Sitting of 20 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Justices' Jurisdiction* [247].
Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment* [243].
Select Committee—Report—Conveyancing [No. 276].
Considered as amended—Recommitted—Committee—Arrears of Kent (Ireland) [241]—R.P.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (VOTE OF CREDIT).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to give a Notice of importance. On Mon-

  1073
  day next, it is my intention to propose a Vote of Credit for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty to strengthen her Forces in the Mediterranean. Supposing that Vote to be granted we shall ask the House immediately thereafter to proceed with the Tax Bill for the year, in which we shall propose a modification intended to make a provision for meeting the charge which the Vote of Credit will entail. Of course, it will be open to hon. Gentlemen to make any observations on this modification they may please. Having given this Notice, I wish to make a strong appeal to the House with respect to the multitude of Questions relating to Egyptian affairs now put down on the list to be addressed to the Government, in the hope that with the prospect before them they will not put these Questions. I hope it will be understood that I do this not upon any ground of inconvenience to the Government, because that is a limited and insignificant matter, but because I am quite convinced with my Colleagues that putting Questions of that kind, in great multitudes and from many quarters, not merely when it is done in restrained terms by Gentlemen who have been responsible for the conduct of public affairs, but when it is done in the extensive manner—on which I do not pronounce any blame—which has of late, perhaps naturally, grown up, leads to inferences being drawn and impressions created which tend to weaken the action of, I might almost say, public law and authority with regard to this important question, and is undoubtedly very injurious to the public interests. I am desirous to make this appeal, rather than fall back upon what becomes an exceedingly odious task if it is to be many times repeated—namely, the right of the Minister to say that a reply to this and that Question would be injurious to the public interests. In making this appeal—which I hope is not an invidious one—I beg to except from it any Questions which may be put with regard to any account which may have appeared in the newspapers, or reached this country in regard to any new fact of great public interest or importance which may be said to have occurred. I ought, perhaps, to mention to the House that a despatch reached the Government to-day, from which it appears that the Sultan has agreed to join the Conference. He has accepted,
  1074
  and, therefore I presume, may be at present considered actually a participant in the Conference; but the terms of the despatch do not contain any direct reference as to the sending of troops to Egypt. I mention this as a matter of fact. Of course, it would not be right to withhold intelligence of that kind; but I trust that as regards argumentative Questions and Questions of inference, the appeal which I have made may not be without effect. I may say that on Saturday I shall give Notice of the precise amount of the Vote of Credit.
  MR. BOURKE: As I have the first Question on the Paper with respect to Egypt, I beg to say that after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman I will willingly accede to his request, provided, of course, it is not wished by the Government that I should ask the Question; but as I believe it is one which would be rather a help to the Government than the reverse, I leave it on the Paper now, and will put it to the hon. Baronet, on the understanding, of course, that I do not press for an answer if he does not desire it?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the right hon. Member will ask the Question when it is reached, it is the wish of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it should be answered.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question with respect to the Vote of Credit of which he has given Notice. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, on Saturday, he will inform the House of the amount of that Vote. I wish to ask whether in doing so he will convey information to the House as to how the Vote will be applied—whether it is intended for the Suez Canal or for the general occupation of Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the amount of the Vote is the only point upon which it is usual to give Notice. Explanations as to the purpose for which the Vote is to be taken will arise upon the statement that the Government may make when they introduce the Vote.

QUESTIONS.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE —DOG LICENCES (IRELAND).
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1075
  Whether it is the fact that dog licences are payable in Ireland on each 31st March; whether petty sessions' clerks are bound to transmit the amounts in their hands before the 1st May in each year; whether, notwithstanding this, the local authorities entitled to the surplus in relief of taxation do not usually receive it for twelve months afterwards; whether it is the fact that in some years the net surplus for Ireland has amounted to over £17,000; whether the surplus is over invested by the treasurer; what is the cause of the long delay between the despatch of the tax by the petty sessions' clerks and the transmission of the surplus from the treasurer back to the local authorities; whether steps will be taken to have the surplus paid 'on the 31st March last sent to the several counties and cities by the treasurer at once; whether there is a considerable falling off in the Irish Dog Tax in recent years; whether, in the county Cork alone, the falling off amounts to a thousand pounds per annum; whether this is duo to the decrease in the number of dogs, or to the want of vigilance on the part of the Constabulary, owing to eviction duty and patrol work; and, whether, as the surplus obtained through the dog tax goes largely in relief of taxation paid by tenant farmers, an explanation will be asked from the police authorities as to the falling off in the receipts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, dog licences in Ireland are payable before the 31st of March in each year, but a considerable number are issued at other times during the year, which is not complete till the 31st of December. The next three Questions I answer in the affirmative. The surplus has always been invested temporarily, and the dividends paid over to the local authorities. The year ends on the 31st of December. The accounts are made out up to that date, and the suggestion contained in the seventh Question cannot be adopted. With regard to the rest of the Questions, I find that there was a decrease in 1880 from the previous year of £3,500, but since then there has been a slight increase. In the County Cork in 1881 there has been an increase over 1880 of £207 18s., representing 2,079 dogs. The decrease in 1879–80 may be attributed partly to the fact that a number of persons had their dogs destroyed in consequence of the bad harvest of 1879. I do not think it necessary
  1076
  to call on the Constabulary for the explanation suggested in the final Question.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS—THE ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSION— RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Government have come to any conclusion as to renewing or modifying the powers now exercised by the Charity Commissioners with regard to Endowed Schools, as to which he stated that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is intended to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson, one of the Charity Commissioners?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the re-organization of the Endowed Schools Commission which had been in contemplation cannot be accomplished during the present Session. It is, therefore, intended to renew the present Act for a period of one or two years. It is also intended to fill up the vacancy occasioned by the lamented decease of Canon Robinson.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT—ROSSKEEN SCHOOL BOARD—AGREEMENT WITH TEACHERS.
  MR. ERASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a new form of Agreement, which the School Board of Rosskeen, in the county of Ross, is compelling its teachers to sign, under pain of dismissal; and, if so, if he could state whether that Agreement prescribes, as part of the payment of teachers, such fees as they themselves may collect, the Board being, under no circumstances, liable to make good arrears of fees not collected by teachers; whether such contract is in conflict with the provisions of section fifty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act; whether the Agreement proposes to enforce on the teacher's collecting, as part of his emoluments, "such fire-money and other extras as the Board may authorise;" and, whether it is legal to impose such charges or compel the teacher to collect them?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the form of agreement adopted by the School Board of Rosskeen, and I find it opposed in certain particulars to the Education Act

  1077
  and to the regulations of the Scotch Education Department. I have communicated with the School Board on the subject.

  INDIA—CHURCH OF ENGLAND—APPOINTMENT OF CHAPLAINS AND BUILDING AND REPAIRING GRANTS FOR CHURCHES.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will suspend the appointment of Chaplains in that country, and direct that no grants not already promised be given out of public revenues for the building or repair of churches until the Government of India has had an opportunity of reporting on the complaints which have been made on this subject and the changes which may be desirable in the present system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that this subject had been engaging the attention of the Government of India, but they had not yet been able to come to any definite conclusion upon it. Under these circumstances, he did not think it would be a convenient course that he should give an undertaking to the effect asked for by his right hon. Friend.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—DECISIONS GIVEN AT THE SITTINGS IN THE UNION OF ARMAGH.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that, out of 287 cases in which judicial rents were fixed in the Union of Armagh, at the recent sitting of the Sub-Commission, appeals have been lodged in 167, or 70 per cent of the whole; whether the per centage of appeals from the decisions of Messrs. Foley, Meek, and Davidson exceeds that from any of the other Sub-Commissions; and, whether, in view of the proceedings of this Sub-Commission, he will make any representation on the subject to the Chief Commissioners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of appeals lodged and the percentage of the appeals is stated with substantial accuracy by the hon. Member in his Question. The percentage of appeals from this Sub-Commission is higher than the percentage of any other Sub-Commission. The result of these appeals
  1078
  has not in any case been decided, so that it yet remains to be seen how far they were made on sufficient grounds. That must also be my answer to the last part of the Question.
  MR. HEALYinquired whether, in view of those repeated attacks in the form of Questions upon the Sub-Commissioners, and also in view of the fact that Notice of a Motion on the subject had been given in "another place," the Government would afford any opportunity for discussing the general character of those attacks?
  [No reply.]

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will favourably consider the case of Mr. Lawrence Daly, who has undergone more than three months' imprisonment on the alleged suspicion of having incited to the nonpayment of rent, his prolonged imprisonment being the cause of great injury to the working of his farm, and of much suffering to members of his family who are dependent on his labour?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency considered Mr. Lawrence Daly's case on the 18th instant, and decided that he could not at present order his release.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will be so good as to direct the release of Mr. James Seery, a suspect now confined in Naas Gaol, he having undergone nearly seven months' imprisonment, and his district, Ballinea, in the county of Westmeath, having then been, and being now, in a peaceable condition?
  MR. TREVELYAN: James Seery is detained on reasonable suspicion of inciting to murder. His Excellency had his case under consideration on the 21st ultimo, and then decided that he could not order his release.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will favourably consider the case of Mr. Michael Daly, now a suspect in the gaol of Enniskillen, his imprisonment having lasted for more than three months, and his absence from his farm at this season of the year being

