision should not apply to holdings of less value than £15 per annum.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),referring to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), said, the contingency which the Government contemplated in the Amendment was that of the tenant turning his tenancy into money. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member as to the necessity for substituting the word "sale" for "saleable." The Government could not agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The sale would practically be in the open market, the only difference being that the landlord would have the right of preemption.
    MR. GIVANconsidered it most important to have the sale in the open market. He also thought it highly desirable that the word "voluntary" should be inserted in the Amendment, because the landlord might force a sale on the tenant.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not accept the suggestion, because he could not conceive in what mode they could apply the voluntary state. It would be very hard to prevent the landlord from getting his arrears if a tenant were sold up by one of his creditors.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTONthought the limitation of seven years was too long, and would much prefer the period being half the time.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he fully concurred with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Lymington) as to the necessity for shortening the period. At the same time, he hoped the Government would see the desirability of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and insert some value below which the provision would not operate.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he presumed the Amendment before the House was the substitution of "a" for "the next subsequent."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that this was so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment—

    1183
    In line 2, after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "within seven years from the making of such order."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LEWIShoped the Government would stand by the Amendment. To consent to reduce the time would be to nibble away the concessions of the Government. Considering tenancies frequently lasted for many years in Ireland without change, the period of seven years, instead of being too long, was too short.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTONthought that seven years was too long a period to allow the lien to continue. He therefore moved to insert "three" for "seven."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "seven," in order to insert the word "three,"—(Viscount Lymington,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had expressed the hope that the Government would find themselves able to extend their concessions. Unfortunately, however, they were not able to do so. They could not accept the Amendment, for they felt themselves already tied up on this question. The Government had come forward, not without a great deal of consideration, and had made what they thought a fair and reasonable offer for the settlement of the matter, and they must adhere to the proposal. In Ireland the sale of a tenant right took place, on an average, once in a generation; and in that case, by this Amendment, they had taken a term of years which was about a fourth of the time for which a tenant right was ordinarily held. He did not think it was a very unreasonable number of years to fix; and, under the circumstances, he thought it most consistent with the interest of all parties that they should adhere to it.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he should certainly support the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Member for Barnstaple (Viscount Lymington), for the reason that he considered the proposal of the Government highly unde-
    1184
    sirable, seeing that it proposed to actually keep alive, and hanging over the heads of the tenants, a debt that was practically irrecoverable under the ordinary statutory limitation, which was a period of six years. Why life should be given to those arrears for seven years he was at a loss to know; as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said, there were some cases in which this would operate very hardly, and in direct opposition to that in which a great many Members of that House would like to see a movement take place—he meant the voluntary movement by tenants of small holdings, who, if they could realize anything for their holding, would be willing to take the money and seek another field of labour. The majority of that House were in favour of what he (Mr. Charles Russell) would call the healthy and natural consolidation of farms by the means he had described, and he thought the proposal would exercise a prejudicial influence upon such natural consolidation. A man who was unable to farm his holding to advantage should have no obstacle placed in the way of the sale of his interest to his neighbour or some stronger man, bringing his capital and his energy to some other field.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not allow any principle of limitation of time with reference to arrears, other than that which came down from the other House, to be introduced without protest. The limitation introduced by the Lords had been only the next subsequent sale of the tenancy; but that had been struck out and a proposal made by the Government to introduce a strict limit of seven years. There was no reason whatever for such a limitation, and he thought it far better to leave it as it originally stood—the next subsequent sale of the tenancy. At all events, seven years was too short. These arrears had often been spoken of as irrecoverable; but that was not the case. In Ulster the tenant right, which was sometimes as much as 30 or 40 times the rent, was regarded as the security for the arrears, and on a transfer of the holding the arrears were paid in full. If this alteration of time was put in, it should be done with a great deal of caution, and with every attention to what the subject-matter was; and bearing in mind that the subject-matter was that of a debt, capable of being recovered

    1185
    by legal process, it was rather strange to put in such a limitation as that of seven years. He should say that the alteration should be that of the Land Act of last year, which was a term of 15 years; and it was proposed here to keep the debt alive, not merely as a debt, because to do that would give a right to recover at any time the landlord pleased, and the debt would be one bearing interest; but it would also be kept alive as a mere charge, because it could not be recovered for seven years, and might not be then, unless there was a sale at the time. Though he would not press a division on the point, he would indicate his dissent by calling out "No!" when it was proposed to insert the words in the clause.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he should greatly prefer the limitation of three years to that of seven; but, as the Prime Minister had spoken so decidedly, he would recommend the noble Viscount (Viscount Lymington) not to go to a division. If he did, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would not vote with him; but he hoped that an Amendment, exempting tenancies below £15 a-year, would meet with more favour.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 83: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 322.)
    Words inserted.
    MR. HEALY,in moving another Amendment to the said Amendment, for the purpose of exempting tenants of holdings valued under £15 from the application of the Lords Amendment, said, he did so, because he thought the tenant right of these miserable holdings were not worth carrying forward, and the only effect of doing so would be to enable the landlord to hold over the tenant's head a sort of sword of Damocles. He contended that if the liability to pay a year's rent to the landlord were to continue for a space of seven years, the tenants of holdings in connection with, which tenant right could not be said to exist would be very hardly used. He implored the Government not to put a bar on the improvement of those small holdings for the next seven years, because the tenants could not be expected to make improvements simply to give
    1186
    the landlords their arrears. In the event of their persisting in their proposal, he would impress upon them the necessity of excluding those cases in which the tenant right was of little, if any value. He thought it desirable that some limitation of this kind he proposed should be made on the operation of the Act, otherwise the result of the Amendment inserted just now would be to keep many unfortunate people tied to their holdings. In this way the Bill gave to the tenants with one hand and took away with the other.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment,
    In line 3, after the word "rent," to insert the words "in the case of any holding exceeding fifteen pounds in value."—(Mr. Mealy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not say that he felt there was any great force in the arguments of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). The hon. Member complained that they were not giving the tenant the clear receipt which they had desired to give him; but what he (Mr. Gladstone) had endeavoured to point out was, that they were giving him as a tenant an absolutely clear receipt. When he ceased to be a tenant, a reduction was to be made from the price of his tenant's interest; and the Amendment of the hon. Member was undoubtedly a serious deduction from the equally serious concession they had made to the House of Lords, and also from the concession which they had always felt, in the course of the discussions on the Bill, was [not without some ground, in their own admissions in connection with the Land Act of last year, when they said that the tenant right would be a valuable security to the landlord. He (Mr. Gladstone) assumed that the hon. Member for Wexford did not wish that Bill to be wrecked. The Government had, on full consideration of the Lords Amendments, bound itself by what was really a pledge of honour, which the hon. Gentleman must feel they were not in a position to recede from. They had promised a concession; and of that concession the hon. Member would now withdraw three-fourths by his Amendment, for of the tenants under £30 valuation, to whom the Bill would apply, an enormous majority in

    1187
    point of numbers, and probably not less than three-fourths in value, were under £15. After the Government had made a proposal and announced it as part of the scheme on which they intended to deal with the Lords Amendments, he need hardly point out that if they were to recede from three-fourths of that proposal, they would be giving the very best plea to those who, perhaps, desired that the measure should come to grief in "another place" for attaining that end. If they were to agree to the Amendment it might fairly be said that the Government had not kept faith with the other House, and for those reasons he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was extremely sorry that the Prime Minister could not make a, concession on that point, which he did not think would imperil the Bill in the House of Lords, because he thought their Lordships really would not attach any importance to a concession in regard to the small tenants to whom the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) applied. The whole tenour of the debate in the other House showed sympathy with the miserable tenant of £4 or £5 annual value in the West of Ireland, and he believed that the Lords would have gladly made a present of their arrears to those miserable tenants, who could not, under any circumstances, obtain more than a few pounds to enable them to emigrate. In his opinion, the Government and the House had not sufficiently grasped the fact that the small tenants in the West of Ireland ought to be dealt with in a totally different manner from the other Irish tenants; whereas, by applying this provision to them, the Government would stereotype the misery that existed in that portion of the country. As he wished the Bill to become law, he could not divide in favour of the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he could assure the House that neither himself, the hon. Member for Wexford, nor any other Member of the Irish Party desired to see the Bill wrecked; but he did not think the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) would have such an effect on the House of Lords as the Prime Minister seemed to apprehend, while he believed that it was required for the bene-
    1188
    ficial operation of the measure, as well as for the accomplishment of its professed objects. He considered the concession which the Government had made to the House of Lords would take away the benefits of the Bill from the necessitous classes in Ireland. In the West of Ireland many families, if they sold their little holdings, would not realize more than a £10 or £20 note, for the purpose of taking them where they could begin some new career. It was only that day that the Irish Members had learnt what the Government intended to do; and he must say he thought the Government had put the cart before the horse by pledging themselves to certain proposals before the House had an opportunity of considering the matter. The Government had at the last moment, and without any previous notice, proposed to give to the landlords a third year's arrears of rent.
    MR. DAWSONthought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was one which the Government might accept without exciting the anger of the Upper House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 185: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 323.)
    MR. GLADSTONEproposed to further amend the Lords Amendment, by providing that the sum payable to the landlord out of the proceeds of the sale of a tenancy in respect of unsatisfied arrears should be limited to "an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears, nor one-half of the proceeds of such sale."
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment,
    In line 3, after "shall," insert "to an amount not exceeding one year of such arrears nor one half of the proceeds of such sale."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought that the limitation proposed in this Amendment by the Government was open to grave exception, in regard to its extreme small-ness. He did not propose to discuss the limitation of time, as that had already been dealt with; but with regard to the limitation of amount, he thought that if there were four or five years'

    1189
    arrears due to the landlord, and some of those arrears were readily recoverable if time were given, it would be a harsh measure to tell the landlord that he was only to have a charge in respect of one of those years. That seemed to him to be a limitation of too drastic a character. He was disposed to think that the limitation could be obtained in a wiser way, and in a way less open to exception, if the latter half of the Government's alternative was taken as a basis to work upon. He would suggest that a limitation, to the effect that a certain proportion of the amount realized in the sale should always reach the tenant's hands, would be a limitation which might be worked with advantage, and would supersede the necessity of making any limitation of years. The Government could hardly expect that it would be satisfactory to the landlords, or to the other House, to put in a limitation so restrictive in its nature as to prevent a landlord, under any circumstances, from recovering more than one year's arrears of rent. He protested against the statement so constantly made in that House that arrears beyond those of three years were to be regarded as irrecoverable. It was perfectly absurd for anyone who knew the state of the facts to say that three years was the limitation that was to be taken as the rough measure of arrears that were recoverable, as distinguished from those that were irrecoverable; and he was distinctly of opinion that the limitation adopted here by the Government was entirely too narrow.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, further Amendment made in line 4, by leaving out after the word "of," the words "the proceeds of the sale," and inserting "such proceeds."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and insert the word "shall,"—instead thereof,—the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)(for Mr. GLADSTONE) moved to insert, in lieu of the word "shall," the words "shall,
    1190
    so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable."
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, after the word "shall," insert "so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the proposed Amendment would not attain the object of the Lords Amendment. As the Bill originally stood, there was a limitation as to the extent to which the tenant right was to be taken into consideration; but there was no direct instruction to the Commissioners that it should be taken into consideration. Their Lordships had, therefore, amended it, as it now stood, and their reason for doing so was a doubt as to whether some of the Sub-Commissioners, judging from some of the decisions they had hitherto given, had so much discretion as to make it justifiable to appeal to it; and the object of it was that there should be a distinct injunction that the saleable value of a tenant's interest was to be taken into consideration, subject to the limitation that the tenant was not to be turned out of his holding or deprived of the means of cultivating it. The Lords, therefore, struck out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and substituted "shall." The Prime Minister did not altogether disagree with the Lords Amendment; but he proposed to insert after "shall," the words "so far as the Commissioners think it reasonable." The concession of the Government was a small one, as compared with that which would be made by the Lords; for by putting in the words proposed the discretion was again placed in the hands of the Commissioners to a large extent, and the effect of the Amendment would be to restore practically the words struck out by the House of Lords.
    MR. PARNELLfeared that the Government were about to make too great a concession. He believed that the Amendment practically made it compulsory on the Commissioners to take into consideration the value of the tenant right. As regarded the relief originally intended to be granted to them, he could not imagine an Amendment more calculated to lessen the belief

    1191
    of the Irish tenants in the justice of that House and the other House towards them than this Amendment, for it would have the effect of practically telling them that arrears which had accumulated over a series of bad seasons, or in respect of rent which the Land Court appointed by Parliament was every day denouncing as unjust rent, and which they had been unable to pay, that then they must borrow or sell their tenant right. If the value of the tenant's interest exactly equalled the amount of his arrears, he would, on the one hand, have nothing left if it were regarded as an asset, and, on the other, would be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. He believed such an Amendment was most unprecedented and unjust, and that it would go far to check and control the tribunal appointed from doing an act of justice to the tenants. He could not understand why the Government had brought it forward, as it was opposed to the whole principles of the Bill. He should divide against it.
    MR. LEWISsupported the compromise suggested by the Government, and thought that the Commissioners would not be absolutely bound to take the value of the tenant right into consideration. He was very glad that the Government had found the middle course, and had rejected both extremes; on the one hand, of the Commissioners being bound to take the value of the tenant right into consideration as an asset; and the other extreme, of its not being taken into account at all. The matter was placed within the unlimited discretion of the Commissioners.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words inserted.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
    The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 55: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 324.)
    Page 2, line 22, leave out "that year," and insert "the year expiring as aforesaid,"—the next Amendment, agreed to.
    Page 2, line 24, leave out from the word "where," to end of the sub-section, and insert the words—
    "According to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the rent of such holding has actually been paid at some time after the day on which it became
    1192
    legally due, the rent which according to such usual course or dealing ought to be paid in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed the rent payable in respect of the year expiring as aforesaid,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the Prime Minister when explaining that three out of four meanings might be given to the Lords Amendment; but he failed to follow the right hon. Gentleman, and was unable to put any of those meanings upon it. He knew that the Amendment was made in the other House with the most sincere desire to amend a section which left the House of Commons in entire confusion. He (Mr. Gibson) had spoken upon the section with extreme reluctance, and he came to the conclusion that the whole thing was in such absolute confusion that the wisest course would be to leave out the sub-section altogether. He moved that it be struck out and divided upon it; but, as often fell to the lot of public men, he was beaten. The Government must take the consequences of their own drafting, which they probably were not now so fond of as they had been. It was apparently now a choice between the confusion of their own sub-section and what they alleged was the confusion of the Amendment. He would be glad to hear the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, English, Irish, and Scotch, on the subject; and if, after listening to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland first and to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, giving his own independent view of it afterwards, the House was not satisfied, why, then let them leave the matter to the arbitrament of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was an authority on International questions. The Lord Chancellor, whose private and legal character they all so much respected, at one time thought he had a gleam of meaning on the question, and accordingly he rushed hastily into the fray. The noble and learned Lord

    1193
    thought he would clear up the whole matter by striking out one word and inserting two. But nest day the Law Officers must, doubtless, have got at him, and begged him for God's sake to leave it alone, because he was then ready to adopt those particular words, or, in fact, any others which noble Lords might suggest. Personally, he (Mr. Gibson) had, he thought, most reasonable and intelligible views upon it, and had endeavoured to state them to the House. He had considered the Government Amendment with care—no one could say he had considered it with pleasure—and he came to the conclusion that the Government drafting was so involved, confused, and hopeless in its complication that it would be better to drop the sub-section altogether. The Government, however, thought that the wise men who had to administer the Land Act would be the very men to administer it; and if they (the Government) were not satisfied with the carefully drawn Amendment sent down from the Lords, and it was so, it was impossible to say what would please them. He thought that the Lords Amendment was open to fewer misconceptions than the Government drafting, and he hoped the House would decide in its favour.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it could not be said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had delivered a speech couched in the extreme of Party spirit. His candour had not gone to extreme lengths in favour of the Amendment of the House of Lords. On the contrary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had left it open to them to address an appeal to his understanding, of which he (Mr. Gladstone) need not say he had an extremely high opinion, which was not lowered when the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave play to the lighter faculties of his nature and treated the Amendment of his Friends in "another place" in a tone of humour of which he had given such a pleasant example. He would submit that the House was not now dealing with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called the "Government drafting." Assuming now that the Amendment were perfectly clear, it amounted to this. It said that the rent which ought to be paid in 1881 by the custom of the particular estates should, for the purposes of Clause
    1194
    1 of the Bill, be taken to be the rent of 1881. In the case of an estate upon which there was a double hanging gale, the landlord would get two years' rent for the years 1880 and 1881, and he should think that was about enough. But this was not all. By this Amendment the Land Commission would have to pay the landlord half of the rent for 1880, for which he had been already paid, so that he would get two and a-half years' rent in two years. This was certainly pretty well, especially in a case of confiscation. He must say it was not a bad arrangement at all for the landlord; but he (Mr. Gladstone) could hardly be expected to agree to a step which would lead to such a result. But that was not yet all, because they had now admitted into the Bill a clause providing that if the first sale of the tenancy occurred within seven years, the landlord would come forward and say it was quite true that under the Arrears Act he got one-half of his rent of 1880, but he had six months still outstanding, and he was entitled to claim that out of the price of the tenant right, so that the landlord would get three years' rent in two years through the medium of a bill of confiscation. He submitted that statement to the judgment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Mr. GIBSON: I have no right of reply.] That was quite true; but possibly there might be a division, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, by voting, have an opportunity of showing how open his mind was to the force of truth, and to demonstration little short of mathematical. Under the circumstances, it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Page 3, line 7, after the word "money," insert the words—
    "Provided always, That where two or more parties are entitled to the arrears, the Land Commission shall have power to decide the rights of the parties, and the proportion in which the said arrears shall be divided amongst them,"
    —the next Amendment, read a second time.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government would accept the Amendment, provided the words "the said arrears" were deleted, and the following

    1195
    inserted, "the sum so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord."
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the words "said arrears," and insert "sum so ordered to be paid to or for the benefit of the landlord."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    In reply to Mr. GIBSON,
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the opinion of the Government was that the Amendment was unnecessary, because the 4th section gave ample power to the Land Commission to determine all matters which were to be determined by them for the purposes of the Act, and also to deal with the money in their hands. The Lords, however, were apparently of opinion that the section did not meet all that was required, and therefore proposed the Amendment, and it was in order to make that Amendment intelligible that the verbal alteration was suggested.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments agreed to:—In page 3, line 13, after "apply," insert "with the consent of his landlord in the prescribed manner; "line 27, after "restitution," insert—
    "Provided that an order of the Land Commission under this section shall not take effect until and unless the tenant is restored to his holding;"
    leave out lines 38 to 40; page 4, line 23, after "court" insert—
    "The Land Commission may of its own motion, or shall on the application of any party to any proceeding pending before it unless it considers such application frivolous and vexatious, state a case in respect of any question of law arising in such proceedings, and refer the same for the consideration and decision of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland;"
    and in lines 25 and 26, leave out from "delegate" to "any" in line 27.
    On the Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, the following consequential Amendment made:—In page 4, line 30, after "or," insert "any member."
    Page 4, line 30, after the words "Sub-Commission," insert the words "being a barrister-at-law," the next Amendment, read a second time.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, in page 4, line 30, after "barrister-at-law," insert the words "or solicitor."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GREGORYcongratulated the Government on their proposed addition to the Lords Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Page 4, line 33, after the word "shall," insert the words "subject to an appeal to the Land Commission, on and in such conditions and circumstances as may be prescribed," the next Amendment, read a second time.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment amended as follows:—In line 1, before "subject," insert "in reference thereto;" and in line 2, after "appeal," insert "on matter of law."
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following consequential Amendment made:—In page 4, line 33, leave out "in reference thereto."
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Amendments read a second time, and agreed to:—In page 5, line 21, leave out "to receive any money from the Lund Commission;" and in page 10, leave out Clause 17.
    On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following consequential Amendment made:—In lieu of Clause 17 (omitted by the Lords) insert the following clause:—
    (Exemption in respect of public charges upon arrears of rent extinguished.)
    "Where, in the case of a holding of which any person is owner, antecedent arrears of rent due in respect of any year or years, or portion of a year, have been extinguished in pursuance of this Act, and any public charge or tax accrued during such year or years, or portion of year or years, is due from such person as or in consequence of his being owner of such holding, then, on proof to the satisfaction of the Land Commission that the owner has, during such time as aforesaid, received no rent, or an amount of rent less than the full rent, such public charges or taxes shall, if no rent has been received, be wholly remitted, and if an amount of rent less than the full rent has been received, be remitted in proportion to the amount of rent not received.
    "Where a person has paid any public charges or taxes which, if not paid, would be remitted

    1197
    under this section, the amount which would have teen so remitted shall he allowed as a deduction from any future payment or payments of the public charges or taxes of the same description, or may be recovered as a debt from the authority to whom it may have been paid.
    "Any payment which an owner may receive under this Act in respect of arrears of rent shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken into account as rent.
    "The Land Commission shall ascertain, for the purposes of this section, in such manner as they think best calculated to ascertain the truth, the amount of public charges or taxes due in any year or portion of a year from a person as or in consequence of his being owner of a holding.
    "'Public charges or taxes' means tithe rent-charge payable to the Land Commission, income tax, quit-rent, or any of such charges or taxes."
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by The Lords to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill:"—Mr. GLADSTONE, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. DODSON, Mr. TREVELYAN, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, and Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,552, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was an exceedingly singular fact, and one which could not escape remark, that the Committee were asked to vote this large sum of money for the salaries and expenses of the Irish Land Commission at a moment when no Representative of the Irish Government was to be seen on the Treasury Bench.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Members of the Irish Government had simply retired for the purpose of drawing up Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments on the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that in that case he would move that the Chairman report Progress, so that an opportunity might be afforded to the Attorney Gene-
    1198
    ral for Ireland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland of being present to discuss the Vote after the Government had drawn up their Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had returned to his place; and he would not, therefore, persist in dividing the Committee upon the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought it was desirable, in connection with this Vote, that the Committee should have some exact information as to the progress the Land Commission had been able to make in fixing fair rents. They had heard some time ago that out of some 600,000 tenants in Ireland, about 80,000 had made applications to the Land Commission to have fair rents fixed, and the Government told them that there had been 10,000 settlements. He (Mr. Sexton) thought, however, that if they looked very closely into the matter it would be found that a very considerable portion of the settlements which the Government claimed credit for were settlements out of Court. Personally, he was disposed to limit the credit to be given to the operation of the Land Commission to the settlements actually carried out in Court. As far as he was able to ascertain, the landlords, in many cases, used the arrears due on various holdings as a means of preventing the tenants from going into Court; and he was inclined to think that the number of settlements out of Court, and the growth of those settlements, was rather a proof of the helplessness of the tenants than the healthy operation of the Land Act. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland what evidence he had in his possession that would enable him to inform the Committee that the settlements out of Court were settlements by the free will of the landlord and the free will of the tenant. He should be glad, indeed, if he could believe that the settlements out of Court had been settle-