  1079
  a cause of great loss and injury to him and to his family?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency has just considered Mr. Michael Daly's case, and decided that he cannot at present order his release.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— SALARIES OF NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution recently passed at a meeting of the National Teachers' Association at Drogheda, to the effect that—
  "Notwithstanding the partial amelioration of the teacher's condition effected in late years, his annual salary is still only one-half that of the English, and less than half of that of the Scotch teachers;"
  and, if such be the case, whether Her Majesty's Government could propose any steps to remedy such inequality?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; the resolution referred to has not been received in my Office, and, consequently, has not come under my consideration. I may point out, however, that a great deal has been done within the last few years to ameliorate the condition of these teachers, and that the question of the equalization of salaries is one of great magnitude and difficulty, affecting many branches of the Public Service.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MAGISTRATES AT BELFAST—MR. HARREL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Harrel, who is now acting as special resident magistrate in Belfast; and deciding cases between the people and the police was lately the chief detective officer of police in Belfast; if it is true that there is no Roman Catholic stipendary magistrate in Belfast at present; if the Government in the year 1865, after the report of the Special Commission presided over by the pre-sent Baron Dowse and the present Mr. Justice Barry, agreed that two resident magistrates not connected with the people of Belfast, one a Protestant, and the other a Roman Catholic, should be permanently appointed for Belfast; if the Government will at once appoint a lawyer as one of the resident magistrates
  1080
  for that town; if the Government also agreed to appoint a certain number of Protestant police officers for Belfast; if the present magistrate, Mr. Harrel, was one of the Protestant policemen so appointed, and as riots are again proceeding in Belfast, will the Government remove Mr. Harrel, or direct him not to adjudicate in party cases; and, if the Government will at once appoint a Roman Catholic magistrate for Belfast?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Harrel is not acting as special Resident Magistrate in Belfast. He was sent there as he knew the town well for a few days during the July anniversaries, but has since returned to his station in the County Mayo. There are no special Resident Magistrates in Belfast at present. I cannot find any record of the Government having pledged themselves to the arrangements mentioned in the Question with regard to the Resident Magistrates and police officers in Belfast; but it has been usual for some years past to have a Protestant and Roman Catholic Resident Magistrate stationed there, and the Government has no present intention of departing from that custom. There are at present three Protestant and one Roman Catholic Sub-Inspectors stationed there. The two Resident Magistrates whose station is Belfast are, and have been for some time, employed on special duty elsewhere, and I cannot give any pledge of appointing a lawyer as one of the magistrates in any redistribution of districts; but the matter will be carefully considered.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— SUSPENSION OF SITTINGS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in a rumour which has been circulated, to the effect that it is proposed to suspend the sittings of the Sub-Commissions under the Land Act, at the conclusion of the present circuits, for a period of several weeks' vacation; and, whether, in view of the fact that the proper season for the inspection of land is when it is carrying the crops, during the long days of summer and autumn, and when the capabilities of land, which is submerged in winter time, can be estimated with the crops or stock upon it, and with the object of preventing, as far as possible, the repetition of inspections of land under

  1081
  the most unfavourable conditions, he will represent to the Land Commissioners the expediency of continuing the sittings of the Sub-Commissions throughout the summer and autumn months, and fixing the period of vacation during those winter months when it is impossible that a satisfactory inspection of land, or true estimate of its value, can be made?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners calculate that the present circuits of the Assistant Commissioners will terminate about the 15th of August, and it is intended that the next circuits shall open about the 18th of September. The Assistant Commissioners must get some holiday, and I think it best that they should take it all at one time. Otherwise it would be necessary to make it a rule during a considerable part of the year for the Sub-Commissioners to sit two instead of three together, or else to consolidate the Sub-Commissions in successive groups, which would cause great inconvenience.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked what would be the objection to their taking the holiday in winter time?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought that would be rather hard on the Sub-Commissioners. Moreover, they were so mixed up with legal proceedings in Ireland, that it would be better for them to take their holiday during the legal vacation.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it harder still for parties who are waiting to have their cases heard?

  THE SOUTH AFRICA ACT, 1877— RENEWAL.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to renew "The South Africa Act, 1877," which expires in August next?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir; it is not.

  IRELAND—PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE STATUTE 34 EDWARD III.—MESSRS. O'LOUGHLIN AND HOGAN.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency has again examined the testimonials as to the character, and the prayers for the release,
  1082
  of Mr. O'Loughlin, of Lisdoonvarna, who, together with Mr. Hogan, of Ballyvaughan, county Clare, has been confined in Galway Gaol for the last three months, under an Act of King Edward III.?
  MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency is causing further inquiries to be made into Mr. O'Loughlin's case; but they have not yet been concluded.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)— THE RIVER SHANNON—INCREASE OF TOLLS.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Memorials concerning the recent increase of tolls on the River Shannon have been considered; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. COURTNEY: The question referred to in these Memorials has been considered; and, although it has not yet been definitely decided, I can say that the tolls will be fixed at no higher figure than that sufficient to restore and maintain the solvency of the trust.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—AMERICAN CITIZENS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that there are still several American citizens confined under the Protection of Person and Property Act of 188l; whether many of them have been now detained over twelve months; whether it is the intention of the Government to try them for the offences of which they have been "suspected;" and, whether Mr. Henry O'Mahony, of Ballydehobb, county Cork, who was arrested on the 4th June 1881, has yet been released; and, if not, whether, considering the length of his imprisonment, the Lord Lieutenant can order his discharge?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there are some persons who are American citizens still detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act, one of whom—Daniel M'Sweeney—has been so detained for over 12 months. His Excellency has caused it to be intimated to these prisoners that he is ready to order their release on condition of their leaving the country; but he cannot, consis-

  1083
  tently with his duty, allow them to be at large in Ireland at present. It is not intended to put them on their trial. These remarks also apply to the case of Mr. Henry O'Mahony, who was rearrested on the 10th of December, 1881. He had, during his first detention, been nearly four months in custody.

  EGYPT—PROTECTION OF THE SUEZ CANAL-PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether an agreement has been arrived at with any Foreign Power with respect to the protection of the Suez Canal; if so, what are the terms of such agreement or convention; whether it is true that the French Government desire to provoke a deliberation of the Conference with regard to the Suez Canal; whether an agreement in that sense has been concluded with the British Cabinet; whether Her Majesty's Government still intend that the deliberation of the Conference shall be limited to the Egyptian Question, and will not extend to the Suez Canal, and that the whole subject of the neutralization and control of the Canal is a matter that shall never be referred to the Conference; and, whether it appears to Her Majesty's Government to be wholly outside of the purpose of the Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This Question, Sir, appeared on the Paper on Tuesday; but it was not asked, in consequence of the adjournment of the debate being moved. Though it will not be in my power to answer, after the appeal of my right hon. Friend, any further Questions growing out of this matter, which will be debated on Monday. I think it is, perhaps, desirable to answer this Question now. Her Majesty's Government took naval measures for the protection of the Suez Canal, as has been frequently stated in this House. At the meeting of the Conference on the 27th of June, a reservation as to force majeure appended by the English and French Ambassadors to the declaration against isolated action was added for the purpose of leaving perfect liberty of action to their respective Governments in the presence of any emergency whatever, including danger to the Suez Canal; and on the 28th of June Lord Dufferin was instructed to mention
  1084
  to his colleagues the object with which the reservations had been added. On the 17th of July the following communication was made by England and France to the Powers:—
  "Our proposals respecting the restoration of order in Egypt are already before the Conference. The security of the Suez Canal, although connected with that subject, is a separate question, and is not equally embarrassed by political considerations. Setting aside any question which might arise as to the possible duty of any of the Powers individually, if sudden and grave danger should arise in the absence of any provision for united action, Her Majesty's Government think it desirable that any action to be taken should receive the sanction of Europe, and, if practicable, of Turkey. France and England propose, in consequence, to the Conference to designate the Powers, who should be charged, in case of need, to take the measures specially necessary for the protection of the canal. In order to save time, the Powers so designated, and who should have accepted the mandat, should be authorized to decide on the mode and the moment of action. This action would he exercised in every case on the principle of the self-denying protocol."
  MR. BOURKE: But no agreement has been come to between France and England, I understand.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This is a declaration to the Powers in the name of Franco and England.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Have Her Majesty's Government any guarantee that the arrangements out of which that declaration grew with the Do Freycinet Cabinet will be maintained by any French Ministry which succeeds the Cabinet of M. De Freycinet, who has resigned?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: After the appeal of my right hon. Friend, I certainly must decline to answer that Question.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the terms of the joint Note lately presented to the Porte with respect to Turkish intervention in Egypt; and, when an answer is expected?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir, it is as follows:—
  "Impressed with the necessity of applying a prompt remedy for the troubled state of Egypt and of restoring confidence in that country, the great Powers, assembled in Conference, have decided to appeal to the sovereignty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan by inviting him to intervene in Egypt, and assist the Khedive by sending forces sufficient to re-establish order, put down the usurping faction, and put an end to that state of anarchy which is desolating the