    1199
    ments arising from a mutual sense in the minds of the landlord and tenant of the propriety and justice of the settlement made. He was afraid there was sad reason to suspect that the 10,000 settlements which had been made out of Court had been made by landlords who had used the arrears as a weapon of terror, and that the tenants had no option but to accept such terms as were preferred by the landlords or else to leave their farms. He strongly objected to the method in which the results of the action of the Land Commission had been tabulated and laid before the House. He had, he believed, on one occasion, already referred to the form in which the information relative to the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners had been laid before the Members of that House. They had been told what was the Poor Law valuation of the holdings, what was the old rent, and what was the new rent. He maintained that that was very insufficient information to enable the House of Commons to judge of the manner in which the Sub-Commissioners were doing their work, because the Poor Law valuation was, at the best, a very rough and very inconclusive test of the value of the holding. It was oppressive in some cases, and more oppressive in others. In some cases it marked about the level of a fair rent; in others considerably above that level; so that to tell the House what the Poor Law valuation and the old rent were was not to place in their hands information at all sufficient to enable them to judge with what degree of propriety and good judgment the Sub-Commissioners had exercised their functions. The curious part of the case was this, that the Sub-Commissioners supplied to the office of the Land Commissioners in Dublin—and he would be glad if the Land Commission in Dublin would duplicate the records in that office—two items of information very valuable to the Commissioners themselves, and very valuable because of the information they afforded as to the real value of the holdings. Nevertheless, those two items had hitherto been studiously and obstinately withheld from the knowledge of the House of Commons. Now, what were these two items? The first gave the amount sworn by the valuator of the landlord as being the true value of the farm; and the second gave the amount sworn by
    1200
    the valuator of the tenant as the true value of the farm. Why had the Land Commission withheld those two items from the House of Commons? Why had they merely given them the Poor Law valuation, the old rent, and the new rent, and abstained from informing them what the landlord's valuator and the tenant's valuator respectively declared to be the true value of the holding? He was inclined to think that if the information he asked for were submitted to the House, there would be a stronger case against the Sub-Commissioners in Ireland, from the tenants' point of view, than the noble Lord, fanciful author of Fairy Tales, who occupied a seat in "another House" (Lord Brabourne), had made out against that body. The noble Lord to whom he referred, who was certainly more effective in the region of romance than in that of practical politics, seemed to think that the Sub-Commissioners were a body of men who were acting very much in the interest of the tenants. But he (Mr. Sexton) would tell the Committee that if he could extort from the Government the information supplied to the Land Commission, to which he was now referring, he would be able to show that the Sub-Commissioners, as a general rule, had kept very much more closely to the lines laid down by the landlords' valuator than that which had been fixed by the valuator appointed on behalf of the tenant. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could give the Committee any good reason why this information should be withheld, he should be glad to hear it. When the Irish Members asked for information from the Government, they were often told that it would be inconvenient to give it; that it would take time to collect it; or that the process of collecting it would be costly. He (Mr. Sexton) was, however, in a position to say that the information for which he asked was actually tabulated and written down in two separate columns, in an account book in the office of the Land Commission at Dublin. He was certainly curious to hear what reason the right hon. Gentleman could give for withholding the information. He should be glad to learn from the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, if he (Mr. Sexton) moved for a Return, showing not only the Poor Law valuation with

    1201
    the old and new rent, but also the amounts sworn respectively by the valuator of the landlord and the valuator of the tenant, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to give that information to the House, so as to enable the House to judge with what impartiality, or the reverse, the Sub-Commissioners of the Land Court were discharging their functions. Looking at the Vote, he found that 12 Sub-Commissions were at present in full swing in Ireland, and he believed that an addition had been made since the present Estimates were presented. The greater portion of these Sub-Commissions had now been in operation for three quarters of a-year, and he believed they had really actually settled about 10,000 cases. If 80,000 applications had been made, and only 10,000 cases had been settled by the Court, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman at what time the Government expected the Land Court and the Sub-Commissioners would have dealt with the bulk of the applications of the Irish tenants? Did they propose to allow this Court to run out in the dim future, after endeavouring to apply its comparatively feeble power to the immense task before it; or did they intend to extend the Paradise for lawyers which Ireland had become, and increase the number of Sub-Commissioners? Unless that were done, he saw no prospect for the tenants, beyond having to pay for years to come the present unreduced rents. Too much emphasis could not be laid on the fact that the reduced rent fixed by the Court was only to come into operation on the next gale day succeeding the judgment of the Land Court. Therefore, in regard to the great mass of the tenants, the judgment of the Court would not come in for several years to come. It was a fact that, up to the present moment, a very large proportion of the neediest and most helpless of the tenants had been shut out from the benefits of the Act owing to the circumstance that they were in arrear. The fate of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill was now depending in the balance, and no one was able at that moment to say what the result would be. There were some who thought the country was on the eve of a great Constitutional crisis. Some were credulous enough to believe in Dissolution in the immediate dim future, and to think that
    1202
    they had been going that evening through a sort of performance which might be called a political autumn manœuvre. It was, however, pretty evident that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the noble Marquess who led the Opposition in "another place" (the Marquess of Salisbury) had come to an understanding, and there could be very little doubt that the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill would soon become law; and noble Lords in the Upper Chamber, having saved their character for chivalry by a demonstration of valour, would prudently yield to the hostile battalions arrayed, against them by Her Majesty's Government. Assuming that the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill speedily became law, it was to be inferred that these poor tenants in arrear would be able, not merely to remain on their farms, but to go into the Land Court; but, at the present moment, they were prevented from making an application to the Court, because the landlords said to them—"If you go into Court in order to get my rents lowered, I will immediately proceed to evict you for arrears." Under the Arrears Bill, that threat of eviction would have no effect, and the tenant, while saving an eviction, would be able to go into the Land Court. It was only reasonable, therefore, to infer that the number of applications for the fixing of fair rents would be largely increased. Already there had been from 70,000 to 80,000 applications made, and they would probably swell into two or three times as many, so that they might have 200,000 or 300,000 tenants applying for relief to the Land Court, in order to obtain the fixture of fair rents. It was only natural that the number of applications to the Land Court would very largely increase if the tenants saw any hope of a speedy adjudication. No doubt, the certainty of a delay in the adjudication had, up to the present moment, greatly limited the number of applications to the Court; but the comparative security which he hoped the tenants had now got as to the matter of arrears, in the knowledge that they would not be evicted in consequence of arrears, and the additional freedom of access to the Land Court, would increase the number of applications. He, therefore, wanted to know what provision the Government proposed to make for increasing the strength of the pre-

    1203
    sent Land Commission. Hitherto the Court had proved woefully inadequate to the demands made upon it; and, up to the present year, the Commissioners had only got rid of 10,000 cases out of the 80,000 applications made to them. If the number of applications was to be multiplied by two or three, there would only be a very miserable prospect before the tenants of Ireland, many of whom would be compelled to wait for three or five years before they were able to get the decision of the Court. He thought the Irish Members were entitled to ask for some specific declaration from Her Majesty's Government upon this point, because it must be borne in mind that throughout all the years which must necessarily elapse before the tenants could procure the decision of the Court they would be required to pay the whole of the unreduced rent. There was no provision whatever that, in the interval, the rents would be reduced to Griffith's valuation; or, indeed, to any reasonable extent. On the whole, the experience they had had of the operations of the Land Court last year tended to show that the rents were even now, in the opinion of persons well qualified to judge, one-fourth above what they ought to be. That was universally declared to be the fact, and yet they allowed the bulk of the tenants who had sent in applications for the fixing of fair rents to go on labouring under the burden of the old rents. He could not help regarding such a state of things as an extraordinary contradiction of justice; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to tell the Committee that the tenants who went into the Land Court, from this time forward, would be able to have some slight hope of a speedy adjudication upon their cases. He had already said that the Sub-Commissioners had kept much more closely to the value given by the landlord's valuator than that given by the valuator of the tenant; but the case was made even worse when the landlords appealed from the Sub-Commissioners to the Commissioners themselves. The appeals had been very numerous in various parts of Ireland, and they had had a double effect. In almost every case, the Land Commissioners had acted upon the evidence of the official valuers, and the result had been to bring the rent back again almost
    1204
    to what it was before the application was made. The double effect had been this—the general body of tenants all over Ireland had been brought into a frame of mind in which they had come to the conclusion that it was almost useless to approach the Land Court at all; because they said to themselves—"If we go into the Land Court for the fixing of a fair rent, and we have our rents reduced by the Sub-Commissioners, the landlord is certain to appeal against the decision of the Sub-Commissioners, and the effect of the appeal will be to take the case to a higher Court; and, then, whatever benefit I may have obtained in the lower Court will be taken away." That fact had produced very evil consequences in the minds of many of the tenants. But there was another, and a most disastrous, effect upon the tenants whose cases had been carried by appeal to the higher Court. The tenants who had gone into Court, and had then had the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners appealed against, found themselves obliged to pay the costs of two hearings—the trial before the Sub-Commissions in the first instance, and a second trial before the Land Court itself. Thus it had not un-frequently happened that a tenant, in the endeavour to obtain justice, had to pay the costs of two trials, and having expended money which he had not anticipated in his effort to procure a reduction of rent, found himself, when all was over, with his pockets quite cleaned out, and his rent very little improved from what it was before the Land Act passed. He (Mr. Sexton) thought there was a fundamental error in the course of the proceeding under that Act, because the Land Commissioners acted on the un-sworn evidence of the official valuator. Would the right hon. Gentleman say why that should be? The valuators for the tenants in the lower Court had to give their evidence on oath; and, as far as he knew, everybody who appeared in a Law Court, whether on the side of the landlord or of the tenant, had to verify and solemnize the evidence he gave by the sanction of an oath. That had been the practice from time immemorial. The Commissioners themselves, of all grades, from Justice O'Hagan himself down to the youngest Sub-Commissioner, had to take an oath upon entering into his office that he would do justice between the landlord on the one side and the

    1205
    tenant on the other. Under such circumstances, he (Mr. Sexton) thought he was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to explain why this apparently sacred person, the official valuator, should be the only person in the whole hierarchy of the Land Commission in Ireland who was to be free from the obligation of subscribing an oath? The present practice in connection with applications to the Court to fix a fair rent was this—a certain rent was fixed by the Sub-Commissioners in the Court below. That rent was fixed on the evidence of men who were acquainted with the circumstances of the case, the nature of the holding, and the value of land in the district, men who, being residents in the locality, and persons of respectability, were experts as to the value of the land dealt with; and in every instance they gave their evidence on their oath. The Sub-Commissioners, who were also bound by oath, decided upon the sworn evidence laid before them, and they declared that a certain rent was the value of the farm or holding. And, then, what happened? The landlord appealed against the decision of the Sub-Commissioners, and a certain gentleman called the official valuator was sent down from Belfast or Cork, as the case might be, to the district in which the holding happened to be situated. This official person, at the very outset, failed to fulfil the first stipulation of the Act of Parliament, because the Act of Parliament said that the Court should have regard to all the circumstances of the case, of the holding, and the district; and this official valuator knew nothing about the holding or the district whatever. He was an exotic, who, knowing nothing of the circumstances of the district or the nature of the holding, paid the farm a flying visit, went hurriedly over it, and, returning to Dublin by the next train, gave evidence as to what the value of the holding was. It was upon the word of a gentleman who knew so little about the tenant or the farm that the Land Commissioners set aside the decision of three sworn Sub-Commissioners who had acted upon the sworn evidence of local experts, thoroughly acquainted with every peculiarity of the district, and the character of the holding they had valued. The entire proceeding was a most extraordinary contradiction of justice, and
    1206
    it was the most indefensible anomaly it was possible to conceive. Even if the official valuator were a gentleman of the highest character and reputation, who was not open to attack, the fact that his calculations were placed before the Court upon unsworn evidence would be objectionable; but the official valuators themselves were not above suspicion, and the attention of the House had been already called to the circumstances under which Mr. Charles Gray had been appointed. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to apply himself to the facts of that case, and inform the Committee how it was that Mr. Gray was ever appointed at all. He (Mr. Sexton) might name other gentlemen who had been appointed official valuators, whose nomination was equally objectionable; but he would not do so. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord of the Fairy Tales (Lord Brabourne) and other noble Lords, acting in concert with certain hon. Members of that House, deemed it their duty to attack the Sub-Commissioners from the landlords' point of view, he (Mr. Sexton) thought he was fully entitled to show, from the tenants' point of view, that persons who held official posts in connection with the Land Court possessed anything but an unblemished reputation. It had been pointed out that Mr. Charles Gray was altogether an Englishman, who on going to Ireland distinguished himself on his arrival by buying a townland in the county of Tipperary. Immediately he bought it he raised the rents upon the tenants, and sold it again at a very smart profit. That was a case of sharp practice—a piece of Shylockism indeed, which no landlord in Ireland of any pretension to character would dream of being guilty of. It was a gentleman of this kind, who had indulged in these proceedings, who had been selected by the Government of Ireland to be an official valuator to decide any points of difference between the landlord and the tenant, and to overturn by his unsworn testimony the evidence of sworn experts, thoroughly acquainted with the condition of the holding, and the circumstances of the locality. The gentleman in question—Mr. Charles Gray—was the man whose conduct led to a conflict between the police and the people in 1869, which occasioned the loss of several valuable lives and much misery. As the land

    1207
    agent of the Earl of Derby and Sir Stafford O'Brien, he distinguished himself by his rent-raisings and exactions. Indeed, the estate of the Earl of Derby, as administered by Mr. Charles Gray, was subject to the most oppressive, severe, and stringent measures ever known upon any estate in Ireland. He warned Her Majesty's Government that, if they carried out the appointment of official valuator in this reckless manner, it would be impossible to predict any brilliant career in the future for the Land Court. There was some reason to hope that a clear road was about to be opened for the admission of the general body of the tenantry of Ireland within the portals of the Land Court; and he trusted sincerely that the tenants, 'when they had entered the Court, would find nothing inside to discourage them, or to induce them to believe that they would derive no advantage from bringing their cases under the notice of the Court. In order to supplement the action of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, to give confidence to the tenantry in the Court, it was absolutely necessary that the Government should, appoint to such an important post as that of official valuator gentlemen who could be relied on to act impartially between landlord and tenant. He trusted that the Government would inquire into the appointment of Mr. Charles Gray; and it was not too much to expect that in any future appointment that had to be made in relation to the Land Commission, they would take the trouble to appoint gentlemen whose minds had not hitherto been biassed in favour of the landlords against the tenants. The least that could be expected was that any gentleman appointed to fill so important a post should act impartially between the two classes.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had travelled over a wide field, into which he (Mr. Brodrick) did not propose to follow the hon. Member. There were, however, one or two questions which he should like to lay before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to emphasize in an opposite direction. The hon. Member had called attention, as he had done on previous occasions, to the dilatory nature of the proceedings under the Irish Land Commission. The attention of the Chief Secretary for Ire-
    1208
    land had already been called to the feeling which extensively existed in Ireland, and which was not confined to any section or body of persons, that the Sub-Commissioners, owing to the haste with which they were called upon to complete their duties, found it impossible to bestow proper time and attention upon the cases submitted to them. That was a question which had been brought before him (Mr. Brodrick), as well as before other hon. Members of that House, not merely by landlords, but by the tenants also; and the Sub-Commissioners themselves, by the remarks they had made, showed that they felt the pressure of the hurry and haste to which they were goaded. It was most desirable, in his opinion, that the Government should consider whether they could not, by some means, moderate the pressure upon the working of the measure. The result of requiring the Sub-Commissioners to go over large tracts of country, in order to value them, in this hasty and precipitate manner, brought about the natural result mentioned by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton)—namely, general dissatisfaction with the working of the Act; and when the official valuer was sent down to report on the cases referred to the higher Court, the conclusion he arrived at was almost always different from that of the Sub-Commissioners themselves. It was no small task to impose upon the Sub-Commissioners, to go over some thousands of acres, and fix a fair rent in a space of time in which it was wholly impossible that they could devote proper attention to the subject. For his own part, he confessed that he would gladly welcome any step taken by Her Majesty's Government to lighten the duties of the Sub-Commissioners in this respect. With regard to the mere duties of valuation, he wished to say but one word. When the Land Bill was before the House last year, he (Mr. Brodrick) had called the attention of the Government to the necessity of appointing a body of efficient valuers. At present there was a great need for efficient valuers to act on the part of the Sub-Commissioners. At present there were objections taken both by the tenants and the landlords to the valuation conducted on the respective sides; and he ventured to point out to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the number of valuers provided for in this Vote—namely, nine

    1209
    chief valuers and four minor valuers, was altogether insufficient for the discharge of the duties they would be required to perform under the claims made upon them by the 12 Sub-Commissions which were now at work throughout the country. Until satisfactory valuators were appointed, there would not be content on either side, and any steps taken in that direction would greatly facilitate the business of the Sub-Commissioners. Not only should the body of valuators be larger, but they should be men of the greatest experience in regard to the value of land. The Sub-Commissioners ought not to be required to trust to the valuation of the landlord's valuer on the one side, or of some other person appointed on the part of the tenant, who was nearly always a tenant himself, on the other. In the case of the tenant's valuator, he was generally a man connected with the Land League, or some association in connection with the non-payment of rent, or by some person who was shortly afterwards promoted to the post of Sub-Commissioner. He hoped, also, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would take into consideration the effect of the Court being so inadequately constituted as it was at present. It had led to appeals, numerous as they were, becoming increasingly numerous in that part of the country in which certain appointments had been made which had been frequently commented upon in that House. The right hon. Gentleman must not ignore the fact that the same cause of complaint came from both sides—from the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who represented the tenants, and from the Conservative Benches, which represented the interests of the landlords; therefore, if the Government had any real wish that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners, as decisions in the first instance, should be valid, and upon which both parties must depend, they must appoint more satisfactory valuators. While matters remained in their present position, the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners would fail to give contentment to either side, and they would continue to have these constant appeals. He would content himself with these remarks, and would-not enter into the controversial questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that when the Sub-Commissioners commenced their labours last October, their decisions were not so unsatisfactory, or nearly so unsatisfactory, to the tenants as they had since become. He thought, if they asked anybody who was acquainted with the circumstances of the case, they would coincide in the statement he had just made; and they would tell the Committee that gradually, from that day to this, owing to various causes, but more especially to a judgment given in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" in the Superior Courts of Dublin, the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners throughout Ireland had been daily creating more and more dissatisfaction amongst the tenants. They had heard, when the Land Court first commenced its operations, a good many expressions of dissatisfaction with the decisions from the Landlord Party in that House, and also in the House of Lords; but they had seen that, as months went by, the dissatisfaction of the Landlord Party and the House of Lords was gradually becoming less intense and sincere, and more of a pretence. Their complaints and expressions of dissatisfaction had not that air of reality about them which they had some eight or nine months ago. He attributed this to various causes. In the first place, to the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath;" and he proposed to refer to that matter now, because it was one of considerable importance, and very well worthy the attention and consideration of the Government between now and the next Session of Parliament. When the Land Act was being passed through the House of Commons, unfortunately Her Majesty's Government gave in so far to the representations of the landlords in that House, and afterwards to those which were made in "another place," as to provide an appeal on matters-of law to the Supreme Court of Dublin. The result was that when the case of "Adams v. Dunseath" was brought before the Supreme Court as a test case, it was found that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had been principally instrumental in passing the Land Act through the House of Commons, and who was well known as a sound lawyer of great erudition and experience, was left in a minority of the Judges; and in two most important points the decision of the

    1211
    Supreme Court was given against the interests of the tenants, and in favour of the interests of the landlords. It was roughly calculated that the increase of rents, consequent upon the decisions in regard to these two points, amounted to fully 15 or 20 per cent. That was not the first time there had been dissatisfaction expressed at the working of the Act; but, in consequence of that decision, the dissatisfaction of the tenants with the adjudications of the Sub-Commissioners had become most alarming. The two points decided by the Supreme Court against the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and against the opinion of all the Judges who had been appointed by the present Liberal Administration, or by any Liberal Administration, were of a very important character. They had reference, in the first place, to the improvements of the tenants executed at any time whatever, either previous to the Act of 1870, or subsequent to it; and, secondly, they had reference to improvements executed by the tenant since 1870. As regarded improvements executed at any time within the statutory limitation provided by the Act, it was held by the majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court that the tenants, under the Improvement Clause of the Land Act, were only entitled to claim credit for the improvements so far as the actual cost of the improvements went, and were not entitled to claim credit for the exemption of rent as regarded the value added to the land by them. Now, it would at once be evident to the Committee that this was a very important matter. A practical farmer, when he went to work to make an improvement upon his farm, expended something besides his capital—he expended his experience and his time—the experience and knowledge that he had gained with regard to the cultivation of his holding over a long series of years, and the experience which he had gained, of course, in his occupation as a farmer. Consequently, it happened that he would naturally expect—any farmer would expect—that he would be deemed to be entitled to benefit by those improvements more than the 5 per cent interest which might be supposed to be the strict commercial return for the expenditure in the actual cost of the improvements. A farmer, by his skill and by his enterprize, might lay out upon his holding £100, and make it worth
    1212
    £50 a-year more; yet, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," that farmer was only to be credited with a reduction of his rent by £5 a-year, being the ordinary rate of interest upon the £100 he had laid out, and which he would have received from any other investment of his money, without any trouble on his part. He (Mr. Parnell), and many others, thought that that was not a fair construction of the Land Act, and that it was a point well worthy of the serious consideration of the Government before next Session, in order that they might carry out the intentions of the Legislature, which appeared to have been, if any conclusion was to be formed from the judgment of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was mainly instrumental in passing the Land Act through the House of Commons, that the tenant should, to some extent at all events, receive an adequate share of the increased value of the holding arising out of the improvements he had effected, and that he should not be held to be compensated for his improvements by receiving the ordinary rate of interest on the capital he had expended. Let them take the converse case. Suppose a farmer expended £100 upon a farm with the object of effecting improvements, but that the result, instead of increasing the value of the holding, was a total loss—in such a case the tenant was not even allowed interest upon his outlay; he was allowed nothing whatever. In fact, the result of the decision of the Supreme Court, with respect to the tenant's improvements, was that the landlord would say, "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." No matter in what direction the coin turned, the landlord was sure to be a disproportionate gainer. In point of fact, the landlord would reap where he had not sown; whereas the tenant, who ran all the risk of the investment turning out badly, had not the ordinary privilege which appertained to skilled investors, in investments even of a doubtful character, of gaining the full extent of the value of his exertions in the event of the investment turning out well and profitable. The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was also one of importance, and it related to improvements executed since 1850. He found, upon reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court, that