  1085
  country, has led to the effusion of blood, the ruin and the flight of thousands of European and Mussulman families, and compromised at once national and foreign interests. While assuring by their presence respect for the rights of the Empire, and the re-establishment of the Khedivial authority, the Imperial forces will allow, at the same time, according to the method to be determined hereafter by common consent, of the adoption of wise reforms in the military organization of Egypt, without prejudicing by their intervention the prudent development of the civil, administrative, and judicial institutions of Egypt, so as not to conflict with the Imperial firman. In addressing themselves to His Majesty, the great Powers of Europe have full confidence that during the sojourn of the Ottoman troops in Egypt the normal status guo will be maintained, and that there will be no interference with the immunities and privileges of Egypt guaranteed by previous firmans, or with the regular working of the administration, or with the international engagements and the arrangements which result from them. The sojourn in Egypt of the Imperial troops, the commanders of which will have to act in concert with the Khedive, will be limited to a period of three months, unless the Khedive should ask for its prolongation for an additional term, to be fixed by agreement with Turkey and the Powers. The expenses of the occupation will be defrayed by Egypt, and the amount will be determined by agreement between the six Powers, Turkey, and Egypt. If, as they hope, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan responds to the call made to him by the great Powers, the application of the clauses and conditions above enumerated will form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the six Powers and Turkey."
  A telegram has been received this day from Lord Dufferin, stating that the Porte has expressed its readiness to join the Conference.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to statements by the correspondent of the "Standard" that the English Church at Alexandria received a shell from the English Fleet; to statements of the correspondent of the "Daily News" that a shell from the English Fleet penetrated the General Hospital; and to statements of the correspondent of the"Times"that—
  "Shells from the 'Inflexible' burst right over the centre of the city, "that" the next house to the Palace of Menasce had been hit by a shell and was in flames, "and that" the Free Schools, built at an expense of £14,000 by the European community, have one wing completely battered away;"
  whether he has seen the statements of the correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph," who visited the scenes, that—
  "In the Arab quarter all the shells missing the Pharos Fort had fallen. Here the houses
  1086
  are in chaos. There has been terrible destruction everywhere about the locality. My Arab informant stated to me that in this quarter the people awaited the result of the bombardment quietly for some time, thinking the shells would not reach them. In a short time, however, the destructive missiles flew in among them, and they fled in great fright, leaving dead, wounded, and property behind them. There was great slaughter here, many persons besides soldiers being killed. * * * I learned from another Arab that the shells fired over the Isthmus had fallen wildly, killing many people near Fort Napoleon, and wrecking the houses;"
  whether he has seen the statement in the "Times" of the Manager of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank, who maintained his post along with sixty or seventy Europeans during the bombardment, that shells from the English Fleet fell in the city and frequently passed over the city; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be undertaken into the reason for such inaccuracy of fire, which, directed against forts on the water's edge, is thus alleged to have extended into and beyond the habitations of the people of Alexandria? The hon. Member said he should continue to ask any Questions in regard to the conduct of foreign affairs under Her Majesty's present Administration whenever he thought fit to do so, leaving it to the option of Her Majesty's Government not to answer Questions.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in common with all readers of newspapers, I have seen many statements made by special correspondents within the last few days, but of the accuracy of those statements I have no knowledge. Some of them, I observe, are quite contradictory of each other. We have certainly no information which induces us to believe that shells from our guns set fire to any part of the town; but we expect, as I said the other day, full and detailed accounts in the Admiral's despatches.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—HOUSE OF COMMONS—CONNECTION WITH THE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  MR. GRAYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will consider the desirability of placing the House of Commons in telephonic communication with the Telephone Exchange, and also of placing one of the Exchange telegraph instruments in the House for the convenience of Members?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I shall endeavour, during the Recess, to make arrangements in the direction aimed at by the hon. Member. The only difficulty is the want of a suitable room for the purpose.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS AT MAGHERAFELT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Sub-Commissioners Messrs. Greer, Headlake, and Ross, while investigating the cases of the tenants against the Salters' Company at Magherafelt, stayed at the house of a Mr. Young, employed by the Salters' Company; whether he is aware that the tenants considered that this must tend to prejudice their case; and, whether he will cause the Land Commission to give instructions that Sub-Commissioners should avoid having relations with either party to the cases which may be brought before them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Having referred this Question to the Sub-Commission alluded to, I have received a report from Mr. Greer, stating that they have not investigated a single case on the estate of the Salters' Company, no such cases ever having been listed to that Commission. The Sub-Commissioners are staying in lodgings in the house of a Mr. Young, where they were recommended to go by the County Court Judge, who also occupied them. They did not consider it desirable to put up at the hotel, as it was filled with solicitors, valuators, and other persons interested or concerned in the cases before them. Mr. Greer adds that he has never spoken to Mr. Young, and would not know him if he saw him. With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, the Land Commissioners inform me that they have determined in their own case, when they go circuit to hear appeals, to decline absolutely all hospitality offered to them, and they have earnestly recommended each of the Sub-Commissioners to adopt the same rule.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—ARREST AT LOUGHREA.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Vine,
  1088
  photographer, of Athenry, county Galway, who had come to Loughrea, county Galway, for the purpose of seeing some friends, was arrested as a "stranger" by Head-constable Payne, Loughrea, at eleven o'clock last Sunday night, and was remanded for a week to Galway Gaol, and upon what evidence, and by what magisterial power, this process was accomplished, seeing that the Crime Prevention Bill had not yet passed into Law; whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 14th instant:—
  "The condition of Loughrea is deplorable. The markets, which were very good, have latterly dwindled down to nothing. The country people are afraid to come in, as the police are arresting every stranger on suspicion;"
  and, whether, in order to guard against such effects as those described, the Irish Executive will issue instructions as to the Police administration of the Crime Prevention Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have learned by telegraph that John Vine was arrested under the ordinary law and remanded on suspicion of being about to commit a felony; but I have not yet received any adequate information on the subject.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped that in his further communication the right hon. Gentleman would inquire whether Mr. Vine was not a most respectable inhabitant of Athenry.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— APPROVAL BY AUSTRIA OF COURSE TAKEN BY ENGLAND.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he still adheres to his statement, purporting to be founded on conversations between Count Kalwoky and Sir Henry Elliot in Vienna, and between Count Karyoli and Lord Granville in London, that Austria had declared that the action of Her Majesty's Government at Alexandria was perfectly legitimate; and, whether the substance of those conversations will be included in the Papers shortly to be laid before Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I feel some wonder that my hon. Friend should ask me this Question, as he knows, from previous experience, that if I saw reason to qualify my statement I

  1089
  should have done so without waiting for a Question. As, however, he asks me the Question, it is necessary that I should read to the House the despatches which have passed on the subject. On July 10 Sir Henry Elliot wrote as follows:—
  "I have called upon Count Kalnoky to inform him that, in consequence of the Egyptians continuing' to arm the forts of Alexandria, Sir Beau-champ Seymour was to announce this morning that, unless they were temporarily surrendered to him for the purpose of disarmament, he would open fire in 24 hours. His Excellency replied, without hesitation, that he thought Her Majesty's Government perfectly right in the step that was being taken, and nothing could he more complete or cordial than the manner in which he declared the action to be perfectly legitimate, as it was impossible for us to permit the threatening preparations to he carried on without interference,"
  On the following day, July 11, Count Kalnoky repeated to Sir Henry Elliot that he fully understood the reasons for the action taken, and considered the decision of Her Majesty's Government perfectly justifiable. On the 14th of July Lord Granville addressed the following despatch to Sir Henry Elliot:—
  "The Austrian Ambassador told me this afternoon that he had received from Count Kalnoky an account of the language which he had used to your Excellency in regard to the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria by the British Fleet. Count Kalnoky described himself as having stated that the Austrian Government were disposed to consider the bombardment of the forts an act of self-defence, caused by the provocative and menacing attitude of the Egyptian authorities, and as an incident which might be without any detrimental influence on the diplomatic situation, provided England limited her action to the disarmament of the forts in accordance with her declared intention. Count Kalnoky added that in the absence of any sufficient authority at Alexandria, where the orders of the Sultan were ineffective, sufficient reason could be found to explain and justify action in self-defence, which, under other circumstances, would not have been legitimate. The Austrian Government were the more inclined to adopt this view, as it seemed the best and most practical mode of settling the matter, and coincided with the general desire of the Powers to endeavour to effect a pacific solution of the general question."

  EGYPT—STATE OF AFFAIRS AT ALEXANDRIA.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, so long ago as last December or January, representations were made from Cairo to Her Majesty's
  1090
  Government, to the effect that, in the opinion of many of the English and other Consular officers in Egypt, any attempt at forcible intervention in that Country would be met, unless full precautions were taken, by a massacre of the Christian populations of Cairo and Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we can find no such representations.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there are not 2,100 Royal Marines now on shore in Egypt; whether another battalion is not going out which will raise the force of Royal Marines in Egypt to nearly 3,000 men; and, whether these men are to be placed under the command of a General Officer of their own corps; and, if not, from which branch of the Naval or Military services an officer will be selected to take the command of this large force of Royal Marines?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: There are now 1,000 Marines on shore at Alexandria, forming part of the Force under the immediate command of Major General Sir Archibald Alison. They are commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel of Marine Artillery, and a Lieutenant Colonel of Light Infantry. The rest of the Marines in Egypt belong to the ships of the Fleet, and are ready for embarkation to keep the ships efficient. It is not intended to send out a General Officer of Marines.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table immediately a Paper giving the instructions, in regular order, sent to Admiral Sir F. Beauchamp Seymour, with reference to Egyptian affairs, in the course of the present year? He said he understood the hon. Gentleman to say, two days ago, that he had communicated from time to time all the orders which had been sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that they had appeared in the newspapers. It was obviously inconvenient to refer to them in that form.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: With every desire to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government are bound to consider that these instructions really form a part of the general policy of the Government in regard to the Egyptian Question. We, therefore, think it desirable that the instructions should be presented at the same time as the other Papers.
  MR. GIBSON: That will be in the Recess.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he had understood the lion. Gentleman to say that from time to time these instructions had been communicated. Was that so or not?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: To the best of my belief, they have been all stated at the Table of the House; but I cannot give any categorical answer.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had given Notice to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the following telegram from Alexandria, which appeared in the "Times" of the 19th instant, was correct:—
  "The 'Orontes,' which was supposed to have troops on board, arrived this morning, but through some extraordinary blunder at Malta she has come without a single soldier;"
  but, in deference to the wish of the hon. Gentleman, he said he would not ask the Question.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that, unless the Question came under the category of argumentative inquiry, he desired to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily News" of the 19th instant, that—
  "The Egyptian Ministry hesitates to take the necessary steps to inform the people that Arabi is a rebel and an outlaw."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, it would be difficult to answer this Question without going into debateable matter, and, therefore, I must decline to answer it.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether or not it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the Table the Reports of Sir Beauchamp Seymour of the steps taken by him, and of such forces as the Government had placed under his orders, for the preservation of British life and property at Alexandria on the 11th of June; and, if so, when?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There will be no objection on the part of the Government to laying these documents on the Table.
  MR. PASSMORE EDWARDSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has seen the following translated extracts from two influential Italian newspapers, which appear in the "Times" of this morning:—The "Diritto," the reputed organ of an Italian Cabinet Minister, says:—
  1092
  "The damage caused by the bombardment amounts to hundreds of millions, almost all belonging to Europeans. It is now certain that the English bombs were for two days hurled into the middle of the city. What need, then, for seeking elsewhere the cause of the fires? We mention this in order that, before the moment when we shall have to talk about the damages, Europe may be enlightened as to the facts of the case;"
  The "Popolo Romano" says:—
  "If England retires from Alexandria when the Powers have decided what action shall be taken, the political consequences of the bombardment may be small. But they will, nevertheless, continue to be most serious from a monetary and material point of view. Upon this head there will, without doubt, arise the question of the damage done to European property, which some one will certainly have to make good;"
  and, whether the Government are prepared to consider any claims which may be made by Foreign Citizens or Foreign Governments in compensation for the property it is alleged we have destroyed at Alexandria?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked what the Government proposed to do with reference to the bombardment of Sfax?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The last Question had better be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with due Notice. With respect to the other Question, certainly the Government would never think it necessary to take any notice whatever of the two anonymous paragraphs.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the "Times" correspondence of this day (Monday), in which it is stated that the Government were advised several weeks ago by their accredited Military agent at Alexandria that, with the view of avoiding the perpetration of any atrocities, it would be necessary that a landing of troops should be effected whenever the bombardment of the town took place; and, if so, what was the date of that communication, and what reply was returned?
  MR. CHILDERS: My right hon. Friend asks me to answer this Question. In reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that there was no accredited Military Agent at Alexandria before Sir Archibald Alison's arrival. Major Tul-loch, an officer on the Staff at Portsmouth, has been attached to the Staff of Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour in consequence of his local knowledge of the

  1093
  neighbourhood of Alexandria. But I must decline altogether to give any information as to the opinions or confidential Reports of that officer.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Major Tulloch's Report on the Table?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir. Major Tulloch was neither the adviser nor the agent of the Government, and I should not notice here or place on the Table his opinion on such a subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a clear and distinct statement of the danger to the European colony to be expected after the bombardment of the forts was in the hands of the Cabinet several weeks ago, on the part of the British residents in Alexandria; and, why the warning of the British residents was disregarded?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has put his Question. At the same time the answer is a very simple one. The representations made by the hon. Gentleman are extremely vague. He does not distinctly indicate the Reports he refers to; but there was a Report on the 30th May, from a committee of British merchants, who represented that the force in the port of Alexandria was so small as not to be able to give protection to the British subjects who were then ashore. Since then, and long before the bombardment, all the British subjects in Alexandria, or nearly the whole of them, were removed from Alexandria, and after that Report was made, an application was made by Sir Beauchamp Seymour for an additional force, which was complied with, and the force was largely augmented.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked what steps the Government had taken for the relief and support of the refugees at Cyprus and Malta?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think this Question has already been answered. Provision has been made, and is being made, on the subject, and the proper Department is in communication with the authorities of both those Colonies, or rather with the Colony of Malta and with the Island of Cyprus, whatever the proper designation of it may be.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—SEARCH WARRANTS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1094
  Whether general warrants of search have been issued to all the inspectors and sub-inspectors of police in all the twenty counties to which the search of domicile Clause in the new Coercion Act has been applied by the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation; and, how many of these warrants have been issued?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in answer to the first paragraph of the Question, I can say that such is not the case. In answer to the second paragraph, I think I must decline to make any statement.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— CATTLE STEALING.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the present state of the Law enables Mrs. Lawder, of Lawderdale, parish of Fenagh, county Leitrim, to obtain compensation for the herd of cattle, value £168, lifted off her farm on the night of the 6th instant; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate any alteration in the present Law, in order to compensate owners of cattle for their losses; whether the Government intend taking any immediate steps to check the growing practice of cattle stealing; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the number of head of cattle stolen within the last twelve months, specifying the counties in each case, and the number that have been recovered through the aid of the Police, or otherwise?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the present state of the law does not enable the owner of cattle or any other goods which have been stolen to obtain compensation from any person except the robber. The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that the official Returns do not show an increase in the number of cases of cattle stealing. The number of cases reported in the six months ended the 30th of June, 1881, was 83. The number reported in the six months ended the 30th of June, 1882, was 72. It would be impossible to give an accurate Return of stolen cattle recovered in the past 12 months through the aid of the Constabulary without reference to the various districts; but I have desired a Return to be made out and sent over by tonight's post, which I can let the hon. and gallant Member have to-morrow, showing the number of cases of cattle steal-

  1095
  ing reported from each county in each of the last 12 months.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked that the Return might be supplemented by a similar Return from the counties of England?

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—CONTINUATION OF APPOINTMENT.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is now able to state if it is intended to continue the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners appointed in November last for one year?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, there were nine Assistant Commissioners appointed in November last for one year, and the Land Commissioners inform me that, in their opinion, their re-appointment at the end of the year will be necessary.

  IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTUMACY BILL AND CONTUMACIOUS CLERKS BILL—IMPRISONMENT OF THE REV. S. F. GREEN.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has observed that, under the "block system," it has been impossible for the House to have an opportunity of considering the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill, which has come down from the Upper House; whether he can suggest any mode by which that Bill can be considered; and, whether, failing any such opportunity, he will recommend to the Crown the exercise of the Royal prerogative, in order to determine the imprisonment of a clergyman, not charged with any offence against the Criminal Law, which has now lasted for sixteen months?
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will extend the facilities asked for the discussion of the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill to the discussion of the Contumacious Clerks Bill, so that the whole question may be disposed of?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must answer the Questions separately, because, although they refer to the same subject-matter, I think the two Bills mentioned are materially different in the purpose they have in view. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), I believe this Bill to which he refers has come from
  1096
  the Upper House, and which, although it alters the general law, alters it with the special view to the case of a particular individual—the Rev. Mr. Green—apparently under the idea of releasing that gentleman from prison, on the ground that, whatever may have been the merits or demerits of his original conduct, he has suffered severely for that conduct, and it would be a becoming act to release him. In these circumstances, I see it stated by my hon. Friend that the Bill has been blocked. Without presuming to censure any Member, I would make a respectful appeal to anyone who may have blocked it, and would represent that it hardly seems satisfactory that, where the question is the continuance of imprisonment—which, on the one hand, is thought just and proper, and, on the other, harsh and improper—it should be decided virtually without discussion by the simple blocking of a Bill, and the prolongation of the imprisonment thus obtained. I cannot help hoping that clemency may touch the heart of any Gentleman who may have blocked that Bill, and that he may be induced to allow the House to deal with it. I know enough of the good temper and good feeling of the House to be sure that they would not mind the inconvenience of dealing with the Bill at a late hour in order to give an impartial judgment upon it. As to the second part of the Question, I may say it is not within my recollection that the Prime Minister has ever intermeddled in any way in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. So far as I know the method of all Governments, it is desired to keep out of the political arena all questions of this nature; and, therefore, I am not prepared to give any answer to that part of the Question. With regard to the other Bill, it aims at an alteration of the law, I believe, on the same subject-matter; but it has not the same direct reference to the case of this gentleman as the first Bill has. It certainly does not come to us in the same way, commended not only by the assent of the other House, but by the fact that this Bill, being an ecclesiastical subject-matter, was introduced by the heads of the Episcopal Body, and, therefore, has very special claims upon our attention. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend can obtain a discussion of his Bill; but I am afraid, if I were to entangle myself

  1097
  by giving any promise as to the discussion of the Bill, I should have a good many other claims made upon me in the same direction.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the block of the Bill from the House of Lords stood in his name, and he should be happy to remove that block if any assurance were given that the Bill should come on at a time when it could be properly discussed.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDhad also blocked the Bill, so that it might not be smuggled through. His only desire was that it should be fairly discussed.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ministers did not interfere in matters of this kind.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Question related to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, and all cases of that nature were dealt with departmentally, and not by the Cabinet as a whole.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that, as he understood the Premier to refer to the Home Secretary as the proper authority to be appealed to in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he would on Monday put a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state what steps have been taken with reference to the unanimous acceptance of the House, on 13th May 1881, of the Resolution declaring it advisable—
  "That the functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Agriculture and Commerce should. as far as possible, be administered by a distinct Department, and be presided over by a responsible Minister of the Crown?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Baronet is quite justified in putting this Question, for undoubtedly the Government were under a pledge to proceed with this as with many other subjects during the course of the present Session, and they would have been quite prepared to do so. We had, indeed, before Lord Spencer left for Ireland, a general outline of our proposal; but a measure for altering the functions of a Department I must consider as falling within the same category, practically, as a Bill of the Government; and I am
  1098
  sorry to say that in the present state of Business we have been obliged to drop everything except what is of immediate necessity, or where there is little difference of opinion, as the Corrupt Practices Bill, which represents almost the universal desire of the House. We should not feel justified in asking the House to consider this matter during the present Session.
  MR. MONK: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to make any recommendation to the House before the end of the Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My answer would be to say that this subject must, so far as the Government is concerned, drop along with so many of the other engagements which we have been obliged to abandon.

  IRELAND—GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR DURING THE WINTER SEASON.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the precarious state of the weather, the Government are preparing to afford labour to the working classes of Ireland during the ensuing autumn and winter months?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I cannot say that it is the intention of the Government to afford labour to the working classes of Ireland during the ensuing winter, and I am almost surprised that this Question should have been put to me.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL, CLAUSE 5—THE INVESTIGATION AS TO THE TENANT'S POSITION.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the great number of tenants, estimated at 350,000, whose claims will have to be heard under the Arrears Bill, he will endeavour, on Report, to amend that part of the fifth clause which requires a double investigation, viz.: firstly, the inquiry to be made by fit persons appointed to "investigate and report," and secondly, the investigation of such reports by the Land Commission itself; and, whether such double investigation could be avoided?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Gentleman's figures are very far in excess of the estimate which the Government, on close examination, are prepared

  1099
  to make. I believe that the figure of 200,0(10 is really about the basis of the question, and it is a matter in some degree of speculation what number out of this 200,000 are in arrear, and are consequently more or less in a condition primâ facie to fall within the operation of the Bill. But with respect to the question of the double investigation, I think the hon. Member may dismiss his apprehensions. It is by no means intended that there shall be a double investigation. On the contrary, the supposition is, the work will, in the first instance, be properly and thoroughly performed; but it is absolutely necessary to reserve power of a re-investigation, in order to insure that it will be properly and thoroughly performed. If the Commissioners make judicious appointments, I have no doubt the double investigation will be a rare occurrence; but, at the same time, it is necessary to reserve power that it should be ordered.

  DETECTIVE POLICE FORCE (IRELAND) —RESIGNATION OF COLONEL BRACKENBURY.
  MR. GIBSON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if there is any truth in the report of Colonel Brackenbury's resignation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is true that Colonel Brackenbury has resigned, but not for the reason alluded to in The Daily News. The resignation has nothing to do with anything relating to the Irish policy of the Government. In questions of employment there are always two parties. In this instance the Government is one, and Colonel Bracken-bury is the other. As Colonel Bracken-bury has resigned, but on no public grounds whatever, I think the Government are not only absolved from making a statement, but they have no right to make a statement. We are actively engaged in making the arrangements arising from this resignation.

  POST OFFICE—THE LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Postmaster General, What will be the annual cost of the increased pay and allowances at length granted to the letter carriers and auxiliary letter carriers of the United Kingdom; and, when it will be in his power to publish the details of the new scheme for the information of those whom it affects?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that no time will be lost in bringing the new scheme into operation. The work will necessarily take some time, but I hope it will be completed in the course of a few weeks. Until the application of the new classification has been finally determined it is impossible to give a precise estimate of the expense involved. I may say, however, that the cost of carrying out the new scheme, so far as it affects letter carriers, porters, and the other persons to whom I referred in answering a Question on Tuesday last, will certainly be not less than £60,000 a-year.