    1213
    these improvements, owing to the effect of an Amendment inserted by the House of Lords in the Act of last year, at the last moment, the Court was obliged to hold that the tenant might be compensated for those improvements by length of enjoyment. This interpretation, which had been placed upon the Act by the Supreme Court, was also arrived at against the opinion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the minority of the Judges; and, as he had said, it was entirely in consequence of an Amendment inserted in the Land Bill by the House of Lords while it was passing through Parliament. This decision had done more, almost, than anything else to deprive the tenants of Ireland of that confidence in the Act which they were beginning to entertain, up to the date of the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath." Personally, he (Mr. Parnell) was of opinion that the tenant should be entitled to reap the benefit of his improvements, however long he might have enjoyed them; that he should be entitled to receive a fair reduction of rent upon those improvements executed by himself, or by his predecessors in title, provided that such improvements had added to the value of the farm. None of the increased value should go to the landlord, but simply to the man who made them, either by the strength of his brains, or by the money he laid out. There was another matter to which he also wished to advert, and which, in his opinion, had done very much to take away the confidence of the Irish tenants in the Land Act, and which, although it might not immediately result in bad effects any more than the judgment in the case of "Adams v. Dunseath," might immediately result in bad effects, because he admitted that, owing to a rise in the prices of agricultural produce in Ireland, many of the Irish farmers might be willing to go on paying rack rents, and would not be pulled down by the operation of the Land Act for a few years longer, any more than by the operation of the Coercion Act they were to be coerced into doing certain things—he submitted that it was the part of a statesman to look ahead. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was one who had probably a long lease of political life before him, and he might not wish to limit his views
    1214
    by a consideration of what might be tolerated for two, three, or four years to come. He (Mr. Parnell) wished, therefore, to tell the right hon. Gentleman that although this Land Act of 1881, taken in conjunction with the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, and in conjunction with the Coercion Act, might bring about a state of quietude in Ireland for a few years to come, yet if it was not immediately and permanently amended in the direction he (Mr. Parnell) had indicated that night, and in other directions to which time did not permit him to allude; if the right hon. Gentleman happened to hold the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the commencement of the next cycle of bad seasons, would find himself confronted by the same difficulties with which his Predecessor had had to contend. He (Mr. Parnell) thought the wise statesman and the prudent politician would do well to look ahead in this matter. They ought not to wait until they were compelled to introduce fresh legislation. One of the great mistakes of English dealing with Ireland had been that the Imperial Parliament had never done anything for Ireland to remedy the admitted and crying wants and necessities of the people, until they were almost practically compelled to do it. That had been the lesson taught to the Irish people from time immemorial. Even in the days of the old Irish Parliament, it required almost a revolution to get a grievance corrected. And so it had been since the Union. Every single concession the Irish people ever gained had been the result of agitation, almost bordering upon rebellion; and he would entreat the Government, now that quietude had been to a great extent restored in Ireland, to study the question of the permanent amendment of the Land Act, and to see how far the necessities of justice and rectitude required a further extension of those principles in the land legislation of the country. If Her Majesty's Government would only show that they were conscious that the results of the toil of the poor man should be his and his children's—that they belonged to him only and to those who might come after him, and not to the landlord—if they went further, and enacted legislation of that character, he believed their exertions would be rewarded by a greater desire on the part

    1215
    of the Irish people to admit that, at all events, they had attempted from the best motives, and a genuine desire to do justice, to remedy the grievances under which the Irish people had laboured for so many years.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that on various occasions, and in various ways, since the passing of the Land Act of 1881, the question had frequently been raised as to the amount of confidence which the public, and especially the landlords, in Ireland, might be called on to repose in the Commissioners appointed to adjudicate under the Land Act. He (Mr. Lewis) had ventured, himself, on one or two occasions, to make remarks on some of the appointments of the Sub-Commissioners; and he felt bound to say that the experience he had gained in reference to the class of persons selected, and their history and antecedents, induced him to believe that the landowning class had very small grounds indeed for reposing confidence in the administration of the Act at their hands. But, as a matter of fact, that was the first occasion on which the House of Commons had had an opportunity of taking in review the whole scope of the appointments to the Land Commission. He believed that many of the appointments were far from satisfactory. It was quite true that before the Land Act passed the Government inserted in it the names of the gentlemen who were to be appointed Chief Commissioners; but he need not say that the time which elapsed after the nomination of the Commissioners and the passing of the Act was so short, that it was impossible to trace with accuracy the history of these gentlemen, and the claims which they possessed to the confidence of the public. The House was told by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, on the occasion of inserting the names of the Commissioners in the Bill, that one of the chief—in point of fact, the chief title to the confidence of the public in nominating the gentlemen who were to administer the Land Act, was to nominate persons who would be imbued with the spirit of the Act. It would be impossible, they were told, under other circumstances, to confide in the proper working of the Act. There was another qualification—namely, loyalty to the State, because men placed in such a position might be able to do an immense amount of damage, and to
    1216
    set a very bad example. He wanted to read to the Committee a poem which had been written by one of those gentlemen. ["Oh, oh!"] He would not trouble the Committee at any length, but would only read two or three verses. The title of the poem was "The Union," and he would read the first verse. [Cries of "Order!"] He was dealing with the question whether the gentlemen who had been appointed Commissioners to administer an Act of Parliament, and who were the express subject of this Vote, were persons who were entitled to the confidence of the public; and he maintained, subject to the correction of the Chairman, that that was a subject which was perfectly regular, and altogether germane to the question now before the Committee. The poem was entitled "The Union," and this was the first verse—
    "How did they pass the Union?
    By perjury and fraud;
    By slaves who sold their land for gold,
    As Judas sold his God.
    By all the savage acts that yet
    Have followed England's track;
    By pitch cap and the bayonet,
    The gibbet and the rack.
    And thus was passed the Union,
    By Pitt and Castlereagh;
    Could Satan send for such an end,
    More worthy tools than they?"
    He did not propose to read the whole poem; but he would afford every hon. Member the opportunity of reading it. The second verse ended thus—
    "Then curse with me the Union;
    That juggle foul and base;
    The baneful root that bears such fruit
    Of ruin and disgrace."
    The last verse ended thus—
    "Then rend the cursed Union
    And fling it to the wind;
    And Irish laws, in Ireland's cause,
    Alone our hearts shall bind."
    [Cheers from the Home Rule Members.] He fully understood those cheers; but when he recollected that they had been told, both inside and outside that House, times without number, that the landowning class were what was called the English garrison, he thought the application of this charming ditty, or whatever else it might be called, to the subject in hand, was very great.
    An hon. MEMBER asked, what was the date of the verses the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had read?
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would come to the date in a moment. In the first place,

    1217
    he wished to inform the Committee that the verses were the production of the Chief Commissioner. It was a poem written by a gentleman who had been appointed by Her Majesty's Government to preside over a Commission which was to arbitrate between landlord and tenant, and which was expected to obtain and retain the confidence of the people of all classes among whom they were to work, and with whose property they had to deal. When he (Mr. Lewis) had this book, which could be bought both in Dublin and London, placed in his hands, he saw at once, on looking at it, that it was not printed now for the first time, but that it was a republication issued in 1881. He had thought that it would not be fair towards Mr. Justice O'Hagan to quote it without communicating with him, and he was able to state with great accuracy what passed between Mr. Justice O'Hagan and himself. He had drawn the attention of the learned Judge to the republication last year of the poem, which was originally written under a fictitious name, and Mr. Justice O'Hagan admitted that the name in question was a nom de plume which he had borne, but said that the lines had been put aside for some time, although the original publication was undoubtedly his. He (Mr. Lewis) was quite aware that the lines were written many years ago; but what he desired to call attention to was their recent republication. On receiving this communication from the author, he wrote again to him, calling attention to the fact that the poem was now being republished, and that it was extensively advertised in the Dublin newspapers as being the production of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, the Chief Commissioner of the Land Court; and, he added—
    "It remains with you, Sir, if you think proper, to take any course you think right with reference to this republication."
    Mr. Justice O'Hagan wrote a letter in reply, stating that he had nothing further to say on the subject. He (Mr. Lewis) would appeal to the Committee whether, in point of fact, a gentleman dealing with the republication of a work in that way was not republishing it himself? He confidently appealed to the Committee, and, through the Committee, to those outside the House, whether a gentleman who could commit himself in reference to the Union between
    1218
    England and Ireland in that way, who saw no cause whatever for repudiating in his riper years what might probably have been merely his youthful aspirations and views, but who, in that way, did what was equivalent to acknowledging the same views now, was a proper man to place at the head of the Land Commission for the purpose of presiding over the Court which was to discharge these important functions? They had been told over and over again that these Commissioners were in the position of arbiters between the land-owning class and the land-occupying class; and he would ask anybody what opinion and impression he could form, when he found a gentleman who had such a profound detestation of the Union under which he lived, as to write, and not to express his disapproval of the republication of such a production as that which he had read to the Committee, had been placed by the Government at the head of the Land Commission? What had been the result of the appointments which had been made? It was that there had prevailed among those, or, at all events, among one class of those who had been subjected to the decisions of the Court, a widely-spread want of confidence, which had created much heartburning, constant bickerings, and much apprehension as to the future effect upon the preservation of law and order of the working of the Act. At all events, he was entitled to say upon this occasion that the Government had been signally unfortunate in many of the appointments they had made. He had no hesitation in taking up the challenge given to him on a former occasion with reference to the appointments made during the election of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. He was not going to repeat the statements which had been made; but he referred to them simply for the purpose of saying that they had been abundantly proved. Mr. Cunningham was a constituent of his own, and it was stated over and over again that he had no business relations with the particular district round Derry in which he was called upon to perform the duties of a Sub-Commissioner. But it was perfectly well known that he had dealings with the retail tradesmen in the very district in which he was called on to act as a Judge. Another gentleman, a barrister on the North-Western Dis-

    1219
    trict, was only temporarily withdrawn from the district in which he conducted his practice, and he relied upon his position as a barrister unattached, although he was very much attached to the district, and was likely to resume his duties on Circuit immediately his duties as a Sub-Commissioner ceased. When he saw such cases, it was not at all surprising, when they were called upon, as they had been, to entrust large discretionary powers to the Sub-Commissioners' Court, that they should express the want of confidence in that Court, which prevailed all along the line. Personally, he strongly objected to any proposal which would place unfettered discretion in the hands of the Sub-Commissioners. It was not his intention further to detain the Committee on the present occasion; but this was the very first opportunity they had had collectively of dealing with the Comsioners and the Sub-Commissioners appointed to act under the Land Commission. He thought that everyone—at all events those who were directly interested in the preservation of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland—would very much regret to find that the gentleman who had been placed at the head of the Land Commission, who had published such strong views in regard to the Union when young, was not prepared to disown them now that he was an older man, but who seemed to be disposed, notwithstanding the high and responsible position he filled, to stand by the violent and intemperate language he (Mr. Lewis) had ventured to quote.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he must say that the right of discussing the Estimates had, in the speech to which the Committee had just listened, culminated in very serious abuse. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had spoken at some length of the antecedents of an eminent Irish Judge. He (Mr. Trevelyan) could find a good deal to take exception to in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the salary of the eminent man the hon. Gentleman had been commenting upon did not appear in this Estimate; and, therefore, how the Business of the Committee of this deliberative Assembly was to be conducted regularly and orderly, if such speeches were to be permitted, he could not conceive. Since these remarks had been made, he (Mr. Tre-
    1220
    velyan) must protest against them in the name of every one who took part in Public Business. Having, early in life, courted the Muses, he must protest against the idea of fixing upon a grave Judge of 58 the responsibilities—he would not say so much as the principles, but the literary merit of lines which he wrote when 22 or 23. Eminent Members of the Conservative Party—men whom the Conservatives might be proud to number in their ranks—such as Wordsworth and Southey, when of the same age as Judge O'Hagan when he wrote these lines, wrote works which were of the same character in political thought as that from which the hon. Member had read. It really would shortly come to this—that the hon. Gentleman would get up and taunt any Members of the Committee who had been in public schools or College with being pagans, because, in youth, they had written Sapphics and Alcaics in praise of Venus and Minerva. He preferred to discuss these Estimates in the same business-like way that Estimates ought to be discussed; and, therefore, he should confine himself to the few practical remarks which had interspersed the somewhat discursive discussion the Committee had just listened to. He might begin by regretting that the incomes of the Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners were not, as the incomes of Judicial Commissioners, a charge on the Consolidated Fund, because it was certainly a very unfortunate thing that so very many occasions were given and taken in this House for discussing the decisions of a tribunal which, after all, was a judicial tribunal. At any rate, the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners had no reason to regret the discussion of this evening, because he should say, as a general rule, that a tribunal which did not give complete satisfaction to either Party must, on the whole, be a tolerably impartial tribunal. It must be pretty evident to those who had listened to the discussion that night that the decisions of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners did not give entire satisfaction, either to the hon. Gentlemen sitting below the opposite Gangway, or to the hon. Gentlemen who sat above the opposite Gangway. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) told them, as far as he (Mr. Trevelyan)

    1221
    could make out, that the particular epoch when the dissatisfaction of the tenants with the decisions of the Land Commissioners began to be most marked was coincident with the time that the dissatisfaction of the landlords with the decisions of the Commissioners began. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made one or two practical observations on the proceedings of the Sub - Commissioners. The hon. Member asked why he could not have a Return published giving, not only the Government valuation, not only the former rent, not only the judicial rent, but likewise the values which were given both by the landlords' valuators and the tenants' valuators of the holdings? Now, what were the values of the landlords' valuators and the tenants' valuators? They were nothing more nor less than ex parte evidence and he (Mr. Trevelyan) could not think that a Return, laid on the Table of this House, and published under the order of the Chair, should contain ex parte evidence. The hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) pressed him (Mr. Trevelyan) very much, and with some show of reason, to give a Return of the values of the Government paid valuator; but when that question was referred to the Land Commission, they objected to give the Return, on the ground that evidence might be brought that these valuations only applied to the actual value of the land, apart from certain questions of improvements which had been subsequently made in the land, and apart from the evidence which was brought forward on both sides. For that reason, the Government could not give the values of the Government paid valuator; and if they could not give those valuations—and he had never heard hon. Members below the opposite Gangway object to the decision which the Land Commission came to on the question—how much less could they give ex parte valuations of the landlords' valuators and the tenants' valuators? The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) went on to explain that the Government valuator was not sworn, and said that it was contrary to the Act of Parliament. But under Sub-section 4 of the 48th section of the Land Act, it was laid down clearly and decidedly that in determining any question relating to holdings the Commission
    1222
    might direct an independent valuator to report to it his opinion on any matter the Commission might desire to refer to such valuator; and there was not a word in that sub-section, from first to last, which implied that the evidence must be given upon oath. He would pass on now to the question which seemed to him to be much more of an administrative nature, and to come much more within the scope of the debate, and that was the question with regard to the rapidity, or the opposite to rapidity, with which the proceedings of the Land Commission were carried on. On that point, he gathered, there was no divergence between the two Parties. He concluded that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) felt exactly the same as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) on that point, and he supposed all hon. Gentlemen desired the proceedings under the Act should be quickened as much as possible. He had been asked a definite question, and it was necessary to give it an answer. Up to the end of June, the Land Commission and the Civil Bill Courts, between them, had disposed of about 21,700 cases. [Mr. HEALY asked if that included voluntary arrangements?] It included every case; 21,700 cases had been disposed of up to the end of. June, and something over 5,000 cases—he was now quoting from memory—were disposed of in the month of July, so that something like 27,000 cases had been disposed of by the Land Commission in all its branches. But the hon. Member was unwilling to take into consideration anything except fair rents that had been fixed by the Commission. Now, the number of fair rents fixed from November to the end of April was 4,023. There were some originating agreements which he (Mr. Trevelyan) considered himself to have as equal authority as fair rents. In May, 2,350 fair rents were fixed; in June, 2,287; and in July, 2,363. In all, in three months 8,000 fair rents had been fixed, so that, in the first six months that the Land Commission sat, 4,000 fair rents were fixed, whereas in the last three months, 8,000 were fixed—that was to say, the case of the Land Commission had improved by about four to one, the number of Sub-Commissions during the latter part of that period being, he supposed, about 17, as against 12 in the first six months. Now, that increase in rapidity was satis-

    1223
    factory as far as. it went; but it was needless to say that if hon. Members, whose interest in the matter was only that of Representatives, and he might say of loyal Irishmen—if they felt rather anxious about the comparative slowness with which this work was being done—it was needless to say that the Government, who were responsible for the peace of Ireland and for the prosperity of Ireland, were specially anxious to quicken the work of the Commission. Nothing could be more remarkable than the manner in which the peace and prosperity were connected with the settlement of cases by the Land Commission, whether by means of the judgment of the Commissioners in fixing fair rents, or by means of originating agreements, or by private settlement between landlord and tenant. Well, the Government, being impressed with that view, had already turned their attention to the best means for quickening the action of the Land Commission, and already their schemes were to a certain extent matured, and during the Recess the attention of the Irish Government and of the Land Commission would be earnestly directed to bring those schemes to maturity, and to practical determination.
    MR. HEALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the proportion of settlements in each Province?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had not got such a statement with him. He did not know the deduction which the hon. Member would draw from such a statement; but he could tell the hon. Member one other point which had given the Irish Government great hope, and that was that yesterday a Return came in with reference to the payment of rent in Ireland. On that point they had Returns from the Resident Magistrates in 24 counties. In 20 of those counties rents were being paid in a manner which, he ventured to say, would arouse envy in the hearts of a Wiltshire or Warwickshire squire. The accounts from one county—Cork—were dubious. There were only three counties in which the rents were represented as decidedly badly paid, and these counties were those which had been lately desolated by distress—namely, Galway, Mayo, and Kerry. In 20 out of the 24 counties rents were being well paid, and to preserve that state of things, and to secure peace and order in Ireland, hon. Mem-
    1224
    bers might be sure that it would be the first care of the Government.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was necessary that he should move to report Progress, in order that the Committee appointed earlier in the evening might present their Reasons for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Courtney,)—put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    The Chairman reported Progress; to sit again immediately.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
    COMMONS REASONS. REPORT OF COMMITTEE.
    Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    Question again proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £52,552, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he had not received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would use such influence as he had for increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, and that he would turn his attention to the question of the appointment of official valuators, the number of whom was wholly inadequate.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had listened to that part of the hon. Member's speech with great interest, and he could assure the hon. Member that both his points should receive the most careful consideration.
    MR. HEALYsaid, a moment ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman a question which he was unable to answer. He asked him if he could give any Return as to the proportion of settlements by the Sub-Commissioners in the dif-

    1225
    ferent Provinces of Ireland? He (Mr. Healy) himself was able to give an idea of that proportion, and he thought it would amount to little less than a revelation as to the manner in which one Province was being favoured by the Sub-Commissioners above the others. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Office, they could only learn from that right hon. Gentleman that there was such fluxion in the work, and such changes going on, that it was quite impossible for him to give any sort of Return as to the way in which the Sub-Commissioners were working. He (Mr. Healy) had three Returns, showing that a large proportion of the cases had been decided in Ulster, and he wanted to know the reason why? He presumed that the rest of the three Provinces were paying their share of the taxation for the maintenance of the Commissioners as well as Ulster; and he wanted to know why Judge O'Hagan, whose patriotic songs had a short time ago been brought before the attention of the Committee, showed such preference to the Northern Provinces? Taking the first Report, issued on the 28th January, he (Mr. Healy) found that in Ulster 530 cases had been settled; in Leinster, 259; in Connaught, 221; and in Munster 304; so that in Ulster 50 per cent more cases were settled than in any other Province. The next Return issued was dated the 25th April, and he found in Ulster there had been 962; in Leinster there had been 561; in Connaught, 258; and in Munster, 726. According to the last Return, he found that in Ulster 804 cases had been settled; in Leinster, 344; Connaught, 408; and Munster, 399. Now, that was an extraordinary state of things. He thought the Sub-Commissioners ought to deal with these cases pari passu, and not single out one particular Province for its work rather than another. There was sufficient work in the South to engage six Commissions; and, supposing there were 32 Commissioners, what ought to be done was to send eight to each Province. Was it fair that the tenants in Munster and Connaught, the poorest parts of Ireland, who had sent in their applications to have their rents fixed, should be neglected, because Ulster had a superior name for loyalty to the case represented by Members of
    1226
    the Liberal Party. He argued it was not fair, and he trusted they would have some re-arrangement on this point. What was going on in Ireland was a thing that, if it were going on in England, would be considered farcical. He should suppose that no less than 90,000 tenants had made applications to the Land Court, and thousands had refrained from entering it, knowing that it was useless to do so for three or four years to come. He found from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that up to April last 12,000 cases had been settled. The Courts began in November and December, so that it might be said that six months were occupied in settling 12,000 cases. Allowing for the rate of acceleration—and he quite admitted there had been considerable acceleration—it would take at least three years before all the fair rents could be fixed. He was quite willing to accept the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, two years. What he wanted to know was this—why did they not spend money and do in Ireland what they were doing in Egypt; why did they not send, out men to do the work required? He considered that every county in Ireland ought to have its own Sub-Commissioners; and that was the way the work would be considerably accelerated, and the minds of the people considerably appeased. When an unfortunate man sent in his application and did not hope to have his case dealt with for two years, and in the meantime was turned out upon his old rent, it was not a state of things which it was desirable to see maintained. In the case to which he (Mr. Healy) had drawn attention recently, Judge O'Hagan had pronounced a certain lease of Lord Kenmare's to be the most iniquitous he had ever had before him, and broke it. He said it was so bad that it would not stand in any Court of Equity; yet the tenant, Daniel O'Shea, would have to pay the rent under the lease until the Court was relieved of its present congestion, and if he did not pay he might be turned out on the road. Within the last three months Lord Kenmare had issued a writ against Daniel O'Shea, involving him in £5 or £6 costs. Attacks had been made upon the Chief Commissioner in that House and in "another place."

    1227
    Judge O'Hagan had written some excellent poetry—some of the most beautiful love poetry written in Ireland. Attacks had been made on the Bill by Lord Brabourne, who had referred to a case of the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) as one of special hardship. The position of the case was this—the hon. Baronet went to the Court to get the true value of a tenancy fixed, and the tenant was put out of pocket £20 or £30. Attacks had been made on the Sub-Commissioners; but if attacks were made on one side, there was something to be said on the other side. In 1871 the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine announced his intention to raise the rentals of 19 holdings, and communications passed between him and his tenants on the subject. These holdings were originally held by the Cloth workers' Company, who had not raised the rents for a considerable time. They had a valuation made in 1840, and on the expiry of the leases in 1862 they had another valuation made at the rents assessed in 1840, and made increase; and in 1871 they sold their interest to the hon. Baronet, who, although the Company had made no increase in the rents, announced his intention to raise the rents on the holdings. The tenants first asked that the holdings should be valued and two valuators appointed, one by the landlord and one by the tenants; but he refused to assent. According to the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer), the tenants then proposed that a valuation should be made by one valuator appointed by the landlord, and they offered to defray the cost of the valuation themselves. To this the hon. Baronet also refused to accede, and expressed his intention to adhere to an assessment of rents which he had himself caused to be made. Most of the tenants refused to pay the increased rent; but notices to quit were served upon them, and then they paid. The gross increase in the rents was £400. Between 1840 and 1871 the tenants had effected considerable improvements in reclaiming and draining, and the increase in the rents was considered, to a great extent, as a tax on the individuals. This was the case noticed by Lord Brabourne in "another place" as one of special hardship. What did the tenants then do? They got the rents brought down; and
    1228
    it was only after the hon. Baronet had complained of injustice having been done to him, and said he could supply Lord Brabourne in "another place" with statistics and details—
    SIR HERVEY BRUCE: I had no communication with Lord Brabourne on the subject.
    MR. HEALY: Lord Brabourne adduced the hon. Baronet's case as one of special hardship; and he (Mr. Healy) presumed the noble Lord got his information from some quarter. That was one of the cases of hardship. Another was the case of the famous Lord Donoughmore. It was he who proposed this Session the Select Committee of the House of Lords to inquire into the working of the Land Act; and it was in consequence of his action that the Prime Minister called upon this House to pass what had been called a Vote of Censure upon the action of the House of Lords. In regard to the case of the innocent Lord Donoughmore, who considered that the Sub-Commissioners were acting in a very harsh manner, he found two decisions reported in The Cork Examiner. The Sub-Commissioners stated—and this was a remarkable indictment of Lord Donoughmore for his manner of dealing with the tenants—that when the originating notices were served by the tenants on his estate Lord Donoughmore requested Mr. Fennell, a land agent, to make a valuation of the holdings. What his valuation was they did not know; but Lord Donoughmore did not think it satisfactory, and he engaged another valuator, Mr. Cox, who gave evidence before the Court. According to the experience and evidence of Mr. Cox, Lord Donoughmore's tenants had, up to that time, been paying a great deal too much rent. Besides that of Mr. Cox, the Commissioners had the evidence of another gentleman, who agreed that the rents were too high. It was not alone the tenants or their valuator who said the rents were too high, but the landlords' valuator. This and thousands of other instances could be obtained of the treatment of tenants by their landlords; but he thought the two cases he had named might be taken as a fair test of what had been going on all over Ireland. There was in that House the hon. Baronet, who considered himself a fair landlord,

    1229
    and upon his action the Court had given a sweeping decision; and, in "another place," there was the noble Lord who thought he was so unjustly dealt with that he had obtained a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and upon his dealings with his tenants the Sub-Commissioners had given a decision. He had no doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine was as good a landlord as the average of landlords all round; and, in that case, he (Mr. Healy) was driven to the conclusion that the rents in Ireland were unjustly high. That was a painful fact, when it was recollected that last year the Prime Minister declared, on the evidence of Lord Bessborough's Commission, that the Irish landlords had been trying to act equitably in regard to rents. He could not help recalling that statement, and, at the same time, recollecting that that Commission was purely a landlords' Commission. What else could be expected from what was known of the interests of these gentlemen? Now, it was found that one of those gentlemen whom the Government appointed, as a fair man, was no less a person than Mr. Kavanagh, the founder of the Tenants' Exterminating Company—a gentleman who believed that the land was in a most valuable condition. What did these things bring him (Mr. Healy) to? To this—that when there were Sub-Commissioners operating all over Ireland, and receiving evidence that these unjust rents were being extracted, the Government ought not to be slow in their remedy to bring relief to the tenants, and not wait until the landlords should tie further meshes round the tenants, and get them at their mercy—or until another bad harvest should occur. It was a terrible thing that peace and order in Ireland depended on a little sunshine—that the rents were so high, and the people were so near famine, that the question of a little solar heat more or less in August involved the possibility of a terrible agitation, with murder, rapine, and disorder. The Government should appoint plenty of Commissioners and get decisions pronounced at once, so that the people might know what they had to expect. Unless the Government did this, and applied their power to bringing down the rents, they could never expect peace in the country.
    Mr. T. A. DICKSONsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had stated that Ulster was favoured to a very considerable extent in the number of Sub-Commissioners in the Province, and in the numbers of decisions given; but the hon. Member had forgotten that on July 28th last there were 69,000 originating notices served in all Ireland, of which 31,000 came from Ulster, and only 38,000 from the entire three remaining Provinces. Therefore, if the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners in Ulster had been more numerous than elsewhere, that was simply because in that Province there were more cases than in the other three Provinces combined. The reason of that was very simple and plain. The tenant farmers in Ulster flocked to the Courts when the Land Act was passed. They determined to test the Act by going into Court, and they went into Court; so that if Ulster was favoured in the number of decisions given, that was because of the prompt action of the tenant farmers. But his (Mr. Dickson's) experience was that Ulster had not been favoured. He and his hon. Friends were rather disposed to think it was the prodigal children on the opposite Benches who had received favours from the Government, while they who sat behind the Government were very often treated with scant courtesy. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) when he said that the fatal block in connection with the Land Act was the slowness of its administration. The Government had only thought of appointing four Sub-Commissioners, but they soon increased them to 12, and then to 16; but, in his (Mr. Dickson's) opinion, 16 were not sufficient. There should be three for each county; and he believed there would have been great economy in administering the Act promptly and swiftly over the whole country. The present Sub-Commissioners would take five years to get through the work; and he would call the attention of the Government to the urgent necessity of increasing the number of Sub-Commissioners, so that the tenants who had served originating notices might not have to continue their present high rents. It was a very remarkable thing that the attacks made in that House on the Sub-Commissioners, and in "another place," were all directed against the eight Sub-Commissioners in Ulster, although there

    1231
    were 32 Assistant Commissioners. Had a single charge been established in that House, or in "another place," against the integrity and honesty of a single Commissioner? Not one. The charge made against them was that they bad reduced the rents 22 or 23 per cent. What was the Land Act passed for, if it was not to effect a reduction in the rents? Since the debate raised by Lord Brabourne in "another place," it had been circulated by the Conservative and landlord Press in Ireland that, owing to that debate, the Sub-Commissioners had been changed all over Ulster. If the Government yielded to attacks in that House, or in "another place," on the honour of the Sub-Commissioners, and changed the Sub-Commissioners from county to county, they would do more to weaken the administration of the Land Act than anything else that could be done; and if they were unwise enough to be guided by "another place," and did not stand by the Sub-Commissioners, they would deal a fatal blow to the administration of the Land Act in Ireland.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. T. A. Dickson), and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made certain demands upon the Government; but, up to the present time, although there were on the Treasury Bench the Law Officers and the Prime Minister, who was mainly responsible for the Land Act of last year, not a single satisfactory reply had been made to these demands. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had listened to the greater part of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and his interpretation of that speech was that the only answer to the several questions addressed by the hon. Member for Sligo was one of absolute silence. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would take up the last point raised by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dickson). What the Irish people were demanding was this—not only in the parts from which be and his hon. Friends came, but in the part which the hon. Member represented—Were the Government to allow this Act to become a nullity because they would not spare money for the appointment of additional Sub-Commissioners? He could not understand what was the attitude of the Government upon that point. Surely it would not cost much money to appoint
    1232
    Sub-Commissioners who would settle all the cases in the next year or two. Surely the Government must see that, and that in a few days under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill the work placed on the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners would be largely increased, and that the desire to take advantage of the Land Act would be largely stimulated. In the face of the large amount of further demand which would be made upon the Sub-Commissioners, the Government gave no definite pledge that they would give that increase of staff which was urgently demanded by all parts of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given no satisfactory answer—in fact, he had not attempted to answer the hon. Member, for Sligo. As to the authority given to the unsworn testimony of the official valuator, in the whole course of English jurisprudence there had been no more startling departure from the proper course of law. A Sub-Commission, assisted by three sworn officers, decided on the rents, on the sworn testimony of valuators employed by the landlord and tenant, and then the Chief Commissioners overruled the decision of the three Sub-Commissioners. That was a most monstrous state of things. Secondly, the Chief Secretary for Ireland bad not attempted to answer the demand of the hon. Member for Sligo as to why Mr. Gray was appointed. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had thought proper to rake up the poetry written by the Judicial Commissioner (Mr. O'Hagan) in the days of his youth. No doubt, if one could penetrate into the inner mind of the Judicial Commissioner, it would be found that his opinions remained the same to-day as in the days of his verses. But the right hon. Gentleman did not condescend to say one word as to why one man, whose whole career had been one of rack-renting, had been appointed a valuator in a case in which the rent was in dispute. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not replied sufficiently to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo with reference to the valuators. His hon. Friend complained that two items of information which could have been furnished, and which had been collected by the Commissioners—namely, the amounts of the valuations for the landlords, and those for the tenants, had

    1233
    been entirely withheld, and that the only information given was that the former rents had been reduced to such and such amounts. The right hon. Gentleman had replied that the valuators on behalf of the landlords and the tenants only gave what was more or less ex parte evidence, which was not such evidence as ought to appear in a formal Return presented to that House. No doubt, the evidence of those valuators was of the kind described; nevertheless, it was evidence which, if it had been laid before the House, would have enabled them to see whether, in their decisions, the Land Commissioners leaned towards the side of the landlords or the side of the tenants. His hon. Friend and himself would have been glad to know something on that point; but, as the Government would not lay the Return on the Table of the House, he felt justified in concluding that the reason why the desired information had been withheld was because the House would otherwise see that the Land Commissioners leaned towards the landlords' valuations and not towards the valuations of the tenants. There was another point on which no answer had come from the Treasury Bench. He supposed the Committee had heard so much of what was called the Healy Clause of the Irish Land Act, that he should be consulting the wish of the Committee by making his remarks upon that subject as brief as possible. Roughly speaking, he believed the Land Commissioners must be given credit for having cut down the rents that came before them to something a little above Griffith's valuation. Healy's Clause would exclude the improvements of the tenants from the consideration of the Court in fixing the value of the holding; but it would seem that the whole purpose of that clause had been nullified, and that the Commissioners had not reduced the rents to the extent which the improvements of the tenants would justify. Even making full allowance for the work actually got through by the Land Court, he was afraid it would remain a fact, borne out by the testimony of his hon. Friends around him, and that of the hon. Members for Ulster, that the progress made by the Court was very little indeed. But, while the Land Courts were progressing slowly with their work, he could inform the Committee that the
    1234
    landlords were by no means slow in extracting from the tenants those rents which, in the majority of cases, would probably have been reduced had they come before the Court by about 20 per cent. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said it was a scandal that the tenants should be compelled to pay rents which, if brought before the Court, would probably be reduced by the proportion named. However, he did not want to speak with any acrimony upon that subject; but he urged the Government to bear in mind the impressive words which his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford had just addressed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had made great sacrifices, both of his personal position in this Parliament and in respect of his Party, by passing the Irish Land Act of last year; and he had now made a greater sacrifice, in commencing what might end in a Constitutional struggle and a Ministerial crisis, by endeavouring to pass the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill. What was the reason for the introduction of that Bill, but to protect tenants from eviction, and for which the right hon. Gentleman had so strongly resisted the Amendments sought to be introduced in "another place?" The main reason was that the Land Act of 1881 was intended to confer certain great benefits and blessings on the tenants of Ireland, and that as long as the tenants were steeped in arrears those benefits could not be obtained; and, accordingly, another Act of Parliament was necessary in order that those benefits might be secured to them. But was it not inconsistent with the former action of the Prime Minister, with regard to this legislation, to allow the Land Act to be nullified by the slowness of the Land Commission? He thought the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the appeals which came from all parts of Ireland to accelerate the work of the Land Court by the appointment of more Sub-Commissioners, and thereby complete the work of rescuing the rack-rented tenants of Ireland from the rapacity of their landlords.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman had laid down a proposition in which Her Majesty's Government were very much disposed to agree; nevertheless, he laboured under what appeared to be a great misconception. He appeared to think that the Govern-

    1235
    ment were satisfied with the great acceleration which had taken place in the proceedings of the Land Commissioners. He (Mr. Gladstone) was willing to confess that they were gratified with that acceleration; but satisfied they were not. They were desirous of further acceleration in the proceedings of the Land Commissioners, and that was his general answer to the representations which had been made upon this subject by hon. Members opposite. He must point out that the erection of new Courts was a work always of great difficulty, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) appeared to him to deserve much honour for the manner in which he had accomplished that portion of his duty. He thought that in a very short space of time he had made a selection of Sub-Commissioners who, upon the whole, were of a character to justify the general remark that they were deserving of confidence. But he would remind the Committee that the number of persons qualified in all particulars to undertake the duties of Sub-Commissioners was, after all, limited. Hon. Gentlemen, he thought, had the strongest reason for urging that no time should be lost in accelerating the progress of these most important labours; but they must, perhaps, be content to abate something of their pretensions, owing to the limit which was, in this matter, necessarily imposed on the operations of the Government by the absolute duty of considering the qualifications of persons appointed to the office. He by no means said that the limit had been reached. It had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that it would be a main part of the duty of the Executive Government in Ireland to apply themselves to the consideration of what further measures could be adopted for considerably accelerating the progress of the labours of the Sub-Commissioners; and, upon that most important subject, it was not necessary for him to do more than repeat that statement in order to show that Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Executive Government were of one mind. No doubt, the charge for these Courts was enormous; but, in the first place, he was not content to regard the question involved as solely one of money; and, in the second place, if he did so regard it,
    1236
    he should recollect that whatever the charge might import, the charge for the Irish Constabulary was, at the present time, about 16 times as large; and that this, in a more satisfactory state of affairs in Ireland, ought to be considerably reduced. If he were asked how that more satisfactory state of things in Ireland might be expected to be brought about, he would refer to the particular provisions introduced this year for the purpose of rendering the operation of the law more effective. But he looked still more to the operation of the Land Act, which, impartially and judiciously administered, would, he hoped and believed, improve the relations between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, hon. Gentlemen behind him, and those who had spoken from various parts of the House, might be assured that there was really no question or contention upon this subject between themselves and Her Majesty's Government. Subject only to this—that Her Majesty's Government must not go blindly to work. They were earnestly desirous of accelerating progress in the Land Courts by the means he had indicated. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had inquired why Mr. Gray had been appointed chief official valuator in Ireland. He was in a position to give to that question the very simple answer that he had been appointed exclusively on account of what were believed to be his pre-eminent merits. It was true that Mr. Gray's associations happened to have been in many cases with Conservative estates. Mr. Gray had been employed in a very large number of cases connected with such estates, and, whatever his politics might be—of which he (Mr. Gladstone) knew nothing, having in view the abilities and experience of the man, and what they believed to be his impartiality—Her Majesty's Government did not consider the fact of his having been so employed was a disqualification, because they believed his valuation would be just and fair. In saying that, he believed he expressed the opinion not only of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, but of all the Members of the Government; and most certainly that was the opinion which he (Mr. Gladstone) himself had formed from all that he had learned of the proceedings of Mr. Gray and of the valuations at which he had arrived. He believed that the

    1237
    expectations entertained at the time of Ms appointment had been completely fulfilled., and that it was not possible to make, on the whole, a more satisfactory selection of a person to discharge the responsible duties of the office of chief valuator that had been made by his right hon. Friend. That was his answer with regard to Mr. Gray; and with reference to the main subject, he hoped he had made it clear to the Committee that the disposition of Her Majesty's Government was to use every possible means for accelerating the operations of the Land Court.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the first portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be read in Ireland with great satisfaction. It was a subject for congratulation to find the mind of the right hon. Gentleman so possessed with what Irish Members considered to be the common sense of increasing the power of the Land Court. On a former occasion, the Prime Minister had estimated the number of tenants in arrears in Ireland at 190,000; and it was important to bear the figures in mind, because even if the majority of those tenants were enabled, by the operation of the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, to go into the Land Court, the Committee would see that the work of the Commissioners would probably be quadrupled. That being so, he said nothing could be more important than, as soon as possible, to take steps to bring up the staff of the Land Court to an equality with the enormously increased demands that would be made upon it. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, with perfect propriety, the obligation under which the Government lay of selecting duly qualified persons to fill the office of Sub-Commissioner, and had spoken of the difficulty experienced in making selections of the kind. But he (Mr. Sexton) ventured, with all humility, whilst admitting that some difficulty undoubtedly existed in finding fit persons to discharge the office in question, to say that the Irish Bar was a large body, and that it contained gentlemen eminently qualified, from amongst whom a selection could be made without unnecessary delay. Moreover, Ireland was an agricultural country, and, therefore, abounded in persons who were, by their special knowledge, qualified for the position of Sub-Commissioner. It would be easy to
    1238
    increase indefinitely the number of qualified persons who could be drawn from that source. With reference to the appointment of Mr. Gray to the office of chief valuator to the Land Commissioners, he thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject called for a little comment. He was thankful that any reply at all had been given, because, on the last occasion when he brought forward the subject, no answer was given. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had appointed Mr. Gray because of his ability; but he (Mr. Sexton) would remind the Committee that ability was one thing and impartiality another; and, so far as the belief of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in the fitness of Mr. Gray for the office which he occupied was founded on the impartiality of Mr. Gray, he said that their belief was not founded on fact. Mr. Gray had formerly bought a townland, and having increased the rent of £300 by the gross amount of £200 a-year, sold it to another person, the transaction having produced a state of things which was one of the proximate causes of the introduction of the Land Act of 1881. He did not believe the decisions of such a man between Irish landlords and tenants could be just, and, whether they were just or not, they would never be believed to be just by the tenants in Ireland, and that in itself was a great evil.
    MR. HEALYsaid, the figures relating to the decisions of the Land Court in Ulster, as compared with those throughout the rest of Ireland, were very striking, and claimed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would devote to them the amount of attention which they deserved. It appeared that, whereas in Ulster the number of originating notices was 30,470, the number of decisions was 2,296; and that, whereas, for the rest of Ireland, the number of originating notices was 39,125, or nearly 9,000 more than in Ulster, the number of decisions was only 3,479. The disparity between the two sets of figures was immense. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would hereafter take care that while speedy justice was done to the Province of Ulster, it should also be done to the rest of Ireland. He did not know whether the Ulster Sub-