  FINANCE ACCOUNTS OF 1881.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked whether the Secretary to the Treasury would take measures for having the Finance Accounts of last year laid before the House as speedily as possible. They were already more than a month behind the usual time of publication?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would make inquiries on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT ANT) ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked whether the Prime Minister, when he stated that the Corrupt Practices Bill had the unanimous approval of the House, was aware that there were 25 pages of Amendments on the Paper with regard to the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was aware that there was a largo number of Amendments on the Paper; but he understood they were directed in perfect good faith towards the improvement of the Bill.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed with the Bill that night?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, not unless it could be taken at a convenient hour.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked what the right hon. Gentleman considered a convenient hour?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Half-past 12.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he begged to give Notice that if the Bill was called on after 11 he would move that the Chairman do report Progress.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE EAST INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements he proposes to make in order to secure, in accordance with the declarations made in former Sessions, the discussion of the Indian Budget at a reasonable period of the Session?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that this was another of the engagements that remained necessarily unfulfilled in consequence of the deplorable position in which the House stood with regard to its duties. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, however, would do his best, and the Government would assist him to bring it in before the dregs of the Session. He hoped those hon. Gentlemen who put these Questions, which he was continually obliged to answer by pleading the impotence of Parliament, would give their best assistance when they came to the proposals for relieving the House.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill was introduced into this House by private Members, at the instance of and by the recommendation of the Government, and that every opportunity has been sought for pressing it forward, he will afford facilities for getting this measure passed into Law during the present Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid, having been obliged to state already that we have been unable to redeem direct engagements, it follows a fortiori that we cannot take cognizance of indirect engagements. I heartily wish well to my hon. Friend in his undertaking; but I am afraid I can say no more.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he proposes to take the Estimates, and in what order; when he will take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; and, when it is intended to bring on the Indian Budget?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to taking the Estimates in exact order, I think it would be more convenient that we should not bind ourselves absolutely; but Notice will be given of the order in which we wish to take them. I have already stated that the House will pro-
  1102
  ceed to deal with the Custom and Inland Revenue Bill immediately after the Vote of Credit.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, preference would be given to the Navy Estimates.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe there is a distinct pledge on that subject.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to what he had characterized as the deplorable state of Public Business, and of the desirability of the early adjournment of the House, and of a Sitting of the House in autumn, he was prepared to propose some arrangement to expedite the Business of the Government immediately in hand.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when the time had arrived when, in accordance with precedent, a proposal of that kind should be made, he would be prepared to make it. On Monday he would move that the Government should have Tuesday evenings.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what was Government Business? Was the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill one of the measures to be carried through?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would make a statement on the subject on Monday.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Prime Minister had just stated that he would ask that Tuesday evenings be taken for Government Business. There was a Notice of Motion with regard to the distressed agricultural population of Oude and Behar standing for next Tuesday evening. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) had secured that evening for it, the question was most important, and many Members of the House took an interest in it. Would the right hon. Gentleman refrain from taking next Tuesday evening from private Members? If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he stated that a Vote for increasing Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean would be taken on Monday next, and that on that Vote the House could discuss the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt. Would not the Premier consider it advisable to give the House some other opportunity of criticizing the past policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt when the criticisms upon it would not be liable to

  1103
  the misrepresentation that they were brought forward at a time that would interfere with the drafting of Supplies to Her Majesty in an urgent matter of foreign policy? The hon. Gentleman was repeating the same Question, amid some signs of impatience from the House, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member must confine himself to asking the Question, and must not repeat it.
  MR. O'DONNELLstated that, as the question was somewhat difficult and complicated, he was trying to explain it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the question was, no doubt, difficult and complicated; but when the hon. Gentleman repeated it with a view to make it clear, it had only become still more difficult and complicated. The most legitimate, convenient, and constitutional opportunity for discussing the past policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt would be on the Vote on Account on Monday. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), relating to Behar and Oude, afforded a sufficient reason for departing from a proceeding called for by the general convenience of Public Business; but his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would be happy to give his best attention to any statements with which he might be favoured by the hon. Member or his Friends.
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that he would oppose any Motion for the appropriation by the Government of Tuesday evenings.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he understood there was to be a Sitting on Saturday. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the Business that would be taken on that day?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade, who had charge of the Electric Lighting Bill, was not present. But it was the intention of the Government to propose a Sitting on Saturday, and the Business to be taken on that day would, he believed, be the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill, the Scotch Entail Bill, and the third reading of the Electric Lighting Bill. If there were other measures to be proceeded with, they would be only of secondary importance, and not involving questions of a disputatious character.
  MR. MACFARLANEbegged the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that during the last two months and more all the nights of private Members had been taken away. He hoped, therefore, private Members would not have their rights further interfered with.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was entirely a matter for the general consideration and convenience of the House. He did not undervalue the consideration of the rights of private Members.

  FRANCE—REPORTED RESIGNATION OF M. DE FREYCINET.
  MR. BUXTONasked whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give any information as to the reported resignation of M. de Freycinet?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I believe the report is true that M. de Freycinet has resigned.
  MR. BOURKE: Is it untrue that M. de Freycinet has reconsidered his determination to resign?
  SIR CHARLHS W. DILKE: The only telegram I have received was one which came about 3 o'clock, in which it was repeated that he had resigned. I have not received any official telegram since that time. I have seen various rumours to that effect in the newspapers, but nothing of so positive a character.

  PARLIAMENT BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—BLOCKING BILLS.
  MR. CARBUTTwished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy a Question, of which he had not been able to give him private Notice. He would be glad to know if, seeing the House was asked to facilitate Scotch Business by having a Saturday Sitting, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would return the compliment, and not block English Business that did not apply in any way whatever to Scotch affairs?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Sir, I have no intention of blocking any Business whatever in which I have no distinct and immediate concern.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) [SALARIES AND EMIGRATION].
  Resolution [July 19] reported.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I do not wish to raise any controversial

  1105
  point; but the Prime Minister has stated that he would be prepared, on the consideration of the clause relating to the appointment of the fourth Commissioner, to state the name of the person so appointed. As this Report relates, among other matters, to the salary of the fourth Commissioner, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now tell the House who that Commissioner is to be?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the regular course, unless there be some special reasons, it is better not to enter into the particulars of the clause upon this Report; indeed, that is not usual. It will, however, be competent for the right hon. Gentleman, on the Report of the Bill, to comment at once on the name to be announced, and on the particulars of the clause.
  MR. GIBSON: I would, of course, acquiesce at once in the course indicated by the Prime Minister, if it were not for the great surprise with which the announcement that a fourth Commissioner was to be appointed came upon hon. Members. The Bill had been before the House for several weeks, and there was never a whisper of a suggestion that a new Commissioner was to be appointed, until it incidentally dropped out in a remark of the Prime Minister the previous day. I quite think, in these circumstances, that we ought to know the name of this Commissioner, and have at least two or three hours' notice before being called upon to discuss the appointment in connection with the clause. I am informed, rightly or wrongly, that it is an hon. Member of this House, and I do not wish now to say anything for or against the appointment; but unless the Government wish again to take us by surprise, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the name of the gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, after what has been said, that the best way would be, when we come to the clause to-day, to mention the name of the fourth Commissioner, but without asking the House to adopt the name. It would be quite practical to re-commit the Bill to-morrow, before the third reading, for the purpose of dealing with this clause, and that would give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little more time to consider the question.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: If there is to be a second re-committal of the Bill, it will scarcely meet with the concurrence of the House. The Prime Minister will at once realize that it would not be fair to the House or to the person selected that his name should be suddenly sprung upon the House, or that the House should suddenly be called upon to form a judgment upon the appointment.
  MR. HEALY: I must join the Front Opposition Bench in protesting against all this mystery. Why cannot the House of Commons know at 6 o'clock what the Prime Minister admits must be told at 10 or 11? What reason have they for keeping it a secret? Are they ashamed of the gentleman's name? If not, why not tell us now? The matter is of quite as much interest to us, and perhaps of more interest than it is to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Strange rumours are about. We are told that it is a person who sits on those Benches. I should like to ask, is the name of the gentleman the name of an hon. Member representing a county in the South-West of Ireland, who generally sits on these Benches? If the Government refuse to allay the laudable curiosity we feel regarding this matter, I think we would be justified in refusing to proceed with this particular Business.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As I have explained, my only reason for wishing to delay mentioning the name is that I thought it would be more convenient to consider the matter in connection with the Bill itself rather than on the Report dealing with salaries. In compliance, however, with what appears to be the desire of the House, I may say that the name of the gentleman who accepts the office of fourth Commissioner is Lord Monck.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that as so much of the personal matter had been disposed of, he desired to know something about the emigration proposals of the Government. They were placed in a very unfavourable position. Unless they knew what the Government intended, they would find themselves agreeing to what they really objected to, and should be deprived of two opportunities of impeding the progress of this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was

  1107
  in possession of the views of the Government, and would, when moving the clause, explain them fully to the House. Resolution agreed to.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 241.]
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Childers, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
MR. HEALYsaid, that the Secretary of State for War had promised in Committee to amend the Bill on Report so as to wipe off all arrears up to the 1st November, 1881. The effect of the Amendments introduced, however, was that the tenants, instead of having the benefits of the Bill brought down to the 1st November, 1881, had them stopped short on the 1st May, 1881, when the hanging gale was due. The Government had taken no steps whatever to give effect to their pledges. He regretted that he should be obliged to intervene on the question that the Report should be considered; but he considered Irish Members had reason to complain that the matter to which he had referred was not on the Paper.
SIR, JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he had no personal interest save that which every man had in the peace and contentment of the country, nor had he any interest in opposing the views of the Government; but he certainly thought their conduct with regard to this clause was most ill-advised. If the benefits of the Bill were not brought down to November it would disappoint the reasonable expectations of the people.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, bethought the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was under some misconception. The pledges given by the Government during the progress of Committee were most scrupulously carried out. No doubt some matters the Government stated they would consider, and they had considered them, though they were not prepared to recommend any Amendment. With reference to Sub-section 3, it was perfectly true that the Secretary of State for War stated that the Government intended to deal with the rent of the year 1881, so that
1108
on the payment of that year's rent by the tenant, he would obtain a clear receipt for it, and all antecedent years. But he had a distinct recollection that his right hon. Friend also stated that the clause, as it stood, carried out completely that intention; therefore the Government did not now propose any Amendment to it. They were completely in accord with the hon. Member for Wexford on this matter; but the Government believed that the clause expressed their intention. It was open to hon. Members to have proposed an Amendment if they perceived any ambiguity in the clause. He would state why the Government thought the clause did not need amendment. It was provided that the rent for 18S1 must have been paid as a condition of obtaining the benefits of the Act. In the case of tenants in arrear it was not likely, irrespective of this Act, that rent paid in 1881 would be credited to that year: most likely it would, by joint consent, be credited to the earliest of the arrears. But it was considered right to give the tenant by this Bill the benefit of payments made in 188l, as against the rent for the year 1881. That was a matter of policy, in order that the rent of 1881 might be paid out of the produce of 1881. The question then arose how to carry that out. There were tenancies where it was the custom to pay the half-year's rent the day it was due, and there were others, which formed the majority, where it was not paid until six months afterwards, so that there was always a hanging gale. Recognizing these customs, this Act, in the first class of cases, caused any rent paid in May or November of 1881 to be regarded as rent paid for that year. But in those cases rent paid in January, February, March, or April, would not be so regarded, because it was not deemed likely that the rent would be paid in advance. If, on estates where the hanging gale was the custom, rent was paid in May, 1881, no one would think that it was intended for the year 1881, because the May rent would not customarily be due until the subsequent November; therefore in such cases rent paid prior to November could not be properly attributed to 1881. But any rent paid in November, or paid subsequently until the rent of 1881 had been satisfied, would be credited to that. year. It would then be for the