    1239
    Commissioners were better or more numerous than their comrades in the South, and he had no means of finding out, because that was one of the things with regard to which the Government would furnish no Returns; but, whatever might be the cause, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that in future the unfairness complained of would be put a stop to.
    MR. GIVANsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had been answered by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). One reason why the number of the decisions in Ulster was greater than for the rest of Ireland was because the Ulster farmers accepted the Land Act of 1881 from the first, and were ready to go into Court at the earliest moment. He pointed out that one of the chief causes of discontent all over Ulster and the rest of Ireland was the manner in which the official valuators discharged their duties under the directions of the Chief Commissioners on the hearing of appeals. It had been objected to by hon. Members opposite that the Sub-Commissioners did not take enough time to consider the cases that came before them. But he (Mr. Givan) himself had been present in those Courts, and was intimately conversant with the procedure of the Sub-Commissioners. They heard evidence on behalf of the landlord, and examined three or more witnesses on behalf of the tenant; they then went to the farm, and examined the land minutely before they came to their decision; and these decisions, he believed, were in 99 cases out of 100 sound. But what was the procedure of the Court of Appeal when any of these decisions came to he reviewed? They sent their official valuator, an unsworn and irresponsible man, however able and honest he might be, to view the land. Having done that, he returned, gave in his report, and upon it, as against the sworn testimony of several other valuators and persons examined by the Sub-Commissioners, the Judges of Appeal decided the case frequently against the tenant. He held in his hand a letter received that morning from a tenant whose rent was reduced from £240 7s. 8d. to £214. The Sub-Commissioners examined the man's farm, and found he had expended £750 in improvements, and, after a full and ex-
    1240
    haustive inquiry, they reduced the rent to the amount named. But, on appeal, the Commissioners brought the rent up again to £240, merely making a reduction of 7s. 8d. in the amount originally paid, and that upon the unverified report of the official valuator. The landlord was Mr. Shirley. He (Mr. Givan) thought that was not the way in which the appeals ought to be conducted; and he would only repeat that the present practice with regard to the official valuators was exceedingly unsatisfactory and irritating to the tenants who, having been dragged into the Court of Appeal, were obliged to pay all the costs incurred before the Sub-Commissioners, as well as those in the Court of Appeal, which together amounted to a large sum of money.
    SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, if he had understood the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) aright, he complained that he (Sir Hervey Bruce) had given no assistance to the Sub-Commissioners when they went over his estate. If the hon. Member had received that account from others, he could inform him that his informants had grossly misled him. The hon. Member said it was so stated in the judgment of Mr. Greer; but he cared not what was in the judgment of that gentleman. When he was in Ireland he not only sent persons with the Commissioners to assist them, but on three or four occasions he had gone with the Commissioners himself, and given them all the assistance he could. He had already, on a former occasion, explained to the hon. Gentleman in that House why he was not present when they were going over one part of the estate—the reason being that he considered his Parliamentary duties of more importance than his presence in Ireland at the time. But on the occasion referred to he had taken every precaution that the Commissioners should be attended on every farm by persons perfectly competent, even more so than he' was himself, to assist them in their examination. If Mr. Greer had stated that he did not assist the Commissioners in this way, he stated what was incorrect.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONasked whether the hon. Baronet had given any assistance to the valuator, either of himself or by his agent?
    SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he had been examined and cross-examined upon

    1241
    every case that came before the Commissioners. He was not examined when he was in London; but was perfectly prepared to be examined on any subject connected with his estates, and to give a flat and distinct contradiction to the reports that had been published in various Liberal periodicals concerning himself—a contradiction that would not depend alone on his own statement, but on documents which would conclusively establish his position. He should be happy to meet any learned counsel that the hon. Gentleman might send to cross-examine him, and, to facilitate this meeting, it was his intention to start for Ireland to-morrow evening.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had received a strong complaint with reference to the appointment of Mr. Russell as valuator in the county of Mayo. He held in his hand some of Mr. Russell's valuations, to which he should presently have to ask the attention of the Committee. But, in the meantime, he had received a letter which he felt bound to refer to. His correspondent asked him to give attention to the antecedents of Mr. Russell, valuator to the Commissioners. It appeared from the letter that Mr. Russell at one time bought a small property, the tenants of which had not paid their rents. The day after he took possession he gave notice to quit to every one of these people. On the hearing of the case, Mr. O'Hagan expressed his surprise, and said he would adjourn it till the next day, even remarking to Mr. Russell's attorney that he hoped everything would be right in the morning. In one sense, however, everything was right, for each one of the tenants was evicted. He would now compare some of Mr. Russell's valuations with Griffith's valuation, and the judicial rent fixed. In one case—a farm of eight acres—Original rent, £7 4s. 10 d.; judicial rent, £3 10 s.; valuation, £4. The next case was a farm with Poor Law valuation, £7; judicial rent, £5 10 s.; valuation by Mr. Russell, £8. In the next case the judicial rent was £8 12 s.; Mr. Russell's valuation, £11 5s. Finally, in another case the farm of John Healy was valued by him at £8 10 s.; whereas Griffith's valuation was £5 10 s. What sort of justice could there be in that sort of valuation; or how could anyone believe that Griffith's valuation was under the market value of the holdings? In
    1242
    his valuations Mr. Russell seemed to be indifferent to the improvements of the tenants; and, as a matter of fact, in cases of appeal the decision was always against the tenant. In a case where the estate belonged to a notoriously rack-renting landlord in the West of Ireland, who went there originally as a hired process-server, there was one farm where the old rent was £13 8s.; the judicial rent, £10; Mr. Russell's valuation, £13, at which the rent was fixed on appeal. There was another case—the farm of Anthony Sullivan—judicial rent, £7 10 s.; Mr. Russell's valuation, £12 15 s. He would only read one more case; but he did not know exactly how the figures stood. In the case of Anthony M'Guire his valuation was £7; while Mr. Russell's valuation was £20 10 s. There was another case, in which a tenant hired eight acres at a value of £4 5s.; the Court valuation being £5—he could not say whether that was Mr. Russell's valuation. These were all matters of fact on record. Taking Mr. Russell's action with his antecedents, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would ask the Committee what sort of care could possibly have been exercised by the Government in selecting that gentleman for the duty of making valuations? What had the poor people, whose interests were affected, to look to in cases where Mr. Russell was sent in as a valuator, with the result of raising the rent very considerably on appeal? It was necessary, of course, to appoint some such gentleman; but he trusted in future the Government would exercise great care in preventing persons of that precise stamp being appointed.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,238, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum. necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he need scarcely remind the Government of the importance and complexity of matters arising under this Vote. It included the whole of the recently re-organized Magisterial Service of Ireland, the special superintendent officials, and the salary of that emi-

    1243
    nent administrator, Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and when he said that he thought he rather foreshadowed the possibility of some considerable discussion on the Vote. He simply wished to ask if it would not be more convenient to take the Committee on the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill that night, and resume the consideration of the remaining Irish Votes to-morrow? He raised the question just now simply for the sake of ascertaining the views of the Government.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that as he saw several hon. Members present who were interested in the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill, he should be inclined to accede to the hon. Member's request. If he was to understand from the silence of hon. Members opposite that they thought it probable that they would be likely to dispose of the Committee stage of that Bill that night, he should be inclined to stop Supply.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was not aware of any reason why the Committee on the Bill should not conclude that night.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    House resumed.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY BILL.— [BILL 264.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th August."]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Revised scale of pay for certain officers).
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he wished to move the Amendment that stood in his name, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "three." The Amendment was a very reasonable one, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could object to it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out "six," and insert"three."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the object of making the period a comparatively short one was to show that the scale of pay was to be fixed once for all. The object would be obtained more completely by accepting the shorter date, therefore he should be glad to agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that he desired, in the same line of the same page, after the word "sanction," to insert the words "of Parliament, and." The clause, as it at present stood, was to enable the Commissioners of the Treasury to sanction the Lord Lieutenant to carry out the powers; and his (Mr. Sexton's) desire was that the sanction of Parliament, as well as that of the Commissioners of the Treasury, should be necessary. He desired to take away from the Lord Lieutenant the unrestricted power which he would have under the present scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given certain figures; but those figures, and the speech in which they had been given, did not bind the Lord Lieutenant, and could not be held to be binding on the Irish Executive. They might believe as much as they liked that the figures would bind the Lord Lieutenant; but they could not be sure of it. He wanted to know what was the meaning of the new departure taken in the Bill with regard to the fixing of salaries? When he went back to the year 1864, when the last Bill for fixing the salaries of the Constabulary in Ireland was passed, he found that when the Government desired to make an increase in the pay, they set out section after section, and mentioned each officer in each grade, setting a limit, beyond which the Lord Lieutenant should not go; and that, he (Mr. Sexton) took the liberty of saying, was a proper statutory method of proceeding. It was for that House to oversee that expenditure, and take care that no officer of the Executive, however exalted he might be, had power to deal with these matters as he liked. The Government should say, for instance, how much the maximum salary of a first class County Inspector should be, and how much the salary of a Sub-Inspector. He proposed his Amend-

    1245
    ment, with some confidence that it would be accepted by the Government.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lina 8, after "sanction," insert "of Parliament, and."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was no more certain of the object of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sexton) than he was of the process by which he wished to attain that object. Last time they discussed the subject on going into Committee, the hon. Member had said that he should be glad to see the scale of pay fixed in the Bill, and, in order to meet the hon. Member, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had prepared a clause and Schedule with all the rates of pay; but he had fancied that by his (Mr. Trevelyan's) allowing the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to be put and carried, that he (Mr. Sexton) intended to acquiesce in the terms on which the Government proposed to fix the pay for the Constabulary. He did not think the present Amendment would meet the purpose. If the Amendment were agreed to, after the Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners of the Treasury had fixed the pay of the police, they would have to take Parliament into their councils, and an Act would have to be passed for the purpose of sanctioning the salaries decided upon. That, of course, would have been almost impossible if they had retained the words "six months" in the Bill, and utterly impossible if they left in it the words "three months."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, his object was only to enable the right hon. Gentleman to do what he seemed disposed to do—namely, to put the rates in the Bill.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not sure that it was not too late to do that; but, at any rate, it might be possible to put some words in the Schedule, if the Committee should determine upon having the scale fixed. Personally, he should deprecate it, because there was always some chance of a mistake being made, especially at this distance from the Central Constabulary Office. He wished the Committee would allow him to read to them the Schedule, and to give them a positive assurance that the rate of pay therein stated would be eventually ordained by the Lord Lieutenant, because
    1246
    it was the rate sanctioned by the Treasury. If the hon. Member would be satisfied with that assurance, it might be unnecessary to proceed further in this respect. A part of the clause might be left out and a Schedule inserted, and he would propose to leave out from line 10 to the end of line 12, and to say, "the rates specified in the Schedule of this Act." If hon. Members were seriously intent on that form of proceeding, he should be glad to make that alteration, and in that case he would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: Certainly; on that understanding, I will be glad to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 11, to leave out "such rates as the Lord Lieutenant," in order to insert the words "rates not exceeding those specified in the Schedule of this Act."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished the rate of pay to take effect from the passing of the Act, therefore he proposed to leave out from "thirtieth," in line 14, to "eighty-two," in line 15, inclusive, and to insert "passing of this Act." He was not aware that the usual rule in such cases had been adopted. The Government had dealt with past services of constables and sub-constables by means of a special gratuity. If they thought that the officers deserved payment for past services, and gave them a special grant, why should they not deal with them in the same way as they had dealt with the men? Why should this Bill come into operation on the 30th June?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, leave out from "thirtieth," to "eighty-two," in line 15, inclusive, and insert "passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would read the Schedule containing the rates of pay. It was as follows;—

    1247
    "For county inspector £350 per annum on appointment to that rank, increasing by £20 per annum to £450. For sub-inspectors: For sub-inspectors of the 3rd class, £125 per annum; for sub-inspectors of the 2nd class, £165 per annum during the first five years of service in that class; £180 per annum during the remaining service in that class. For sub-inspectors of the 1st class, £225 per annum during the first three years of service in that class; £250 per annum during the subsequent three years of service in that class; £275 per annum during the subsequent six years of service in that class; and £300 per annum during the remaining years of service in that class."
    As to the proposition that the pay should begin on the 30th of June of this year, it was convenient that it should begin on quarter day; and the Government, in the date they had fixed, had only followed the precedent of the last revision of salaries on the 17th of August 1874. The scale at that time came in operation on the 1st July previous. The increase had practically been promised in the House of Commons to the officers for a month past; and the allowances both to the men and officers, to the best of his belief, came into operation on a date so far back that the gratuity which the men would receive to-morrow would be given to them on a principle which would go back three years. The hon. Member had no objection to retrospective action, but simply said they ought to pay for the past by gratuity. At this time of the Session it would be inconvenient to proceed in that way.
    MR. SEXTON: I said if you pay the officers for the past, you should do it by way of gratuity.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government did wish to pay them for the past, on account of their great labours and the sacrifices they had made, just as they wished to pay the men, without taking into consideration the proportion received by the different classes; and for that reason they thought it convenient to give back pay from the 30th June.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There are some words here that ought not to be left in, therefore it would be well that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    MR. HEALYsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) proposed to press the Amendment. The Bill would give pay back from the 30th June; but he would point out that on that date this Bill was not so much as thought about. They might as well go back to the 30th June, 1870, as to the 30th June, 1882, because
    1248
    they had as much notion on the former date of passing a measure of this kind as they had on the latter. Hon. Members might think this a small matter on the part of his hon. Friend to object to the payment being made in the manner proposed by the Government; but, after all, a principle was involved, and the question naturally arose, why were they so nice in dealing with the officers when they could not deal in a liberal spirit with the men? Coercion Acts might be retrospective; but this was not a Coercion Act—it was a beneficent measure. No doubt, some pressure had been put upon the right hon. Gentleman by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). That was the genesis of the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was making the matter still worse by adhering to that date, the 30th June. The right hon. Gentleman completely exposed the harsh character of the treatment of the men on the one hand, compared with the kid-gloved handling of the officers on the other.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, as proposed, will not read. The words, "with such sanction as aforesaid, may think fit," would be struck out. If that alteration is not made, it will have to be amended on Report.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Pensions and allowances, 37 & 38 Vict. c. 80).
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, to leave out the word "five" in line 25, and insert "seven." The sub-section would then read—
    "The gratuity referred to in sub-section one of the said section may be granted to any county inspector or sub-inspector whose service has exceeded seven years, and has been less than ten years."
    The reason why he proposed the Amendment was that five years was really too short a term for any County Inspector or Sub-Inspector to serve before he was entitled to the gratuity. Seven years was the very least term they could be expected to serve before the gratuity might be granted to them. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would say he had copied the Act of 1874; but still, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) hoped the Go-

    1249
    vernment would see their way to accept his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "five," and insert "seven."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the object of this gratuity was one common enough in all branches of the Public Service—namely, to meet the case of a person who had done respectable service, and who had retired on account of ill-health, before he had come to that period of service at which he could obtain a pension. This provision was inserted in the clause on account of the change in the salary of the future officers of the Force that was made in the next sub-section. Hitherto, Constabulary officers had began, in respect of pension, after 15 years' service; but it was proposed they should begin after 10 years' service. Consequently, the gratuity was given at the end of 10 years' service, instead of 15 years. There was always a certain objection to amending a clause which was merely a re-assertion of an admitted principle in the management of a Force. In the Civil Service a gratuity could only be granted on a medical certificate; and in this case it would not be granted, as he knew full well, having had to do with gratuities of this description, if the ill-health for which the man retired from the Force had been contracted owing to some previous illness which he had concealed when he entered the Force, or if it was caused by circumstances unconnected with the Force. In the Civil Service Act, 1859, there was actually no minimum of limit to these gratuities; and, therefore, to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be to put the Constabulary of Ireland in a decidedly disadvantageous position, as compared with other branches of the Civil Service.
    MR. SEXTONasked, what would be the maximum amount of gratuity in the case of a County Inspector, and also of a Sub-Inspector? Of course, it would to some extent meet the objection to the granting of a gratuity at the end of a short period of service, if the amount was moderate. He would like to know whether it was by this Bill, or by previous legislation, that the period had been lowered from 15 to 10 years?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the amount of gratuity given would be one month's salary for every year's service; so that if a man had served for six years he would get six months' salary, according to the scale of pay for the time being. On the question of pension, he might make his remarks now. The pension which was laid down in the Sub-section (b) was the well-known pension of the Civil Service Act of 1859, which the Government proposed to adopt for the Constabulary officers, with all the reservations and conditions which were always made when a new scale of pension was adopted. They had, at the same time, not thought fit to adopt the regulations which were adopted in the case of the Forces Act, 1874, by which a certain number of the Forces were put in a very much too good a position.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, his question was, whether the proposal to make an officer entitled to pension at the end of 10 years was new?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was new under this Bill. So far, the officers would be benefited; but no officer would retire between 10 and 15 years' service, except he was actually broken down. Generally speaking, the new scale would not operate until an officer had served 36 years, and then it would be slightly better.
    MR. HEALYasked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by "respectable service?" The clause provided—
    "The gratuity referred to in Sub-section 1 of the said section, may he granted to any county inspector or sub-inspector whose service has exceeded five years, and has been less than ten years;"
    and then he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say this gratuity was to be given for what he called "respectable service." Was respectable service to be measured by the number of people a constable had caused to be sent into gaol under the Coercion Act?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, by the word "respectable," he meant what was meant in all Services under the Crown—namely that a man should have done that which was considered by the proper authorities to be his duty in the position he occupied.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he took an interest in this matter, because he found that there was a Bill before the House dealing with another class of public ser-

    1251
    vants. That Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone), and it went upon entirely different principles. He presumed that the public servants dealt with by the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds were as much entitled, in their own sphere, to gratuities and pensions, as the rough-riders of the Irish Constabulary; and he wished to know on what principle these gratuities were to be given, and why it was that, in dealing with other Services, the Government did not make pension compulsory? Under this Bill, the men would have the option given to them of retiring either upon the old or the new scale. Under the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds, retirement was to take place upon the old scale of payment. Why was it that these special privileges were only to be held out to the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he spoke without book. He should say that among the 80,000 persons who, in one capacity or another, were employed under the Admiralty, there was probably not one who did not, in one way or other, enjoy the prospect of gratuity. As he had said before, in case of retirement, under this Bill, a man would get six months' pay after having served six years; and this was the actual gratuity allowed by the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which regulated the entire Civil Service of the country. With regard to pensions, when a new scale of pay was laid down, as in the present case, it had sometimes been the case, and certainly was in a very marked way in the Bill of 1874, with reference to the men retired before the year 1866, to allow them to keep the old reckoning of the pension, and the new scale of pay, and in that way to place them in an extraordinary position; and that was the cause of a great deal of the discontent which existed in the Irish Constabulary, because they saw men who were treated in an exceptional way, and were treated as these officers would be if they were allowed to take this new scale of 4/6 0/0, or their old scale of pension with the new pay now being laid down. It was not proposed to treat them in that way. Under the Bill they were obliged to take the new scale of pension and the new scale of pay, which did not put them in a more advantageous position
    1252
    than at present, or they were obliged to take the old scale of pension and the old scale of pay. It might be fairly said that the officers of the Constabulary did not gain anything perceptibly by the pension provided by this Bill. He thought it would be found that a great many would prefer to retire on their old pensions.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was anxious to know why the Government should wish to place the Royal Irish Constabulary on a higher level as regarded pay and pensions than the other classes of the civil servants? Did the Government favour a particular class of Her Majesty's servants above others? If not, why did the Committee find this principle of gratuity introduced in this perfectly novel Bill brought in last week, whereas, in the Bill introduced at the commencement of the Session by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone), dealing with another class of public servants, there was no mention of gratuities? He objected to gratuities; but if the principle was to be adopted, it ought certainly to be applied uniformly.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the principle of gratuity was introduced in the Act of 1866. It was continued in the Act of 1874; and it had been in operation ever since, and was so at that moment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he found that it was proposed to include in the pension given to the Constabulary officers allowances for their servants. While he was quite willing to agree to the principle that what these gentlemen had received should include what might be fairly considered house-rent, and so on, he thought allowances ought not to be made for servants. During their term of office, these officers had a horse, and they received an allowance for a groom; but, surely, when they left the Constabulary they should not receive an allowance for a servant they no longer required. It was said, with what truth he could not say, that Mr. Clifford Lloyd kept a man to roll his cigarettes. Surely, the Government did not wish to provide a pension for this cigaretteer! On every ground an allowance for servants was too much to ask. He was ready to agree to the principle that "house-rent and lodging" should be included; but he thought the