1109
tenant and landlord to arrange in respect of future years whether they would keep up a hanging gale. He must say he thought the hanging gale an exceedingly bad practice, and one which ought to be abolished. This Bill would afford an opportunity for its abolition in cases within the Bill. That was the meaning of the Government. It was very difficult to embody that meaning fully in the clause of a Bill; but the Government would have been glad to have received assistance to remove any ambiguities if they existed. They had not received any such assistance, either from the direct Opposition or those below the' Gangway; and he presumed it was because the clause did clearly convey the meaning he had expressed.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced into this subsection would somewhat improve it, although, in his opinion, the sub-section as it stood would operate against the general policy of the measure, as far as it operated at all, and would tend to perpetuate the system of a hanging gale. The general understanding of the Bill was that the tenant should pay one year's rent and that the rest should be annulled. Now they were told, however, that, except in the few estates where the rent was paid on the day it fell due, the State should pay the landlord one year's rent and the tenant should pay him a year and a-half's rent. The meaning of the Amendment, if it had any, was injurious to the tenant and contrary to the original statement of the Government.
MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he believed that in its amended form the subsection would fully carry out the undertaking given by the Government when the Bill was in Committee.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he considered that this rider went in contradiction to the lines of policy laid down by the Government. If the Government put three hanging gales instead of two on the heads of the tenants, they would make the Bill useless in four out of five of the large estates in Ireland.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question was that the Bill be now considered. He did not understand that there were any objections raised to the consideration of the Bill; but it would be more
1110
convenient to the House to discuss details when they came to the parts of the Bill upon which they arose.
MR. HEALYsaid, that he had taken the course he had done because there was no probability of his obtaining another opportunity.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that upon Report the House required that Notice be given of new clauses; but it was open to the hon. Member to move Amendments without Notice.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M.JOHNSON)moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:—
(Holding valued as part of larger tenement.)
"Where a holding, as defined by The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 is not separately valued, but forms part of a larger parcel of land valued as one tenement, under the Acts relating to the valuation of rateable property in Ireland, such holding shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be valued under the said Acts at such proportion of the sum at which the whole of the said tenement is valued as the rent of the holding bears to the rent of the whole of the said tenement."
Clause brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M.JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W.M.JOHNSON) moved, after Clause 12, the following New Clause:—
(Suspension of proceedings.)
"Where any proceedings for the recovery of the rent of a holding to which this Act applies, or for the recovery of a holding for non-payment of rent, have been taken before or after an application under this Act in respect of such holding, and are pending before such application is disposed of, the court before which such proceedings are pending shall have power, on such terms and conditions as the court may direct, to postpone or suspend such proceedings until the application under this Act has been disposed of."
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be now read the second time."
MR. GIBSONsaid, it was unreasonable to provide that a person might stay process by simply making application, and without having done anything else in pursuance of the Act.
MR. WARTONsaid, there was not a word to require that any preliminary condition should be complied with.
MR. HEALYsaid, the clause should be made mandatory and not optional, or else a Judge might be met with who, like Chief Justice Morris, would ignore the Land Acts as "new-fangled law;" and the power should be given to the Land Commission as well as to the Court in which the proceedings had been taken.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that the clause raised an important point. As the Bill stood, it was not necessary for the tenant to pay the rent for 1881 till just previous to the day of his application to the Court. But what if that application were not heard for the next two or three years? The Prime Minister said that the landlord would have his ordinary remedies; but the ordinary remedies were ejectment or eviction. He thought that the clause required considerable alteration, and he would therefore, later on, move, "that the Court must have proof that the tenant had paid a year's rent."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would agree to insert an Amendment providing that the Court should have proof of the payment of the year's rent for 1881.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the Government had sprung upon the House a clause which would take away the ordinary remedies of the landlord, and would put about 200,000 Irish holdings beyond the reach of the law for some time to come. He would, therefore, move an Amendment making the clause have reference only to those holdings as to which applications to the Court were already pending.
Amendment proposed,
Inline 2, after the word "rent," to insert the words" on account of rent accruing due on or before the last gale day of the tenancy in the year 1881."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he must oppose the Amendment. As far as the Court was concerned, the clause was permissive and not compulsory. He would,
1112
however, be willing to accept some words to make the intention of the clause more clear, if it was thought necessary to do so.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he approved of the clause as it stood, and thought it reasonable that the landlords should be debarred from taking any proceedings until the applications to the Court had been heard.
MR. BRODRICKasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BRODRICKbegged to move the introduction of words defining more strictly the arrears to be dealt with.
Amendment proposed,
At end of Clause, insert the words, "providing that the proceedings which might he suspended should he on account of rent in respect of the year 1881, and antecedent arrears."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HEALYsaid, he saw no necessity for the Amendment. But, if the conditions wore made mandatory on the tenant, they ought to be made mandatory on the Court. Would the Government consent to leave out the words "have power?"
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, it had been stated, over and over again, that it was not the intention of the Government to touch the arrears after the gale day in 1881. It would be much better, he thought, to leave the clause as it was, putting the responsibility on the Court; but, since that had not been done, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
MR. GIBSONsaid, that if the words "have power" were left out the concession would not rest on reason, and it would be unfair and unjust to the landlords. The whole clause was unwise, and the change now suggested would make it absolutely indefensible.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)contended that the clause would not work any injustice either to the landlord or the tenant.
MR. GIVANsaid, he regretted that the Government had shown themselves

1113
disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Its effect would be to lead the Land Commissioners into inextricable difficulty; and, under certain conditions, it would enable a landlord to render the clause nugatory.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he would like to hear the opinion of the Government as to this difficulty, for it seemed that the mere fact of the inclusion of the rent for May in last year in any writs issued by the landlord would have the effect of taking the case of the tenant out of the purview of the Land Court.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No.
MR. SEXTON: But it appeared to be so, because, although it had been denied, he maintained that the landlord, if he took proceedings for six months' rent, would prevent entirely the action of the Land Commissioners.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson), Amendment made in proposed New Clause, by leaving out the words "have power," and inserting "if the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section A, have been complied with."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."
MR. GIBSONsaid, having already stated his objections to the clause, he should divide the House as a final protest against it.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 49: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 281.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)moved the insertion of the following New Clause:—
(Evidence.)
"Evidence required for the purposes of this Act shall, whenever practicable, be taken upon oath, and the affidavit of the landlord, or his agent, and the tenant may be accepted as prima facie evidence of all or any of the preliminary conditions. Affidavits for the purpose of this Act may be taken before any person authorised by this or any other Act to administer an oath."
New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read the second time."
MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Government might prevent a great deal of useless litigation and save considerable expense if the joint affidavit of the landlord and tenant was, so far as practicable, accepted as conclusive in matters under this Act.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether the amount of the arrears was to be taken as absolutely settled by the joint affidavit of the landlord and tenant, because in that case there might be some danger of collusion between the landlord and the tenant.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Treasury must have full power to appear and to defend its interests. The Government were alive to the danger referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and intended to accept, not perhaps the words, but certainly the spirit of an Amendment on the Paper.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 13:—
(Operation of a release from arrears.)
"After a tenant has obtained release from arrears by the operation of this Act, such release shall be a bar to any proceeding instituted by any creditor of the tenant other than a registered mortgagee, before the twentieth day of August one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, to recover, by sale of the tenure, any debt or debts owing by the tenant of the date of the last gale day of the tenancy in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."
This was a clause, he said, framed to meet the objections put forward yesterday to the proposal which he then made on the same subject, and which received a moderate amount of support. He hoped that the objections then urged did not now apply, and that the clause would commend itself to the House. All that was wanted under his clause was, to give the creditor less than was proposed under the Bill, and even then he would be in a much better position than before, because the Act would give him a solvent instead of an insolvent debtor. No doubt the proposal might be a shock to our commercial ideas; but he thought it was desirable that the tenant should have the rest, which his clause, if adopted, would give.
MR. MOOREsaid, he had never heard a more astounding proposition than that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. He should be inclined to say, with all deference to the hon. Member, that the proposal was nothing short of dishonest.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not impute dishonesty, I presume, to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
MR. MOOREsaid, he certainly would not think of doing so; he referred simply to the proposal. He had every confidence that the hon. Gentleman's opinion was honestly held; but the practical effect of this clause would be to carry out a policy of dishonesty. The landlords had a substantial bonus under this Bill. Was it not preposterous to deprive other creditors, including the shopkeepers, who had fed and clothed the farmer in his times of distress, of the chance of obtaining anything that was owing to him at all? A more unjust proposal was never made in the House.
MR. DALYsaid, if the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had wished to ruin the Irish tenants under this Bill he could not have been more successful. The proposal was unfit for the contemplation of any sane man.
SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that a more absurd proposition than this had never been gravely put before the House. He was utterly unable, in a limited time, adequately to express the surprise with which he regarded it.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)expressed a hope that the House would now go to a division on this clause. The subject was fully discussed yesterday, and he was sure every hon. Member present had his mind made up upon it. The effect of it would simply be to drive every creditor to register his mortgage. The speeches so far had been all against the Amendment, and the Government had already intimated that they could not accept it.
MR. M'COANsaid, he could not fall in with the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, because he did think that the subject had yet been exhaustively discussed. If this proposal were rejected the Bill would simply be ousting one creditor, the landlord, and bringing to the front a host of others—-shopkeepers and money-lenders—for whom the Land Act of last year and this Bill would have created a security which they had not when the debts were
1116
incurred. He observed that the opposition to the clause had proceeded altogether from hon. Members representing towns, while he believed there was an almost unanimous feeling amongst rural Representatives in favour of the proposal.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he considered that the discussion had not been exhausted. One of the objects of the Bill would be frustrated unless the hands of the moneylender were kept off the tenant until he had had time to recover himself. The Amendment did not seek to extinguish debts, but only called upon creditors to make some slight sacrifice until farmers were placed on their legs again.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, although he was of opinion that the subject was well worthy of a long debate, he could not hope to defeat the Government, and, considering the state of Public Business, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he objected to such an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the subject. In his opinion, the Amendment was an important and a moderate one. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had twice had this Amendment on the Paper, and this was the second time he proposed its withdrawal. He was sorry the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had not had the courage of his opinions, or that he had allowed it to be cooled down by loyalty to his Party. He (Mr. Sexton) supported the Amendment, because he objected to giving, as was proposed in the clause, the advantage of a greater security and a greater value than existed at the time that liabilities were incurred, especially as that greater security had arisen out of an act of policy on the part of the Government. The fact that there were so few tradesmen who would distrain was a strong reason why the Amendment should be accepted and the tenants protected against the worst class of their creditors. The benefits of the Bill ought not to be frittered away by individual creditors.
MR, MARUMsaid, that, as the clause stood, it would be the least bar to the creditor. Those who opposed the entire policy of the Land Act were quite right in supporting the Amendment; but those who treated rent as an exceptional debt, and looked on it differently to other debts, could not, in his opinion, consistently support it.
MR. D. DAVIESsaid, that the persons who would really benefit by the Bill were the outside creditors, for whom it created a new security. The Bill was like a locomotive when it ran off the line—no one could say where it would stop. He did not like any part of it.
MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, that the Bill was a reality or a sham. If it was brought in to free the utterly poor agricultural tenants of Ireland from debts they could never otherwise get rid of, this clause ought to be accepted. If this clause was not accepted the Bill was a sham. He could not think that the landlord was the only sinner in Ireland, or that the tenant would be in better hands when he got into those of the gombeen man.
MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, now that the landlord's first claim was removed, the tenant would be more than ever at the mercy of the other creditors. He would vote for the clause.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 70: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
Clause 1 (Settlement by Land Commission of arrears of rent).
MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, in page 1, line 18, to insert the words—
"The tenant has paid the whole or such portion of his rent as may be accepted l)y the landlord as equivalent to the whole of."
The words were introduced from another portion of the Bill, and would make the clause consistent.
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 14, after the word "That," to insert the words "the tenant has paid the whole or such sum as the landlord may be willing to accept as the equivalent of the whole of."—(Mr. Warton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought the clause as it stood expressed the intention of the Government, and he was unwilling to accept any Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. BRODRICK MR. BRODRICK moved to insert the words "by the 30th of November, 1882," in line 20.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he accepted the Amendment. The Prime Minister had given an undertaking to that effect in the earlier discussions upon the Bill. The result would be to give a tenant the whole of 1882 in which to pay.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. GIBSON (for Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)MR. GIBSON (for Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) moved to insert, in line 20, the words "or without wilful default." The object of the Amendment was to distinguish between those classes who, through no fault of their own, but from adverse seasons and other causes, had fallen into arrear, and those classes who, by the pernicious teaching of the Land League, had refused to pay rents which for years past they had been perfectly able and willing to pay.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, after the word "unable," to insert the words "or without wilful default."—(Mr. Gibson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the Government must decline to accept this Amendment, as they had declined to accept it before. However much might be said about the immorality by which a man had got into trouble, the short and simple story unfortunately was that the small tenant found himself on the wrong side of the account. This Bill took him up when in that state, and did not stop to inquire minutely whether his inability was partly due to bad seasons or partly to want of sobriety and industry. The object of the measure was, when they found an impoverished tenantry, to see whether, without absolute injustice to the landlords, they could not be relieved from the crushing burden of their arrears.
MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, that the question now raised was not as to the moral delinquency of the tenant, but as to his wilful default in refusing to pay when he had money in his pocket or in the bank. There had been more money