    1253
    words "and servant" should certainly be omitted. He was very curious to know what defence could be made for the inclusion, of servants. He would propose to omit the words "and servant."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "and servant."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'and servant' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, in the Civil Service, where a man got his salary and absolutely nothing besides, his pension was calculated on salary alone. The general object of this Bill was to increase the pay of the Constabulary, and to regulate their pensions without seriously increasing them. To enable the officers of the future to have as good pensions as the officers of the present, it was necessary to regulate their pensions upon their pay and allowances, or their pay and a portion of their allowances. If so many quota parts of the pay and the whole of the allowances were granted, the pensions would have been larger than it was thought the country was bound to give. If pay alone had been taken into account, the pensions would have been decidedly smaller than they were at present, and, therefore, he presumed, smaller than the country should give. There was no intension to put the retired officer of Constabulary of the future in a worse position than the retired officer of the present time. He held that a very good scale of pension was found by taking the pay and certain allowances, those allowances being the fixed allowances for lodging, house, and servant. The allowances in the Bill were chosen for the purpose of making the pension of the officer of the future practically the same as the officer of the past.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would like to know how the pay of a servant was arrived at? Was it provided, under the Constabulary Rules and Regulations, that a Sub-Inspector and a County Inspector should have a servant?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, every officer in the Constabulary had a servant, the allowance being £45.
    MR. CALLANasked whether, in addition to the allowance of £45 a-year for a servant, there was not also given to a Sub-Inspector and County Inspector the service of a sub-constable?
    MR. HEALYsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment; but he would suggest, that as there were so many allowances—namely, one for servant, one for horses, one for forage, and so forth—it would be better to lump them together, and give the officers their salaries as such.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had asked his question in the interest of the Force, itself. In addition to the servant, the officers took an orderly, who had to do the most servile work.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERasked, whether officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary had the same privilege as officers in the Army, of having a man from the ranks appropriated as their personal servant? If that were so, he objected to the system very much, because it was simply increasing the expenses of the country for the benefit of individuals. He was appalled at the charges now being put on the country for the extension and perpetuation of this military force in Ireland, when it was patent to most people that a civil force was required in the place of it. He wished to know, whether, in addition to the amount allowed for servants, the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary were allowed to appropriate a constable for their own personal service?
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the young men employed in the manner indicated by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) were, as a matter of fact, taken out of the Constabulary Force and made use of as stable-boys—they were not even allowed to wear the uniform more than once a-month. He knew that this was the cause of considerable dissatisfaction amongst the men, who said they entered the Service to be policemen, and not servants and supernumeraries. In this way the ranks were deprived of the services of some of the best men. The County Inspectors and other officers, whenever they noticed a smart man in the Service, asked him to act as their orderly, saying, "You won't have the same chance of promotion, but you will have an easy life."
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) that the question before the Committee was simply whether the amount of allowance to officers for servants should form part of the pension.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the Proviso at the end of this clause seemed to be very doubtful in its meaning, and he took that opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to the fact, in order that he might furnish the Committee with some explanation. The provision was to the effect that no County Inspector and no Sub-Inspector respectively appointed before the passing of the Act, should be qualified to receive pensions of greater amount than either might be granted to them respectively under the scale prescribed by the Act, or than it would have been lawful to grant them if the Act had not been passed. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the effect of this would be to take away entirely from a certain class of officers, who had been in the Service 30 or 40 years, the benefit of an Act which was passed in order to give them full retiring pensions? The first part of the clause limited the pensions to officers who had served 40 years to two-thirds of their annual salary. He believed the Proviso originally was intended to provide that the officers should be entitled to the same pensions after the passing of this Act as they would in some cases have been entitled to before; but, as a matter of fact, there were two alternatives given in the Proviso as it was now worded, and an officer who came within either one of them was caught by it. The particular words of the Proviso which he had before him were—
    "Shall be qualified to receive pensions of greater amount than either may he granted to them respectively under the scale prescribed by this Act only," &c.
    In his opinion, the effect of this would be to take away from the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary the benefit of the Act to which he had referred.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the officers of the Constabulary had the advantage under this Bill either of the scale of pensions under Sub-section (b) with the new salary, or they had the benefit of the clause with the old salary. But they were not to have the old scale of pensions with the new salary, which would give them considerably larger pensions than they would enjoy under either of the two systems which were open to them.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the point raised by the Proviso was a difficult one, and with
    1256
    regard to its effects, a considerable number of competent persons were in favour of the view he had expressed. He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to make a mistake in this matter, and he could assure him that there were at least 100 officers of the Constabulary who, if the clause were passed in its present form, would be excluded from the old pensions they were now entitled to. The right hon. Gentleman, he was satisfied, desired only that the fullest justice should be done to the officers of the Force; and on that ground he appealed to him closely to study the effect of the Proviso before it was passed. It stated that the officers were not to receive anything greater than one of two amounts, and that wording, he submitted, could only bear the interpretation he had placed upon it.
    MR. TREVELYANpointed out that if the Act were not passed, the officers would get a pension of a certain amount. That they might still have. But if they chose to take advantage of the new scale, then they would get another pension; but what they could not get was a pension compounded of the new scale and the old pension.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERhoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer his question with reference to the employment of constables as officers' servants, and not shelter himself behind the plea of irrelevancy. If the question were not answered, then he should feel it his duty to raise the whole question at a future stage of the Bill.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he believed it was a fact that officers of the Constabulary did have the service of orderlies, chosen from amongst the men.
    MR. CALLANpointed out that the clause contained the words "and servant." The cost of a servant was allowed for in the salary.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it had been ruled out of Order to discuss the question of officers' servants on this clause. The question as to the propriety of the employment of the men as orderlies had nothing whatever to do with the clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Retirement of officers).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had a considerable objection to urge to the provisions contained in this clause, which enacted that on the 1st day of October, 1882, every Assistant Inspector General and County Inspector and Sub-Inspector should cease to be a member of the Force if he had on that day attained the age afterwards defined in the Bill as the specified age for retirement, and should be qualified to receive the maximum pension of the rank and class in which he was then serving, notwithstanding that he might not then have served the full number of years which qualified him to receive it. The next paragraph of the clause specified the age of retirement as 65 years in the case of an Assistant Inspector General and County Inspector, and 60 years in the case of a Sub-Inspector. He thought there was no sufficient reason for compelling the officers of the Irish Constabulary to retire at the ages specified. He knew a number of officers who had passed those ages, and who were perfectly well able to serve the country for years to come. There had been one of them in the Lobby that evening, as hale and active a man as many younger men in that House. Why should that officer be compulsorily retired at 60 years of age? Surely it would not be wise to part with the services which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was able to render to the country, because he was verging upon the age of 60. There were many hon. and gallant Members of the House who, notwithstanding their years, probably believed themselves still able to command the Channel Fleet or fight Arabi Bey. He did not see why they should retire men at 60, many of whom were in the prime of life. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in the prime of life. Why should he be retired from the service of the country in a few years because he would then have attained the age of 60? If there was no reason for retiring the right hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he had alluded, there was no reason for retiring the Sub-Inspectors of Constabulary at an age when they were still able usefully to serve the country. Again, there was no reason why these men should be imposed upon the country as pensioners in the prime of life, when they were still capable of performing their duties. He begged, therefore, to move the
    1258
    omission of the paragraph contained between lines 21 and 23 inclusive.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment could not now be put. No Amendment having been moved, he had put the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. TREVELTANsaid, he would point out that the principle of retiring officers at a certain age was established in all the Services of the State, although there might be some doubt existing as to the age at which they ought to be retired. The principle was acted upon in the Army and Navy, where the duties were analogous to those of the Constabulary, which, he believed, it would not be denied were so far of a military nature that they required for their performance robust and energetic men, as well as men of intellectual and moral qualities. It was therefore deemed essential to have a clause in the Bill that fixed the age of retirement, which, in the case of an Assistant Inspector General or County Inspector, was 65 years, and in the case of a Sub-Inspector 60 years. But it did not follow that the services of these men would be lost to the country at the ages specified, as it sometimes happened that a man at 60 or 65 years of age had still got some years of very good work in him; and the Government retained the liberty to keep anyone they chose out of the operation of the rule, and the consequence was that when it was found that men were fit for further employment, they were always continued in the Service. It was, however, necessary to have some rule with reference to the age at which persons in case of need could be retired.
    MR. DALYsaid, the rule in question constituted a great hardship on many deserving men, notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He regarded it as shabby treatment on the part of the Government to compel the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to retire at the ages specified, when, as a rule, they were not physically impaired or disqualified for their work.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he should vote against the clause unless there was some promise made or intimation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would fix the age for the retirement of Assistant Inspectors General and County Inspectors at 70 years, and that for the retirement

    1259
    of Sub-Inspectors at 65 years. Taking up Dod's Parliamentary Companion, he thought it would be a great hardship if the Members of that House were obliged to retire who had reached the age of 60. It would be undoubtedly a hardship if the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees were compelled to retire at his present age; and he was bound to say that at the age of 63 the right hon. Gentleman was just as active as any Sub-Inspector who would be required to retire at 60 under this clause of the Bill. He contended that the retiring age of Sub-Inspectors should he fixed at 65, instead of 60 years; and he certainly felt inclined to divide against the clause if that limit were not adopted by Her Majesty's Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 5 (An additional county inspector may be appointed).
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he objected to the clause, which empowered the Lord Lieutenant to add one County Inspector to the number of County Inspectors appointed under the Acts in force at the time of the passing of this Act. The Bill professed to be for the purpose of regulating the pay of certain officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, yet it went on to provide for the appointment, or to allow of the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant, of new officers. There were already 35 County Inspectors, including the official Inspector for the town of Belfast, and as there were only 32 counties in Ireland, the number of Inspectors was three in excess of the number of counties. That was a sufficiently large number of Inspectors for all purposes, and he could not see that there was any necessity to make a single addition to it. Besides this, he was disinclined to allow the Viceroy to have any arbitrary power whatever. He admitted that, in the present instance, no great evil could come from it; even the most arbitrary Viceroy could not do much harm by adding one Sub-Inspector to the number already existing; but he saw no use in giving him this power, which appeared to him entirely inappropriate to this scheme of legislation. He therefore moved that the clause be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, "To leave out Clause 5."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
    MR. TREVELTANexplained, that the Lord Lieutenant would only exercise
    1260
    the power of appointing a new County Inspector when it became necessary to fill up a vacancy which might be caused by the promotion of one of the County Inspectors to the position of Inspector at Dublin Castle. If that explanation satisfied the hon. Member for Longford, he (Mr. Trevelyan) trusted he would withdraw his opposition to the clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
    MR. LEWIS,in rising to move the following Clause:—
    (Calculation of pensions of persons who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874.)
    "All persons who, previous to the coming into operation of 'The Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874,' retired from service in the Royal Irish Constabulary are hereby declared to be entitled to have the superannuations or pensions granted to them respectively under the provisions of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the tenth and eleventh years of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to regulate the superannuation allowances of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police,' calculated upon the scale or rate of pay of which they were respectively in receipt at the respective dates of their retirement,"
    said, it was rendered necessary in consequence of the questions which had arisen as to the interpretation of the clause relating to pensions in the Act of 1874, with regard to persons who joined the Force before 1866. This question of interpretation had been raised several times during the last Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the late Government (Sir Stafford Northcote) undertook, on one occasion, to take the opinion of the English Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject. The result of this reference, which was afterwards communicated to the House, was that the Law Officers of the Crown advised that the Government had power to award pensions on the scale provided by the Act of 1874, but that they were not legally bound to do so. A constable who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874 was awarded a pension calculated on the salary payable between the years 1847 and 1866, although he might have continued to serve until 1874; in other words, his pension was not calculated upon what he was receiving at the time of retirement, but upon what he had

    1261
    received some years anteriorly, whereas a constable who retired after a certain day in 1874 received a pension of larger amount, although he had not served for so many years. Thus it sometimes happened that persons received pensions 100 per cent greater than those received by others of the same rank and longer service. Again, a constable who entered the Force after 1866 had 2½ per cent deducted from his pay, so that the men were worse off in two respects. He believed he had put the case of the men correctly before the Committee as it was affected by the Acts of Parliament to which he had referred, because he found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated the matter in the same way in a letter which he sent to the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon); and, therefore, he took the present opportunity for moving the second reading of a new clause, which would rectify the inequalities now existing.
    Clause (Calculation of pensions of persons who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874), brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government were not in a position to admit the clause into the Bill. In the first place, it dealt with the position of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whereas the Bill was for the purpose of regulating the pay of the officers of that Force. That might not be a very great objection to hon. Members who took a strong interest in the Bill. But he said that if the Government had proposed to deal with the officers, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) proposed to deal with the men, there would have been an outcry that would certainly have wrecked the Bill. He did not propose to go into the question from a legal point of view—first, because he did not feel competent to do so; and next, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the opinion of the Law Officers upon the meaning of the Act of 1874, that opinion being that it would have been legal for the Government to pay the sums in question had they been pleased to do so, but that the Act of 1874 did not render this obligatory.
    1262
    Under those circumstances, he thought the Government were entitled to regard the question from an administrative point of view. Looking at it in this light, the question stood thus. The men appointed before 1847 received a very low scale of pay as compared with that which the men at present enjoyed; but with this low scale of pay, they were entitled to pensions on a much higher scale—that was to say, after 20 years' service they obtained a pension equal in amount to their pay. But in 1847, and afterwards in 1866, the scale of pay was very much raised; and the question presented itself as to whether the men were entitled to receive, with a higher rate of pay, pensions upon the same principle as had been in operation when the salaries were so much lower. It was obvious that that would be a very great burden indeed on the public; and such a change was not the intention of the Legislature at any time, because the 7th section of the Act of 1866 said that—
    "Whereas it is expedient that the present members of the Constabulary force should continue to be entitled to receive retiring allowances calculated on the rates of pay existing before the passing of this Act."
    It was quite true that the persons who retired between 1866 and 1874 did enjoy exceptional advantages—advantages so exceptional that the contrast between those and the men who were now beginning to retire was a part, and a very serious part, of the cause of the feeling which now existed in the Force. But it was very hard on the Government, if a certain number of persons enjoying very special advantages made everyone who came after them discontented, and that hon. Gentlemen in this House should also urge the case of men who came before the recently-appointed men and had retired long ago on pensions. The men referred to did not enter the Service under the condition of getting this pension. They entered under conditions that they thought good enough at the time, and he did not think it would be to the public advantage to go back and grant to the men the new scale of pension, adding to it all the arrears of pension that would accrue to them.
    Question put, and negatived.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1880–81.—COMMITTEE.
  MATTER considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Resolved, "Whereas it appears from the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st March 1881, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the sums expended for certain Navy Services exceeded the Grants for those Services, and that the deficits on such Grants amounted together to £87,533 19 s. 8d. as shown in column (a) of the Schedule hereto appended;

  (b.) That the sums received in respect of Appropriations in Aid of the Grants for certain Services fell short of the sums estimated, and that such deficiencies amounted together to £14,891 13 s. 1d. as shown in column (b) of the said appended Schedule;

  SCHEDULE.

  No.

  Navy Services, 1880–81, Vote.

  (a) Deficits on Votes.

  (b) Deficiencies of Appropriations in Aid.

  (c) Excess of Appropriations in Aid.

  (d) Surpluses on Vote.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, &c. to Seamen and Marines

  819

  4

  2

  66,933

  10

  5

  2

  Victuals and Clothing for ditto

  2,325

  17

  4

  63,564

  8

  2

  3

  Admiralty Office

  5,078

  16

  10

  4

  Coast Guard Service and Naval Reserve

  935

  18

  5

  5

  Scientific Branch

  6,848

  2

  9

  6

  Dockyards and Naval Yards, &c.

  5,768

  5

  6

  7

  Victualling Yards, &c.

  2,107

  14

  4

  8

  Medical Establishments, &c.

  871

  9

  7

  9

  Marine Divisions

  1,024

  4

  0

  10

  Sec. 1

  Naval Stores

  49,970

  3

  4

  17,603

  7

  10

  Sec. 2

  Machinery, Ships built by Contracts, &c.

  78,917

  4

  11

  11

  New Works, Buildings, and Repairs

  29,064

  6

  6

  12

  Medicines and Medical Stores

  2,047

  17

  8

  11,260

  3

  1

  13

  Martial Law, &c.

  1,228

  11

  3

  14

  Miscellaneous Services

  7,682

  10

  7

  15

  Half Pay, &c.

  2,658

  10

  8

  16

  Sec. 1

  Military Pensions and Allowances

  9,681

  13

  3

  Sec. 2

  Civil Pensions and Allowances

  6,156

  14

  4

  17

  Army Department—Conveyance of Troops

  7,095

  7

  9

  9,698

  13

  11

  Amounts written off as irrecoverable

  4,974

  13

  7

  87,533

  19

  8

  14,891

  13

  1

  17,603

  7

  10

  274,288

  9

  7

  84,822

  4

  11

  £102,426 12 9

  £102,426

  12

  9

  Total Surpluses on Votes

  274,288

  9

  7

  Less amount applied to make good deficiencies

  84,822

  4

  11

  Net surplus to be surrendered

  £189,466

  4

  8

  (c.) That the sums received in respect of Appropriations in Aid of the Grant for Naval Stores exceeded the amounts estimated by the total sum of £17,603 7s. 10 d. as shown in column (c) of the said appended Schedule;
  (d.) That surpluses arose on the Grants for certain Services, and that such surpluses amounted together to £274,288 9s. 7d. as shown in column (d) of the said appended Schedule.
  2. And whereas, in order to provide for the first two above-mentioned sums (a) and (b), amounting together to £102,426 12 s. 9d. the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of the third above-mentioned sum (c) of £17,603 7s. 10 d. and of £84,822 4s. 11 d. out of the last above-mentioned sum (d).
  3. That the said application of such sums be sanctioned.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that lie was glad to be able to congratulate his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) upon the great improvement, both in form and substance, of these Resolutions, an improvement which could not but be very satisfactory to all who had to consider these matters. The Committee could now see at a glance the several amounts of deficits on Votes; of Deficiences of Appropriations in Aid; of Excesses of Appropriations in Aid; of the Surpluses on Votes; and also the amount applied from the Excesses and Surpluses to make good the Deficiences. Not only was the form improved, but the improvement in substance was really very material. Up to that time, no Resolution had been taken to sanction expenditure for certain Navy services un-provided for, and temporarily defrayed out of the sum realized in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid. Such a Resolution had been regularly passed for some years with respect to the Army; but for some reason, which was not explained to the Public Accounts Committee, a like course had not been pursued with respect to the Navy. That irregularity was now put an end to, and the practice was made uniform for both these large spending Departments.

  SCHEDULE.

  No.

  Army Services, 1880–81, Vote.

  (a) Deposits on Votes.

  (b) Deficiencies of Appropriations in Aid.

  (c) Excesses of Appropriations in Aid.

  (d) Surpluses on Votes.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  General Staff and Regimental Pay

  22,561

  13

  9

  204,925

  2

  8

  (£61 disallowed)

  2

  Divine Service

  173

  15

  8

  3

  Administration of Military Law

  1,548

  18

  10

  4

  Medical Establishment, &c.

  24,224

  12

  2

  5

  Militia Pay and Allowances

  24,521

  1

  8

  46,192

  17

  3

  6

  Yeomanry Cavalry

  7,369

  14

  0

  7

  Volunteer Corps

  245

  10

  1

  8

  Army Reserve Corps

  12,026

  6

  5

  9

  Commissariat, &c. Establishments

  1,879

  18

  10

  12

  3

  6

  10

  Provisions, Forage, Fuel, &c.

  94,870

  2

  2

  20,905

  18

  3

  11

  Clothing Establishments, &c.

  29,727

  6

  11

  49,343

  11

  5

  12

  Supply of Warlike, &c. Stores

  58,000

  2

  9

  44,760

  15

  1

  13

  Works, Building, and Repairs

  30,396

  6

  7

  Carried forward

  184,896

  16

  5

  24,533

  5

  2

  137,571

  18

  6

  326,744

  17

  11

  4. Resolved, Whereas it appears from the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st March 1881, as follows, viz.:—

  (a.) That the sums expended for certain Army Services exceeded the Grants for those Services, and that the deficits on such Grants amounted together to £207,944 14 s. 1d. as shown in column (a) of the Schedule hereto appended;

  (b.) That the sums received in respect of Appropriations in Aid of the Grants for certain Services fell short of the sums estimated, and that such deficiencies amounted together to £24,533 5s. 2d. as shown in column (b) of the said appended Schedule;

  (c.) That the sums received in respect of Appropriations in Aid of the Grants for certain other Services exceeded the amounts estimated by the total sum of £137,571 18 s. 6d. as shown in column (c) of the said appended Schedule;

  (d.) That surpluses arose on the Grants for certain Services, and that such surpluses (including a disallowance of £61) amounted together to £374,767 17 s. 1d. as shown in column (d) of the said appended Schedule.

  5. Resolved, And whereas in order to provide for the first two above-mentioned sums (a) and (b), amounting together to £232,477 19 s. 3d. the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of the third above-mentioned sum (c) of £137,571 18 s. 6d. and of £94,906 0s. 9d. out of the last above-mentioned sum (d).
  6. Resolved, That the said application of such sums be sanctioned.

  No.

  Army Services, 1880–81, Vote.

  (a) Deposits on Votes.

  (b) Deficiencies of Appropriations in Aid.

  (c) Excesses of Appropriations in Aid.

  (d) Surpluses on Votes.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Brought forward

  184,896

  16

  5

  24,533

  5

  2

  137,571

  18

  6

  326,744

  17

  11

  14

  Establishments for Military Education

  1,776

  16

  10

  15

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  7,141

  12

  11

  16

  War Office

  4,470

  13

  7

  17

  Rewards for Distinguished Services

  489

  5

  2

  18

  Pay of General Officers

  2,907

  1

  1

  19

  Retired Full Pay, Half Pay, &c.

  31,723

  2

  0

  20

  Widows' Pensions

  1,418

  0

  7

  21

  Pensions for Wounds

  2,782

  14

  7

  22

  Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals

  1,311

  6

  1

  23

  Out-Pensions

  8,082

  0

  6

  24

  Superannuation Allowances

  402

  0

  6

  25

  Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces—Non-Effective Charges

  3,222

  8

  6

  Amounts written off as irrecoverable

  5,343

  15

  0

  207,944

  14

  1

  24,533

  5

  2

  137,571

  18

  6

  374,767

  17

  7

  94,906

  0

  9

  £232,477 19 3

  £232,477

  19

  3

  Total Surpluses on Votes

  374,767

  17

  7

  Less amount applied to make good deficiencies

  94,906

  0

  9

  Surplus to be surrendered

  £279,861

  16

  10

  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  PRISON CHARITIES BILL.— [Bill 270.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Hibhert.)
  PRISON CHARITIES BILL.— [Bill 270.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could give the House some information about the nature of the Bill, and the necessity for it. He (Mr. Talbot) understood that the measure had not been explained to the House; and when he looked at the back of it, he saw that it was only ordered to be printed on the 5th August—that was to say, on Saturday last—and only
    1268
    read a second time last night. He did not know what charities it proposed to deal with; but it seemed to him to be a Bill for transferring certain charities from the present trustees to the Secretary of State, and allowing the Charity Commissioners to make schemes for these charities on the application of the Secretary of State instead of the trustees. That might, or might not, be right; but it certainly did seem to him a matter which should be explained to the House. It seemed to be a measure of centralization, such as the House should not be called on to agree to at such a period of the Session as that, when there was not time to see whether the scope of the Bill was as large as would seem to be implied. If the Committee would look at the 2nd clause, they would find that the expression "Prison Charity" was remarkably wide. He did not, as he had said, know what the number of the charities was, nor did he know for what reason the Bill was introduced; but, in order to give the House

    1269
    an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it, he would move the adjournment of the debate. He did not move it in a hostile spirit, as he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to show him that there was nothing sinister in the Bill; but he took that course as a protest against the measure having been brought forward at that late period of the Session. They ought to be told why it had not been dealt with at an earlier period of the Session, and why it was now being carried hurriedly through another stage without description or explanation.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Talbot) that the Government had no sinister motive in bringing forward that Bill. The Bill was one which had been long desired. It had been recommended by the Public Accounts Committee for several years, and it would supply a necessity which had long been felt. The truth was, that the Prison Commissioners came in as successors to trustees of prison charities, which properly belonged to the local authorities. There had been no regular or recognized way of dealing with a number of, generally speaking, very small bequests left in connection with the prisons, and considerable difficulty in dealing with the accounts had been experienced through the charities not having been brought under a regular form of administration. This had been a real difficulty, and it had been pointed out over and over again by the Commissioners themselves. The matter was not on a satisfactory footing, and it was deemed desirable that a scheme should be prepared for dealing with these bequests. He hoped the hon. Member would consider this a satisfactory explanation of the objects with which the Bill had been prepared. No doubt, it was inconvenient for the Bill to be brought in at that period of the Session: but it must be borne in mind that the measure was not of a controversial character, nor of any great magnitude. It was only a simple piece of legislative reform.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he wished, as a Member of the Public
    1270
    Accounts Committee, to support what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Sir Henry Holland) himself must plead guilty to having urged very strongly upon the Government the desirability of bringing in the Bill this Session. The question had been for years before them, and it was really very important, although the sums dealt with were very small.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered, in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that, under the circumstances, seeing that the House was satisfied, and had passed the Bill through Committee without Amendment, that hon. Members would now allow it to be read a third time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time,"—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt,)—put, and agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Courtney.)
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    [BILL 266.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, that in the Schedule he saw the Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill continued. There was an Order relating to this subject on the Paper; but he (Mr. Callan) supposed that to-morrow that Order would te read and discharged, so that those interested in the subject would not be kept waiting in the House.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, that there was a Bill in the Schedule which referred to Locomotives on Roads, and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to go on with it this Session? The Bill would have the effect of removing restrictions from locomotives on roads. Locomotives had become dangerous in many parts of the country, and the public would be glad to hear that the subject was not lost sight of by the Government.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was not intended to deal with the question during the present Session, though it was deemed desirable to do so on some future occasion. The Government would attempt to deal with it next year.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that perhaps the House would be inclined to read the Bill a third time.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he objected, as on the third reading many questions might arise which it would be desirable to discuss.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT [BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 230.]
  (Mr. Hibbert.)
  LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT [BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 230.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the purpose of the Bill was to provide that lunatics should be visited at least twice in every year, and that every lunatic resident in a private asylum should be visited four times each year in the next two years. The effect of that regulation would be that, for the first two years, each lunatic would be visited four times in each year, and in subsequent years twice.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was not satisfied with the present position of the matter. The Bill was brought forward with the understanding that, if the number of visits was reduced from four, those lunatics who now received one visit, should receive two. He wished to make it certain that there should be two visits; and, for that purpose, he should move, at the end of Clause 4, to add—
    "And the said section shall he construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.'"
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, to add at the end the words "and the said section shall he construed as if the word 'twice' had been inserted therein instead of the word 'once.' "—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. G. TALBOThoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert) had no objection to this Amendment.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought the Amendment was unnecessary.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he could not understand the hon. Gentleman's objection, if he agreed to the object being carried out; especially as every Statute must be interpreted by its words, and not by the meaning which its promoters conceived it to have.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that this was a matter entirely for the Lord Chancellor, upon whom the Statute would be binding by regulations to be signed hereafter.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTthought it would be better to put these words in the Bill, so that all the world might know what was intended.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 53: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 325.)

  COUNTY COURTS (ADVOCATES' COSTS) BILL.— [BILL 188.]
  (Mr. Hastings, Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Rowley Hill.)
  COUNTY COURTS (ADVOCATES' COSTS) BILL.— [BILL 188.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. WARTONsaid, when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, he objected to the title as objectionable, because it implied that the solicitors employed were advocates.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the House thinks fit to alter the title, it can do so at the last stage.
    MR. WARTONwished to move that the title be altered from County Courts Costs to Salaries Bill.

  BILLS OF SALE ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General approved of the Lords first Amendment?
    MR. MONK,in reply, said, he regretted that the House of Lords had

    1273
    made the Amendment; but it was accepted by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Bramwell, and Lord Cairns.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendment, in page 2, line 16, leave out "enumerated," and insert "specifically described," agreed to.
    Lords Amendment, in line 29, after "taxes," insert—
    "(5.) If execution shall have been levied against the goods of the grantor under any judgment at law."
    MR. MONK,in moving a Consequential Amendment to the foregoing Amendment of the Lords, said, its object was that, in case an execution had been put in on goods of the grantor, in consequence of non-payment of an instalment, that should not be done a few hours after the money had become due; but that the grantor should be empowered, within five days, to apply to the High Court, or to a Judge, to stop execution, on being satisfied that the debt had been paid.
    Consequential Amendment proposed, to add—
    "Provided that the grantor may within five days from the seizure or taking possession of any chattels on account of any of the above-mentioned causes, apply to the High Court, or to a judge thereof in chambers, and such court or judge, if satisfied that by payment of money or otherwise the said cause of seizure no longer exists, may restrain the grantee from removing or selling the said chattels, or may make such other order as may seem just."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. WARTONsaid, that was about the coolest Consequential Amendment he had ever heard of. It appeared that they had to pass the Bill exactly as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) desired it—in a most hurried way—a Bill which was most wretchedly drawn. It seemed as though the hon. Member wanted to pass something this Session; he did not care what. The measure had been absolutely emasculated—the object for which it had been introduced had been lost, and he could not look upon the Amendment as at all consequential.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would venture to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that not only was the Amendment absolutely necessary in the in-
    1274
    terests of justice, but that it had received the careful attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), at whose request it had been brought forward.
    MR. WARTON: Oh; that is a different matter.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment, in page 2, line 38, leave out from "sale" to the end of the Clause, and insert—
    "Made or given by way of security for the payment of money by the grantee thereof shall be void unless made in accordance with the form in the schedule to this Act annexed."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that was a very serious alteration indeed, and it appeared to him to require some consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James), he knew, attached great importance to the part struck out when the Bill was before the Commons, and he (Mr. Whitley) personally also attached great importance to it. They had taken great pains to guard against bills of sale being executed, except with the fullest knowledge that could be brought to bear upon the matter by the person giving the bill of sale. In order to do that, they said that the solicitor of the person borrowing should be present at the time of the transaction; but the Lords had struck out the provision, and the person who gave the bill of sale was consequently in the hands of the moneylender altogether. If the Bill passed as amended by the Lords, it would be competent for the man borrowing money to go to the money-lender's office, where the money-lender's clerk might attest the document, the man who was principally interested being possibly an illiterate person, knowing nothing at all as to the nature of that which he had signed. He (Mr. Whitley) felt so persuaded of the importance of this Amendment that he should move its rejection.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    MR. WARTONsaid, this was a most important matter, as the effect of the Lords Amendment would be to destroy one of the most important provisions in the Act of 1878, which required that a

    1275
    person about to borrow money, and giving a bill of sale, should do it in the presence of a properly certificated solicitor. If the Amendment were agreed to, and Clause 9A, proposed by their Lordships, was put in, to allow a bill of sale to be given by anybody, it might be that a poor wretch, for the 'sake of a shilling, would be very glad to witness it—in fact, to witness anything. He (Mr. Warton) never in his life knew such a backward step as that to be taken. He was in favour of reasonable reforms, but not to such an alteration as this.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, to leave out "grantee" and insert "grantor."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment, in page 3, after Clause 9, insert the following Clause:—
    "(9A.) The execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto. So much of Section 10 of the principal Act as requires that the execution of every bill of sale shall be attested by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and that the attestation shall state that before the execution of the bill of sale the effect thereof has been explained to the grantor by the attesting witness, is hereby repealed."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would propose to amend the Amendment of their Lordships by leaving out, in line 2, the words "one or more credible witness or witnesses," in order to insert the words "a certificated solicitor."
    Amendment proposed to the Lords said Amendment,
    In line 2, after the word "by," leave out "one or more credible witness or witnesses," and insert "a certificated solicitor."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the proposed Amendment of the House of Lords. The Committee who sat to consider this question found it a perfect farce to insist upon the attestation of a certificated
    1276
    solicitor. Money-lenders, it was found, could keep a certificated solicitor at a salary to attest bills of sale.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, in page 4, line 19, leave out "eighth and twentieth sections," and insert "twentieth section."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he did not think the House considered the changes that had been made in the Bill. The clause, which it was proposed to strike out, was very carefully considered by the Select Committee, which sat for weeks, and ultimately it was agreed that a bill of sale made within 12 months was good. By striking out this clause all bills of sale would be absolutely void in bankruptcy. The consequences would be very serious indeed, and he had no hesitation in saying that in Lancashire, where hundreds of thousands of pounds were lent on machinery, if this Amendment—brought before them at 3 o'clock in the morning—were agreed to, the effect of it would be to ruin a great many people. Those who were the guardians of the commercial interests of the country ought to pause before they passed a thing of this nature. At present thousands of pounds were lent in this way, and no man would be safe if the Amendment were accepted. He would move that the Amendment be rejected.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he wished to say a word on this matter. [Cries of "Agreed!"] No; the question was not one to be decided in an off-hand manner. This was said to be a matter of great importance to commercial men. Up to 1878, property in the order and disposition of a bankrupt was not affected; but in that year the Legislature thought fit to repeal the then existing law, and the evidence given before the Committee was to the effect that that repeal had given an enormous impetus to granting fraudulent bills of sale. The Order and Disposition Clause, being repealed, had increased fraudulent bills of sale. The House of Lords, it seemed, had gone back to what was the law up to 1878; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler)

    1277
    thought that was a great improvement. Speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of Wolverhampton, he could say there was no change commercial men were so anxious to see carried out as this.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment disagreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Schedule amended, and agreed to.
    Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to he assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to an Amendment made by The Lords to "The Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Bill: "—Mr. MONK, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, and Mr. BARRAN:—Three to be the quorum:—To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to The Lords Amendment reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.
    House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pensions Commutation* (230); Artizans' Dwellings* (231).
Second Reading—Educational Endowments (Scotland) (220) Poor Law Amendment* (221).
Committee—Electric Lighting (212–229).
Report—Wellesley Bridge (Limerick) * (207–228).
Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance* (198); Customs and Inland Revenue*, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Order No. 144. be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.—(No. 212.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.—(No. 212.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, before this Bill went into Committee it would be to the convenience of their Lordships if he stated at once that since the second reading of the Bill the Board of Trade had very carefully considered again the objections raised by the Electric Companies on Clause 3 and Clause 27. The Board of Trade had always felt it was difficult to say exactly what was the precise number of years which should be given to a licence, and after what exact number of years the local authorities should have power to purchase. The object had been to fix the shortest time for the existence of the monopoly that would be consistent with sufficient inducement for the investment of the necessary capital. After hearing the difficulties which the Electric Companies felt, mainly on the ground that the installations would be on a far larger scale than was at first thought practicable, the Board of Trade had thought that, in the interests of the general public, the term of licence should be extended to seven years, and the term of purchase to 21 years. The exact Amendments would be as proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Crawford). It was understood that this would meet all the objections of the Electric Light Companies; and it was far better, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, that the question should be settled permanently than be allowed to be raised at some future time. The Amendment about to be moved by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) was totally inconsistent with this arrangement, and altered the terms of purchase, and could not be agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application of Act).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 8, after ("by") by inserting ("this Act or").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Granting of licenses authorising the supply of electricity).
  On the Motion of The Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, in page 1, line 27, by leaving out ("five") and inserting ("seven").
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 1 line 28, after ("but may, at") by inserting ("or after"), and leaving out (,"at any") and inserting ("from time to"); page 2, line 1, after ("time") insert ("for a like period").
  On the Motion of The Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, in page 2, line 6, by leaving out ("vestry").
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in line 29, after ("given") insert as a new sub-section—
  "A license may, subject to the provisions of this Act, he granted to a local authority authorising them to supply electricity within any area although the same or some part thereof may not he included within their own district."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Granting of provisional orders authorising the supply of electricity).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 3, line 17, after ("provisions") by inserting as a new sub-section—
  "No provisional order shall authorise the supply of electricity by any undertakers within the district of any local authority (not being themselves the undertakers), unless notice that such provisional order has been or is intended to be applied for has been given to such local authority by the applicants in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct or approve on or before the first day of July in the year in which such application is made; provided that in the case of any application made during the present year such notice shall be deemed to have been given in due time if the same is given within one month after the passing of this Act."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Expenses of local authority).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 5, line 12, by leaving out ("in respect of any undertaking"); in line 14, by leaving out ("obtaining the") and inserting—

  1107
  ("Connection with the obtaining by them, or any opposition to the obtaining by any other local authority, company, or person, of any");
  and in line 15, by leaving out ("authorising the undertaking") and inserting ("under this Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 (General powers of undertakers under license or provisional order).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 6, line 24, after ("Act") by inserting ("and of any rules made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of this Act ").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Power for local authority to contract in certain cases and restrictions on assignments of powers, &c. of undertakers).
  On the Motion of The Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, in page 6, line 41, after ("special Act") by inserting ("without the consent of the Board of Trade").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Power to undertakers to alter position of pipes and wires).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 8, line 36, after ("local") by inserting ("or other public"); and in line 40, after ("local") by inserting ("or other public").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Clause for protection of canals).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 9, line 19, by leaving out ("the Board of Trade") and inserting ("arbitration").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Undertakers not to prescribe special form of lamp or burner).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 9, line 32, after ("no") by inserting ("local authority"); in line 36, after ("other") by inserting ("local authority, company, or"); and in line 37, after ("and any")
  1108
  by inserting ("local authority, company, or").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Charges for electricity).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 10, line 9, after ("to any") insert ("local authority").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Recovery of charges, &c).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 10, line 14, after ("if any") by inserting ("local authority"); in line 16, after ("such") by inserting ("local authority"); and in line 22, after ("such") by inserting ("local authority").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Power to enter lands or premises for ascertaining quantities of electricity consumed, or to remove fittings, &c).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 10, line 39, after ("lines") by inserting ("accumulators").
  On the Motion of The Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, in page 10, line 39, after ("lines") by inserting ("meters").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Electric lines, &c. not to be subject to distress in certain cases).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendments made, in page 11, line 7, by leaving out ("meters") and inserting ("accumulators"), and after ("fittings") by inserting ("works"); and inline 11, by leaving out ("meters") and inserting ("accumulators"), and after ("fittings") by inserting ("works").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Provision for protection of the Postmaster General).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 11, line 42, by leaving out ("the Board of Trade") and inserting ("arbitration").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Purchase of undertaking by local authority).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 12, line 17, after ("Act") by inserting ("or such provisional order or special Act as aforesaid").
  On the Motion of The Earl of CRAWFORD, Amendment made, in page 12, line 82, by leaving out ("fifteen years") and inserting—
  ("Twenty-one years or such shorter period as is specified in that behalf in the application for the Provisional Order or in the special Act");
  and in line 34, by leaving out ("five years") and inserting—
  ("Seven years or such shorter period as is specified in that behalf in the application for the Provisional Order or in the Special Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Interpretation).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 14, line 38, by leaving out ("has the same meaning as in the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847") and inserting—
  ("Includes any square, court, or alley, highway, lane, road, thoroughfare, or public passage, or place, within the area in which the undertakers are authorised to supply electricity by this Act or any license, order, or special Act")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Application of Act to Scotland).
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 15, line 24, after ("theft") by inserting—"The expression 'felony' means a high crime and offence;" in page 15, line 28, by leaving out ("vestry"); and in line 30, after ("applied") by inserting—
  "The expression 'local authority' means as regards streets and roads the authority having the control of the streets and roads."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made in Schedule (Scotland), page 20, second column, insert ("The county road board"); Schedule (Ireland), page 20, last column, leave out the whole entry in order to insert—
  ("That prescribed by section two hundred and. forty-eight of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878."
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 229.)

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 220.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): My Lords, it has become my duty, as representing, during the absence of the President of the Council, the Education Department in this House, to ask your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill, which is one of the greatest importance to education in Scotland. Although it is a Bill of such importance, I feel that it would be unreasonable on my part if I were to detain the House for any length of time upon the present occasion, and for this reason—that the Bill in substance is familiar to your Lordships, and to all who take an interest in the subject of Scotch education. There is no question that I know of which is more thoroughly ripe for legislation than this question of secondary Scotch education, it having passed through the ordeal of many inquiries, and of experimental and permissive legislation. I shall, therefore, not detain your Lordships by going far into its past history. The foundation of the present Bill is, in fact, to be found in the declaration made by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), then President of the Council, when he introduced a permissive Bill on this subject into this House, and when he said, in the clearest and most straightforward words, that if the permissive principle should fail of its purpose, it would be the duty of the then Government to bring in a Bill of a compulsory nature; and I have no doubt, if the noble Duke had remained in Office, he would have brought in very much the same Bill which was introduced by my noble Friend Lord Spencer two years ago. That Bill was introduced in 1880, and was in substance the same as that which is now before your Lordships. It passed this House, but it did not succeed in passing the other House in that short Session of the year 1880. The same Bill was introduced in the other House in the year 1881; but the Session of last year was occupied with other matters, and the Bill got no further; and in this year (1882) there would

1111
have been no cause for surprise if its fate had been the same. But I am happy to say that, by the exertions and energy of the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), and by the practical and patriotic spirit of the Scotch Members on both sides, who have in the main, and upon the important points of the Bill, been practically unanimous—in that way, by great good fortune, the Bill has survived the perils of that region, and has come up to your Lordships' House. The measure is framed upon the lines of the Endowed Schools Act of England, which is so familiar to your Lordships. It proposes to reorganize and reform a number of educational endowments in Scotland, so as to make them, we hope, far more advantageous to the people of that country than at present, by means of the same kind of machinery which is used, and has been for some years used in this country under the Endowed Schools Act, and the Charity Commission. The Executive Commission, which will be created under this Bill, has very large powers conferred upon it—powers necessary to the purpose in view, but powers limited very carefully by the conditions of the Bill, and by provisions as to inquiries, as to publicity, and as to appeal in the last resort to Parliament itself. The main object which the Bill and the Commission have in view is to make these endowments, where it can be legitimately done, far more valuable than they are at present for the promotion of education in Scotland, higher than that given in the ordinary public schools. When I talk of higher education, I am far from meaning education specially adapted or intended for the higher classes of society; but an education of a higher class which would be open and available for the poor scholars in the ordinary schools of Scotland. My Lords, I am not surprised at the spirit of unanimity, and the desire among the people of Scotland, that these endowments should be thus used, because we all know the remarkable way in which, even under present circumstances in Scotland, with a great dearth of the means of education higher than that obtained in the public schools, a number of poor Scotch boys do make their way in spite of all difficulties from the public schools to the Universities. The object of the Bill is to provide means and appli-
1112
ances by which the admirable spirit among the youth of Scotland shall find its way to the higher education of the country. We propose, by the application in many cases of these endowments, to provide the means or ladder by which those intelligent and ambitious young men can attain to the education which they desire. That was also the object, as described at the time by the President of the Council, the main object of the Bill of 1880—the Bill which obtained your Lordships' concurrence and went down to the other House. I do not know that it is necessary for me to do more than state in a few words the main respects in which this Bill differs from the Bill of 1880, which was passed by your Lordships. I find that the main points of difference are three. There are some minor ones with which I will not trouble the House on this occasion. In the first place, there is a change in the proposed constitution of the Governing Bodies of the endowments. With respect to the amount of popular election which is to be found in these bodies, the Bill of 1880 was general in its terms, although its object was the same; but in the present Bill it is provided definitely that where the Governing Body of an endowment at present contains a majority of elected members, or rather of members drawn from Town Councils and from other bodies which are elected, in the future, under the schemes framed under the provisions of this Bill, such Governing Bodies shall contain not less than two-thirds of such members. Where, again, the number of such members at present is less than half the number, in future it shall not be less than two-thirds, and where at present there are no members of that class at all upon the Governing Body, it is provided that there be a number elected, and not less than one-third, on the Governing Bodies to be created under the schemes. Again, there is a change, which provides more carefully than was provided in the Bill of 1880 for the non-alienation from the objects of primary education of funds which had been specially, under the founder's will, applied to primary education; and in such cases it will only be the surplus of such endowments, after adequately providing for the founder's intentions, that can be available for education of a higher kind. The third change is, perhaps, the most important

1113
one, and it has been made since this Bill was introduced into the other House. It is this—Whereas the Bill, when it was introduced, limited the powers of the Commissioners as to dealing with endowments within 40 years from the present time, which, it seems, is the period of prescription in Scotland, the Bill as it has reached this House provides that the Commissioners may deal with any endowments earlier than the year 1872—the year of the passing of the Scotch Primary Education Act. My Lords, that change has been the work of the Scotch Members themselves. The other provisions were the proposal of the Government. The change to which I now refer was made on the proposal of a very eminent Scotch Member, a man of weight and authority on these subjects—a Member for two Scotch Universities, and not a supporter of the present Government—and that view, I believe, is supported unanimously by the Scotch Members of the other House. The feeling all over Scotland is that, if the original limitation were retained in the Bill, a large number of valuable endowments, very much requiring to be dealt with by this Commission, would be excluded from its action. It will depend on the Commission itself how far these endowments shall be dealt with or altered, but the Government believe, with the Scotch Members, who, they think, are entirely right in this matter, that the question of dealing with these endowments will be best left to the Commissioners, under and subject to the conditions of the Bill. It would be a misfortune if the endowments in question, which would otherwise be excluded from their discretion, were to be left dormant and untouched for many years to come, until the period of 40 years had been reached. These, I think, are the three main points in which this Bill differs from that which received your Lordships' assent in the year 1880, and I do not know that it is necessary for me to add anything to the statement that I have already made. I know that you sympathize with the object of this measure. I believe that you may have confidence in the means which it proposes to take to attain that object, in its machinery, in its provisions, and in the Commission which is about to be appointed by the Crown; and I can only say, in conclusion, that I trust, and am
1114
confident, that the operation of this Bill will set free and make available in Scotland most important means of education, greatly desired by that country, and which, I doubt not, will have the effect of putting her in even a higher position than that which she now holds in these matters among the nations of the world.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I can assure the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) that the remarks which I shall offer will be conceived in no hostile spirit towards the Bill. The Bill, as the noble Lord has truly said, is drawn very much upon the lines of the Bill which I had the honour of introducing some years ago on behalf of Her Majesty's then Government. I will make one or two observations upon matters which I find are in the Bill, and also on matters which are not in the Bill. In the first place, I think that in the Preamble of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, for England, there was a special reference to the Report of the Royal Commission, and it stated that the object of the proposed legislation was to give effect to the evidence taken before that Commission; and, if I mistake not, something of the same kind was in this Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons; but by some means or other that has fallen through, and I do not find any reference in this Bill to the Report of the Commission of those who had to deal with the subject, and I think that reference might have been made in the Preamble of the Bill to that Commission when they had made various suggestions which are included in this Bill. I do not wish to say anything about the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), who is to be the future Chairman of the Commission. I believe that no man would discharge the duties with more credit to himself, and with greater benefit to the country, than my noble Friend. I believe that is the view entertained by all parties; but I do not find any representative of natural science or technical instruction. This Commission, which is to be an unpaid one, is expected to deal with a larger amount of property in five years than the three Commissioners in England have been able to deal with in 13 years, and that is a paid Commission.