1119
saved and put into the banks in Ireland during the last two years than for many years previously, and they had a shrewd suspicion in London that that money would have gone to pay the landlord but for the iniquitous proceedings of certain Gentlemen in that House whom he need not now particularize. It was a scandal that the taxpayers should be called upon to discharge the obligations of such wilfully defaulting tenants.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he was bound to complain that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) should have taken that occasion of reviving the heated and extravagant accusations against the Land League of which the House had been so frequently the theatre. If the Land League had not taught the poor tenants to combine, they might have perished like flies without the House troubling itself either with a Land Act or an Arrears Bill. This Amendment was a preposterous one, inasmuch as it proposed that they should not only inquire into the present inability of the tenant, but whether he might not have been able to pay two years ago.
MR. WARTONsaid, that the question really raised by the Amendment was not whether the tenant was able to pay at some previous time, but whether or not his inability now to do so was duo to wilful default. The modest Member for Pembroke (Mr. Allen), sitting behind the Ministry, a few days ago brought forward an Amendment requiring it to be shown that the tenant's inability arose from failure of his crops or the loss of his stock; but, being afraid of embarrassing the Government, the hon. Gentleman drew back, apparently "scared at the sound himself had made." The allegiance of hon. Members opposite towards the Government was becoming weaker every day, because the time was approaching when they would have to meet their constituents. ["Question!"] He protested against the principle of finding money out of either the Church Surplus Fund or the Consolidated Fund to enable dishonest tenants to clear off their arrears. Those who voted against this Amendment would be wilfully supporting not needy or indigent, but dishonest tenants.
MR. GIVANsaid, he should oppose the Amendment, which, he contended,
1120
would lead to a retrospective inquiry into the circumstances of the tenant. He would remind hon. Members that the Bill was for the relief not only of the tenant but his family, and they ought not to be made to suffer, as they might do, if the Amendment was agreed to.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, the object of the Amendment of which he had given Notice was to draw a line between arrears incurred in the years prior to 1877, which were good 3'ears, and arrears incurred since, otherwise the effect of the clause would be demoralizing and discouraging to habits of industry and thrift. Moreover, those who had allowed debts to accumulate under the present law should be compensated when the law was altered. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 2, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the words "and no action or other proceeding shall be maintained for or in respect of all or any part of antecedent arrears of rent due to the landlord on or before the last gale day of the tenancy, in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, except in the event of a sale by the tenant of his tenancy, in which case such last-mentioned antecedent arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal to three years' rent of the tenancy, shall thereupon become payable to the landlord by the tenant out of the purchase money received by him for the sale of his tenancy, and except also in the event of the tenant becoming entitled to compensation to be paid by the landlord under the provisions of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' or either of those Acts, in which case the landlord shall be entitled to sot off such last-mentioned arrears, not exceeding in the whole a sum equal to three years' rent as aforesaid, in part payment of any such compensation: always Provided, That no arrears which accrued previously to one thousand eight hundred and seventy-one shall be recoverable under this Clause."—(Mr. Villiers-Stuart.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the only part of the Amendment with which he thought the House would agree was the Proviso contained in the last two lines providing that no arrears which accrued previously to 1871 should be recoverable under the clause. The rest of the Amendment violated the fundamental principles of the Bill as

1121
well as of social life, and he thought the House would not accept it.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, he begged to move an Amendment to the effect that all antecedent arrears should, to the extent of two years' rent of the holding, be considered a loan from the landlord to the tenant, repayable, without interest, in such instalments as the Commissioners might direct, and the remainder, if any. The distinction between this Amendment and others that had been disposed of was that in this case the landlord was to be the creditor, and in the others the Government. The high-handed manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with the Irish Church property and applied it to the needs of thriftless or incompetent tenants, reminded him forcibly of the stories told of Robin Hood, and his dealing with property he took from the abbeys—
"Poor men's goods he spared, abundantly relieving them with that which by theft he got from abbeys and rich old carles."
Substitute for "abbeys" and "rich old carles" the words "Irish Church" and "poor landlords," and the parallel would be complete.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 5, after the word "rent," to insert the words "shall, to the extent of two years' rent of the holding, be considered a loan from the landlord to the tenant, repayable, without interest, in such instalments as the Commissioners may direct, and the remainder, if any."—(Mr. Donaldson-Hudson.)
Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
MR. GIBSONsaid, that he understood the reason why the Attorney General for Ireland did not reply to this Amendment was that the subject was discussed at considerable length in Committee. His hon. Friend had taken a great interest in this question, and, having been precluded from moving his Amendment in Committee, was entirely within his right in now bringing it on. He must say that the hon. Member presented a really new aspect of the question in a very reasonable way. Under the circumstances, he would, however, suggest to his hon. Friend that he should be satisfied without taking a division.
MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONsaid, that he would take the advice of his
1122
right hon. and learned Friend, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved to insert in page 2, line 5, after "extinguished," the following words:—
"And any judgment, decree, or security for the rent of the holding, and any judgment or decree for the recovery of the holding on account of the non-payment of rent, shall be vacated so far as regards any rent due in respect of the holding before the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid, but shall not be vacated so far as regards any rent subsequently accrued due, or any costs due in pursuance of such judgment, decree, or security."
The Amendment was made for the purpose of meeting the suggestion that, notwithstanding the provision of the Bill that on an order for payment to the landlord of two years' arrears, all antecedent arrears should be extinguished, yet collusive arrangements might be made to set that provision aside. This Amendment, therefore, proposed that everything, whether judgment, decree, or security, which might be in the hands of the landlords should be entirely wiped out.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 5, after the word "extinguished," to insert the words "and any judgment, decree, or security for the rent of the holding, and any judgment or decree for the recovery of the holding on account of the nonpayment of rent, shall be vacated so far as regards any rent due in respect of the holding before the last gale day in the year expiring as aforesaid, but shall not be vacated so far as regards any rent subsequently accrued due, or any costs duo in pursuance of such judgment, decree, or security."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GIVANsaid, the Amendment failed, in some respects, to carry out the intentions of his Amendment or of that of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He moved to omit from the Amendment of the Attorney General the words "any rent subsequently accrued due or," and also the words "any cost." He did not think that the landlords ought to receive the rent accruing due subsequently to the last gale day in 1881, or the costs due in pursuance of any judgment obtained on the eve of this Bill.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the second word

1123
"regards," to leave out the words "any rent subsequently accrued due or."—(Mr. Givan.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsuggested that those legal gentlemen who sympathized with the tenants in Ireland should show their sympathy by reducing the costs charged to them if such costs were not statutable charges.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought that great difficulties would arise if the word "security" were retained, and as he did not see any value in it, it had better be omitted.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, his Colleagues and himself had considered the matter. They were of opinion that the word "security" was necessary. As to the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him, it would have a result which he was quite sure his hon. Friend did not intend. His own Amendment provided that a judgment which the Court declared had been properly obtained for rent which had accrued subsequently to November, 1881, should not be vacated. This Bill did not deal with rent which had accrued subsequently to November, 1881. Therefore, he hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend that the provision as to a judgment for rent accrued subsequently to November, 1881, should be struck out.
Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Words inserted.
MR. GIBSONsaid, that in Sub-section 2 the words—
"For the purpose of this Act, the saleable value of the tenant's interest may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable, be taken into account in ascertaining whether a tenant is unable to discharge such arrears"
were inserted. The Commissioners had been told already in an earlier part of the Bill that they were to consider the tenant's position, and that they were to take care that his holding should not be lost, and that he was not deprived of the means necessary for the cultivation thereof. The words which he had quoted cut down that and left the tri-
1124
bunal quite free to consider to what extent, if at all, the tenant had any sale-able interest whatever. It was absurd. He proposed to strike out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and give them a positive direction that in every case the Commissioners should take into account the saleable value of the tenant's interest. He would not trouble the House with dividing on the Amendment; but he thought it right to bring it forward, not only in consequence of the vast importance of the subject, but in order that the Government might, if they thought it right, say a final word in regard to it.
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "may, if the Commissioners think it reasonable," and insert the word "shall,"—(Mr. Gibson,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to ha left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government had not changed their opinion in regard to this question. The Government wished to direct the attention of the Commissioners to a consideration of the saleable value of the tenant's interest, and they wished specially to lay down that the Commissioners should be able to consider it. The real question for the Commissioners to decide was whether the man whose pecuniary condition was before them was a proper object for State bounty or not. The object of the Bill was not to ruin any man who came within its scope; and if his saleable interest was saleable, but so small that he would be left no longer master of his holding, the Government were of opinion the Commissioners ought not to take the tenancy into consideration. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought the clause should be made decidedly imperative.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 (Modification in case of evicted tenant when restored to holding).
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 2, line 41, after "rent," by inserting—