1115
I should like to know if an unpaid Commission in reference to Scotland is likely to deal satisfactorily in a shorter time with a larger amount than the English Commissioners received during the 13 years that they have been occupied with the task. Then my noble Friend alluded to an alteration in the constitution of the Governing Bodies, and I should like very much to have an explanation of why the municipal element is so introduced into all those trusts. There is a Return made by the House of Commons in 1881, which states that the funds to be dealt with are probably £200,000 or £250,000. Of this sum about £88,000 only have any municipal connection, and of this £88,000 about £50,000 a-year are under the municipal control, one-half of the members, or upwards, of the Governing Body belonging to the Municipality. That leaves the other £35,000, in regard to which the municipal authorities are in a minority; therefore, by the proposal in the Bill in Clause 6, in dealing with £50,000 a-year, the municipal authorities will have two-thirds of the members, and when they have less representation at present than one-half, it is to be increased to one-half, and in cases where they have none at all the representation is to include one-third of the Municipal Bodies. It does seem to me that this is an extraordinary provision, and I cannot quite understand, from the information I have endeavoured to gather, why it was thought necessary to infuse so much of the municipal element into the government of these trusts. There is another point in the measure upon which I look with some doubt. The noble Lord, no doubt, was perfectly correct in stating that it was with the general acquiescence of the Members of the other House on both sides that the period was reduced to 10 years within which trusts would come under the Bill, taking the date from the passing of the Education Act in 1872. I think that is bringing it down to a very recent date, and I am astonished to find that it met with such general concurrence. But if the date is to be taken down to 1872, the Bill will require to be altered in Committee, because, as it now stands, it may well happen that a person who, during his life, had devoted a sum of money for the benefit of the Established Church of Scotland, might see the Commission
1116
take action under the powers conferred by this Bill, and transfer all the property which he had given in his lifetime from the wants of the Established Church to the wants of another Denominational Body. That does seem to me to be carrying the thing to an extent which I think my noble Friend opposite will scarcely justify. By Clause 8, it is provided that this Act shall not apply to any educational endowment by present gift that applies to a man's lifetime; but the clause goes on to provide that it should not apply unless the Governing Body or Senatus Academicus should give in writing their consent that such endowment should be dealt with under the Act. I wish to know why the donor also shall not be allowed to give his consent?—and I hope the noble Lord will see that some words ought to be put in with that object. There is only one other matter to which I wish to draw the noble Lord's attention, and that is to ask the Government, or whoever is responsible for the measure, why the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge was brought out in such a prominent manner before the House. It seems to me to have been quite unnecessary, and it appears as if this society had done something for which it ought to be rebuked. Moreover, as I have said, it is perfectly unnecessary, because I think the object which the Government has in this measure is attained under the 1st clause, which naturally includes that society. I have nothing more to say upon the Bill. Amendments may be necessary in Committee in the direction in which I have invited the noble Lord's attention. I agree with the noble Lord that the measure will be a great boon to Scotland if it were the means of bringing more effectively within the reach of all classes in Scotland a better secondary education than that which they are now able to obtain.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the general tone of the remarks of the noble Duke that there is no probability of any opposition being offered to this measure. I may say that in my humble judgment it is a most valuable Bill, and likely to be of the utmost advantage to Scotland. It is now some years since the Royal Commission reported, and all of us in Scotland have been annually expecting

1117
that some measure dealing with this subject would be passed; and I think it is a matter of good omen that on an occasion of this kind Scotch Members of Parliament, to whatever side of politics they belong, are found united together in order to promote the cause of education as much as they can without considering in what groove a particular measure or Amendment may proceed. I would take this opportunity of saying that I believe the appointment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) as Chairman of the Commission will give universal satisfaction in Scotland. The noble Lord was a most useful Member of the former Commission, and did extremely good work in it; and I feel sure that, Scotchmen generally will have every confidence in his desire to promote the good of education, and to consider this point alone—namely, how education can be best promoted. A question was asked by the noble Duke which I should like also to ask; and it is, how is it that such great preponderance is given to the municipal element in the future composition of these Governing Bodies? My Lords, it does appear to me to be a very strange thing that in the composition of these Governing Bodies it is provided, under any circumstances, that we are to have a considerable representation of the municipal element. I do not want to detract from the merits of these Bodies; but at the same time, as I say, I do think it a strange thing that it should be provided that in all cases we are never to have less than one-third of the Body persons chosen from the Municipal Bodies. But when, with the noble Duke, I ask the question to which I have referred, I am afraid I can also at the same time supply the answer, and that is that the Municipal Bodies have been the most active opponents of all legislation of this kind, and, as often happens in such cases, it has been found necessary to make a compromise with them, and to give them not only representation upon the Bodies of which hitherto they have formed an important part, but to give them representation where we have never known them to have it before. That may be a benefit or not; but if the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) moves to strike it out of the Bill he will find me voting with him. At all events, I hope the Municipal Bodies will remember that the Govern-
1118
ment have been most careful of their privileges, and that, so far from this Bill attempting to take away from them anything to which they are entitled, it has gone rather in the opposite direction, and given to them that which, in the opinion of a certain number of Members of Parliament, certainly of the noble Duke and myself, is rather too important a part in the government of these institutions. There is one other point to which I should like to refer before I sit down. I said that this Bill had been most careful and conservative in guarding all vested interests. It has been most careful in providing that those funds which have been hitherto applied to the education of the poor shall be most jealously preserved for the purposes of that education and that education solely. In that I heartily concur. I think it is desirable that these funds should be retained and applied solely to the purpose for which they were originally left; but I do not observe in the Bill any means by which the poor who are to benefit from these funds are to be selected. In Clause 13 it is provided that no funds now applied in terms of the founders' directions to free elementary education shall be diverted to any other purpose. That is a very good proposal; but will the noble Lord tell me what is the manner in which these poor children are to be selected? Hitherto, when education has been given away I am not aware that the means of selection have been founded on any particular principle, or, at all events, not on any particular principle that we could advocate for general adoption. But it is quite certain that however large a fund is reserved for the education of the poor, many more of the poor will wish to be educated than there will be funds to provide education for. Therefore, supposing that that be the case, I think some general direction ought to be given to the Commissioners as to the manner in which these poor children are to be selected. Suppose there are funds enough to educate 500, and 1,000 apply, I should like to know by what machinery you will select the 500 who are to have the benefit of the Act? If you were to follow the precedent of the English Endowment Acts you would find an example which would be a very convenient one in such cases. It is usual to provide an examination in the common schools

1119
where the necessary subjects are taught, so that a selection might be made to which no exception could be taken on the ground of favouritism or otherwise. I throw out this as a suggestion to the noble Lord for his consideration. I have no further remarks to make except that I hail with great satisfaction the appearance of this Bill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, I have nothing to say against the principle of this Bill; but it seems to me that it interferes very considerably with ancient endowments, and it will be in the power of the Commissioners, so far as I can read the Bill as at present drawn, to do what they like with the educational endowments in Scotland, and to take away from the endowed schools whatever they think is a convenient sum for other educational purposes. My observations on this point especially refer to the George Heriot Schools of Edinburgh, the annual income from which amounts to several thousand pounds. Unfortunately for that endowment, it is possible for the Commissioners to say—"What a capital thing this rich endowment is, because we can take part of their money and divert and apply it for the endowment of other schools." The endowment known as Heriot's Hospital is administered not only under the will of George Heriot, but under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, which is entirely ignored by this Bill, and which the Commissioners may set aside if they please. At the time the Act of Parliament was passed it was stated that the income of the hospital was so increased that, in order to carry out the full intention of the founder, the powers of the Governors should be extended. Accordingly, an Act was passed in 1836 to enable the Governors to establish free schools for the poor children of burgesses of the City of Edinburgh. Under that Act the Governors of Heriot's Trusts have endowed 11 schools for children of a certain age, and five schools for infants, so that now 5,000 or 6,000 children in Edinburgh receive free education in this way. I know that now-a-days it is assumed that no child should receive an education without paying for it; but in the schools I have mentioned, parents who, although in great poverty, feel it a degradation to go before the Parochial Board for their school fees,
1120
can have their children educated without the loss of self-respect, because, knowing they are entitled to this free education, they accept it. The Governors have also provided that, whenever there is a boy or a girl in these schools that showed any ability of a promising nature, those children are selected for a higher class education and sent to a school established by the Governors. Also, this endowment apprentices the children to different trades, each child receiving a certain sum of money every year. When the term of apprenticeship expires a further small sum is given. Children are also assisted by bursaries to go to the University, so that all those really worthy of it have the advantages of a higher education. It is now too late to-day for me to present Petitions; but I have in my possession a Petition from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Glasgow, praying that the Bill may pass with as few Amendments as possible. I have also other two Petitions—one from the Trustees and Governors of Heriot's Hospital, and the other from the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council of Edinburgh, praying that certain Amendments, not against the Bill, may be inserted, securing to the citizens of Edinburgh that no advantage they at present possess under the will of George Heriot would be withdrawn. They do not ask the Bill to be rejected, but only that a saving clause should be inserted, respecting an institution which has been a great blessing to a large number of the children in Edinburgh. I therefore give Notice that I will move Amendments which certainly, as far as I can see, will not affect the principle of the Bill, but only the details, so as to secure the advantages of the Heriot Endowment to the citizens of Edinburgh.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I am not about to make a second reading speech in favour of the Bill. So far as that is concerned, I feel certain it will be sufficient to say I believe the need for the Bill is very urgent, and that the feeling of satisfaction with which it will be hailed in Scotland will be almost universal. There were, however, one or two points adverted to which I should like to notice. First, I would like to say a single word as to the great gratification it has been to me to be placed in the position on the Commission which

1121
has been mentioned to your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships no one feels more acutely than I do the very great responsibility which the position involves, and I can only assure you that my very best attention will be given to it. I believe those who have been appointed my Colleagues on the Commission are gentlemen whose names command almost universal approval in Scotland. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) seems to think there is a want of proper representation of technical education upon the Commission. No one is likely to underrate the importance of that subject at the present time, when so much depends upon the skill of artizans and mechanics in the race of competition with foreign countries; but I should like to remind the noble Duke that Lord Shand, who is a Member of the Commission, has been for many years a Director of the Watt Institute in Edinburgh, and he is, therefore, thoroughly acquainted with the needs of Scotland in this particular matter. Besides that we have the Lord Provosts of the two chief cities in Scotland, who may surely be trusted to look after the interests of the commercial population. I would like to say one word with reference to the limit of time which has been introduced into the Bill. I am keenly in favour of bringing down the time in the Bill, so that we may deal with all endowments before 1872. It is some years since I first publicly expressed that opinion, and I believe the disappointment will be very great if any change is now made in the Bill in this respect. It is very difficult for those not well acquainted with what has been going on of late years in Scotland thoroughly to realize the enormous change made in the educational arrangements of the country by the passing of the Education Act of 1872. That Act really forms the logical starting-point of any legislation of the kind which we are about to enter upon. More than that, I believe I am right in saying, although I am not in the secrets of the Government, that not a single objection has been made on the part of any Governing Body which will be affected by the alteration. I have certainly seen no record of any such representation in the public prints, and I believe there is no public body affected by this alteration which in the least degree dreads
1122
coming under the operation of the Commission. I may also remind your Lordships that the Act of 1878, which was introduced by the last Government, and under which I had the honour of acting, had no limit of time, and that, as a matter of fact, the Commission did deal with endowments of very recent date, some not older than 10 or 12 years. If it should be said that in one case the Act was permissive, I would reply that, if because this Act is a compulsory one, we are, therefore, to have a limited time, that will be really placing the Governing Body in a more important position than the intention and direction of the founder, because in the Act of 1878 Parliament allowed the founder's intention to be altered, subject to the will of the Governing Body, and, therefore, it does not seem to me that there can be any objection taken in principle to allow the operation of the Act to come down to 1872. Allusion has been made to various clauses in the Bill; but I would much prefer—and I think it would be better for me—not to discuss any of these clauses at great length. I am sure the Commission will be prepared to do what work it can with the tools put into its hands. In some cases I should prefer more freedom to the Commissioners, not that I think the Act prescribes anything for them which they would not otherwise have done; but it is of very great importance that a certain latitude should be allowed to the Commissioners, as it is very difficult indeed to lay down a hard-and-fast rule of universal application. What may be suitable in one case may not be suitable in another. Before I sit down I should like to say one word as to what has fallen from the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch). I particularly desire to refrain from mentioning the names of any particular Governing Body. I think, however, the apprehensions of the noble Duke have been unduly excited as to anything which may happen to the particular endowment to which he referred. I cannot see there is any danger of such a raid being made upon these funds as the noble Duke seems to imply. With regard to free education, I believe there is a large class of children to whom a fund for free education is an enormous boon; but such education must be under proper limit and restrictions, which it will not be difficult to define, though I

1123
will not weary the House by going into them at any length. They will be in each case subject-matter for the consideration of the Commissioners, and it would certainly be unwise to prejudge what will be done in the matter of the details of any particular scheme. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) will refer to some schemes which were framed by the Commission which sat under the Act of 1878, he will find that there are certain restrictions and methods of selecting for the beneficiaries of such funds which have given satisfaction, I believe, to the Governing Bodies of these funds, and satisfaction also to the Education Department. My Lords, I have nothing further to say on this occasion; but I certainly trust no obstacle will now be placed between the people of Scotland and the passing of the Bill which is under the consideration of your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, the general tone this discussion has taken has been so eminently satisfactory, in my opinion, to the Bill and to the Government that it does not appear to me to be necessary to make any detailed series of remarks in concluding the discussion; but one or two points have been touched upon that I do not think it would be respectful on the part of the Government if they refused to accord their attention to those points. The noble Duke the late Lord President of the Council, who spoke with great authority on the subject of this Bill, made one or two criticisms—friendly criticisms I think I might call them—to one or two of which I should like to advert for a moment. The noble Duke rather lamented over the absence of a Preamble. Well, my Lords, Preambles are not very useful methods of legislation. It is true that there was once a Preamble in the Bill—an extremely long Preamble; but in the House of Commons objection was taken to some important matters in the Preamble, and the Government coincided with these objections. Moreover, I think this further reason occurred to me at the time, that, as the noble Lord who has just sat down has remarked, the Commissioners will have quite sufficient to do to carry out the Bill as it is, and it might act as a further restriction upon their action if they were supposed to be bound by a lengthened Preamble. Well, then, the
1124
noble Duke rather animadverted—as well as the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Camperdown)—upon the proportion of the representative element to be introduced, and both the noble Earl and the noble Duke agreed in what they said as to the principle of the municipal element. My Lords, there is nothing in the Bill to favour the idea they have put forward. The words of the Act are these—
"Where the governing body, or a majority of the governing body, of any educational endowment as at present constituted, consists of persons deriving their qualification as members thereof, either directly or indirectly, from their election to be members of the town council of any burgh or of any other public body, provision shall be made in any scheme under this Act relating to such endowment that not less than two thirds of the governing body thereof as altered by such scheme shall consist of persons elected by such town council or other public body aforesaid."
Well, I am one of those who are friendly to the introduction of the municipal element in Governing Bodies. They are surely a useful element in a large class of great trusts, concerning, or very likely to concern, a great municipality; and it cannot be wrong or distasteful to your Lordships, or repugnant to educational reformers of the most ardent type, that there should be a proportion of those who have been elected especially to supervize the affairs of the town, who should also supervize the educational affairs of the town. My Lords, there is another public body which I do not think was mentioned by the noble Earl or the noble Duke, and to which, of course, special reference must be made by the framers of the Bill, and that is the school hoard. When the great mass of these educational endowments were brought into play, there was no educational agency to which Parliament could refer. But now in every parish and every town there is a school board specially elected with a view to the educational provision for the parish and locality; and I think it would be wrong and shortsighted if we were, in dealing with a great educational subject of this sort, to refuse to recognize the school board as an element for consideration. Then the noble Duke alluded, I think, with more apprehension than the subject required, to the fear of a giver of theological endowments that they should he given to some Dissenting Body. But I do not suppose that the cases of givers

1125
of theological endowments in their lifetime running this risk are likely to be very numerous, for Section 8 of this Bill says—
"This Act shall not apply to any endowment solely or mainly applicable or applied for the purposes of theological instruction or belonging to any theological institution."
So I think that danger—if I may use the word without disrespect—is a visionary one. Well, then, the noble Duke said something about the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, and he thought that the words in the 1st clause amply covered the educational portion of the question with which the Bill proposed to deal. My Lords, if I were to make a full confession on the subject, I should avow myself to be in complete accordance with the noble Lord on that subject. But, as I understand it, the Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge expressed its wish to come under the authority of the Commissioners, and a wish to that effect was also expressed by a large body of Scotch Members in the House of Commons. They were disposed to question whether it would come under the Bill or not as it stood, and therefore it was that we thought it in offensive and safe to mention the association by name. Then the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) alluded to the difficulty of selecting children for the benefits of free primary education. Well, I believe that in the largest Institution that Scotland possesses for the purposes of education—I mean Heriot's Hospital— no difficulty has been found in that respect; and I am not disposed to think that that would present any very serious difficulty to the persons who may be charged with the selection of the children for free primary education under this Act. I am sorry to say that, prosperous as Scotland is reported to be—and I think undoubtedly is—there is no fear at present that deserving poverty will cease to exist, and whenever the poverty is deserving it is entitled to share in the benefits of this Bill. The noble Duke spoke with the authority with which he always speaks of Institutions of this kind, and a representation from the noble Duke on behalf of a great Institution like Heriot's Hospital cannot fail to receive great attention from your Lordships. I confess so much interest in it as this—that the founder of Heriot's Hospital
1126
married an ancestor of my own; and I have no doubt that the money bequeathed by George Heriot has been much better spent than it might have been if it had been left—as I sometimes think it might have been left—to his wife's family. But the noble Duke's argument was this. He said the income of that Institution amounted to about £24,000 a-year, and the noble Duke's argument was that because there was a Commission going to be passed to deal with educational endowments in Scotland, therefore this, the largest educational endowment with which it is proposed to deal, should he exempted from the operations of the Bill. I cannot admit that as an argument of any validity or force on a question of this kind. The particular point he raises, and with which he proposes to deal in Committee, will be best dealt with at that stage of the Bill; but I think the general plea is one that does not deserve recognition at the hands of your Lordships. I think I have now dealt with every point that requires explanation from the Government, and I have to thank your Lordships, on the part of the Government, for the way in which you have received this Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee o the Whole House on Thursday next.
Subsequently,
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he understood the Committee on the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill was to be taken on Thursday, and he wished to know if Amendments could be given in on Wednesday? The Notice was very short.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is very short Notice indeed. Could the Bill not be taken on Friday?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he did not wish to refer to the Bill; only he wished to know how he could give Notice of Amendments?
EARL GRANVILLE: The House will adjourn during pleasure, in order, if possible, to receive the Arrears Bill tonight. In that case, if the noble Earl could give in the Amendments before the final adjournment of the House, he would be quite in Order. The Arrears Bill will take precedence of the Scotch Bill on Thursday.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE SUEZ CANAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the present opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Suez Canal is not within the purview of the Conference now being held at Constantinople, as previously stated in another place by the First Lord of the Treasury? He trusted that the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman was not a mere hasty expression intended to meet the exigencies of the moment.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord opposite will remember a story told of a minor courtier of Louis XIV., who, in reply to a frequent question from His Majesty as to how many children he had, always replied that he had two, until on one occasion, he replied that he had eight. "Eight," said His Majesty, "why you told me the other day that you had only two." "Yes, your Majesty," replied the courtier; "but I thought perhaps that your Majesty might be tired of hearing me always say the same thing, and, therefore, I have altered the number." My Lords, I am a little in the same position. The noble Lord has asked me a Question which I answered a fortnight ago, and I must either invent something new or only weary your Lordships by repeating what I have already stated—that is, that neither Sir Charles Dilke nor myself said that the Suez Canal was outside the reference to the Conference, and that Mr. Gladstone, although he gave in general terms an Answer to a Question put without Notice, made very soon afterwards an explanation to the House to the effect that whereas the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal was outside the reference to the Conference, yet in regard to the Canal itself it was impossible to separate it entirely from the question called the Egyptian Question proper.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH THE ARMY.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT MONCKasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether any arrange-
1128
ments have been made for affording facilities for postal communication with the Army in Egypt?
THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, we are at present engaged with the authorities of the General Post Office in making arrangements for postal communication between this country and the Expeditionary Force in Egypt. As soon as these arrangements are completed, they will be published in the newspapers. Meanwhile, I can give the noble Lord some information in answer to his Question. Letters should be addressed to the "Expeditionary Force, Egypt." Letters will be posted three times a-week—Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The Post Office authorities, having in view the difficulties which may sometimes arise in the field of obtaining postage stamps, will allow all letters to be posted from the Army unstamped, and will charge only single rates on their delivery in this country, the men's letters being charged 1d., the officers' the ordinary single rate. This arrangement will be of great convenience to the Forces. I may add that the formation of a Post Office Corps is a peculiar and entirely new feature in this Expedition. One hundred men of the Post Office Volunteer Corps have been enlisted, so as to render them subject to military discipline. Of these, two officers and 43 men will accompany the Expedition. The remaining 57 were enlisted and passed at once into the Reserve, and are available for service should they be required. They take with them marquees for sorting letters, issuing money orders, and all the machinery of a regular Post Office. As might be expected, there was no lack of volunteers for this service, and I am told by an officer who was present at their inspection that they presented a most satisfactory appearance.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by The Lord MONSON.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the amendments agreed to, several agreed to with amendments, and with consequential amendments to the Bill, and one amendment disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said amendments and reasons to be printed, and to be considered on Thursday next. (No. 232.)
House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.