1125
"Or whose tenancy has been purchased for the landlord at any sale under and by virtue of any writ of execution founded upon a judgment obtained by the landlord for an arrear of rent due in respect of such holding;"
in page 3, line 3, after "evicted," by inserting "or his tenancy had not been sold;" in line 14, by leaving out "but otherwise shall proceed in manner directed by," and insert "and on compliance by the tenant with the other conditions of;" in line 15, after "1860," by inserting "the court may order his restitution;" in line 19, after "him," by inserting "within six months from the time of eviction and."
Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after the word "tenancy," to insert the words "for a period not exceeding three months."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the extension was insufficient, having regard to the fact that a considerable number of evictions were going on, and that an enormous number of applications would be made under this Bill, inevitably causing a block in the business of the Court. He moved that the period be extended to six months.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word"six,"—(Mr. Healy,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
MR. PARNELLsaid, he should support the further extension of the period.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Government had made a very important concession by extending the period for three months. The enlarged period was to give the tenant a further, opportunity of seeking the benefits of the Act, and he thought that such an extension of time would prove a great boon. The object was to prevent surprise and enable justice to be done. The Court to conduct the business of the Bill was now in working order, and there was no reason why the very day after the passing of the measure the tenants should not commence proceedings.
Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Words inserted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Powers of Land Commission).
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 3, line 31, after "all," by inserting "such;" in line 32, after "1881," by inserting "as are referred to in the First Schedule to this Act;" in line 34, by leaving out from "Act," to "Act," in line 37, inclusive.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Delegation of powers of Land Commission).
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendments made, in page 4, line 10, by leaving out "such," and inserting "an;" in line 10, by leaving out "if any," and inserting "on matter of law;" in line 11, after "Land Commission," by inserting "on and in such conditions and circumstances;" in line 12, after "rules," by inserting "or appointments."
On the Motion of Mr. GREGORY, the following words were added at the end of the Clause:—
"The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may be represented on any inquiry under this Act by any person nominated by them for such purpose."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Rules for carrying Act into effect).
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved, in page 5, line 19, after "prescribed," to insert—
"(7.) The mode of collecting, suing for, recovering, and accounting for charges and instalments of charges, and the procedure for the sale of tenancies to raise the amount of such charges, and for dealing with the proceeds of such sales under this Act."
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HEALYinquired who was to compensate the rate collectors—would the Guardians have to do so, or who? They were poor men, and would certainly need to be paid to stimulate them

1127
to do the work which would be thrown over.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Government were proposing an Amendment upon this point.
Question put, and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Amendment made in page 5, line 20, by leaving out "(7)" and inserting "(8)."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 (Arrears of rent how dealt with).
On the Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Amendments made, in page 7, line 23, by leaving out "Court," and inserting "Land Commission;" in line 27, by leaving out "as the equivalent," and inserting "in full discharge;" in line 29, after "and," by inserting "that;" in line 31, after "make," by inserting "to the landlord;" in line 36, after "half-yearly," by inserting "on the first day of January and first day of July;" in line 39, by leaving out from "provided," to "holding," in page 8, line 5, inclusive; in page 8, line 8, by leaving out from "and," to "accordingly," in line 15, inclusive, and inserting—
"The charge declared by the order as aforesaid shall have priority over all charges affecting the holding, except quit-rent and crown rent, and sums payable to the Commissioners of Public Works, and shall be payable by the tenant of the holding for the time being, and shall be levied and collected in manner hereinafter provided; and in the event of the tenant failing to pay any half-yearly instalment of the said charge for the space of twelve months after the same shall have accrued duo, then and in every such case the amount of such instalments, together with the entire of the unpaid residue of such charge, with interest as ascertained by the Land Commission, shall forthwith be payable by the tenant, and the amount thereof shall he raised by sale of the tenancy in the prescribed manner.
The half-yearly instalments of such charge shall he from time to time collected by the collector authorised to collect poor rate in the electorial division in which such holding is situate; and for the purpose of such collection every collector shall have all such powers and authorities as he shall for the time being possess for collecting and recovering poor rate, and shall and may collect and levy the same accordingly from the tenant with and by the same, notwithstanding that such tenant may not be liable to pay poor rate.
For the purpose of such collection the Land Commission shall, in each half-year, transmit to the clerk of every union, within which any
1128
holding or holdings charged as aforesaid shall be situate, a warrant under the seal of the Land Commission, setting forth the arrears of the tenants within such union liable to pay such charges or the instalments thereof, and the amount due by each respectively; and such warrant shall be judicially noticed in all proceedings in court, and shall be conclusive evidence of the arrears due by such tenants respectively, and of their liability to pay the same.
Every such collector shall pay and account for the sums collected or collectable by him under this Act to the guardians of the union in which such holding is situate in the prescribed form; and the guardians shall transmit the amounts from time to time received by them as aforesaid to the Land Commission under the prescribed regulations.
In the event of such default by the tenant for the space of twelve months as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the county court of the county in which the holding is situate, on the application of the Land Commission, to order a sale of such tenancy which shall be sold, and the proceeds of such sale dealt with by the said county court in the prescribed manner.
If the proceeds of any such sale fail to realise the amount ascertained by the Land Commission as aforesaid, together with the cost of sale, the amount of the deficiency shall be paid by the landlord of the said holding, and shall be a charge upon his estate and interest therein, and shall be collected and levied in the prescribed manner: Provided, That on any transfer of the tenant's interest in the holding by sale, the principal sum and interest, if any, remaining due to the Land Commission, shall be paid out of the purchase money to the Land Commission;"
in line 16, by leaving out "Court," and inserting "Land Commission;" in line 26, by leaving out "by the Court."
Amendment proposed,
In page 8, line 42, after the word "period," to insert the words "Whenever, in the case of any tenant evicted for non-payment of rent since the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, the landlord agrees to reinstate such tenant on the terms in this section set forth, this section shall apply as if such tenant had not been so evicted from his holding."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL moved as an Amendment that the words "for non-payment of rent" be omitted from the proposed Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "for non-payment of rent."—(Mr. Parnell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said roposed Amendment."
MR. SYNANsaid, he should support the Amendment.
MR. MARUMpointed out that the Amendment did not imply any action against the wish of the landlords.
THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the clause went as far as the Act of 1881 with regard to evicted tenants, and the Government were not prepared to go any further.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the practical question, however, which the Government had to consider was whether the process of tranquillizing Ireland would or would not be accelerated by restoring to their farms all persons who had been evicted. This Bill ought to be the signature of a truce between the contending parties, and, in his opinion, the greater the number of the combatants who were restored to the status quo ante the more likelihood there would be of a permanent peace.
COLONEL COLTHURSThoped the Government would accept the Amendment. He should support it on behalf of the unfortunate tenants who had been terrorized by "Captain Moonlight."
MR. CHILDERSpointed out that the omission of the words "for non-payment of rent" would not carry out the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SYNANsaid, he proposed to insert, after "rent," the words—
"Or in case the holding of the tenant has been sold and purchased by the landlord, and possession taken thereof by him."
It would greatly help to restore order if all tenants were placed on the same footing.
Amendment proposed,
In line 1 of the said proposed Amendment, after the word "rent," to insert the words "or in case the holding of the tenant has been sold and purchased by the landlord, and possession taken thereof by him."—(Mr. Synan.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. PARNELL,at the risk of being told again that the tenants had followed his advice, urged that the Amendment was well worth consideration, asking
1130
what objection there could possibly be if the landlord and tenant were agreed, and suggesting that many landlords would not thank their Friends in the House for resisting the Amendment. There were many signs that landlords and tenants were more willing to settle their disputes than they were three months ago, and in the interests of the country it was desirable that they should be allowed to do so. He therefore urged the Government to reconsider the matter, and do something to restore peace and contentment in Ireland.
MR. MARUMsaid, he did not think the Amendment went far enough, because there were cases in which men would have bought their tenancies, but they feared to do so.
MR. MOOREsaid, that many of the tenants in question had acted fraudulently, and all had been ill-advised. He had, therefore, no sympathy with them, although he knew of cases in which they had been powerless against influences stronger than themselves. The Bill, however, was a message of peace; and he asked the House to let bygones be bygones, and to make the necessary sacrifice, and not continue the fight longer—if only that no further outrages might be committed.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he supposed that the sacrifice which the hon. Member had recommended was a surrender at discretion to the Land League. The House would probably be convinced by the conclusive arguments of the Solicitor General for Ireland, who had emphatically announced the determination of the Government to resist this proposal, and would regard the Amendment as an attempt to maintain in their holdings tenants who either from contumacy or from inability refused to pay their rents. In his opinion, the money of the British taxpayer ought not to be used in support of collusive arrangements between landlords and tenants.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to treat the Amendment fairly and upon its merits. In those cases where the landlord desired to reinstate the tenant there would be no objection; but they must object to a tenant being reinstated where after ejectment he had built a hut in the neighbourhood of the holding for the purpose of preventing the landlord taking possession. Under the circumstance?, as the Amendment went to the

1131
smaller matter, the Government were willing to accept it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendment, as amended, be agreed to."
MR. J. LOWTHERremarked, that the Secretary of State for War had thrown over the Solicitor General for Ireland, and had surrendered at discretion to the Land League.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, that at the time his hon. and learned Friend had spoken the distinction he had noticed was not observed. This was a very much smaller and more restricted Amendment than the one which had been objected to before.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, surrender to the Land League meant in this instance surrender to the hon. Member for the County of Cork, who had denounced the Land League.
COLONEL COLTHURSTobserved, that one of the arguments he had used was that these poor people were compelled by agents of terror to put themselves in the unfortunate position in which they now wore.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, the following Schedule agreed to:—
First Schedule.
Powers of Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, referred to—
Section 48 (3), (5).
Section 49.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill he re-committed in respect of New Clauses and Schedules relating to Emigration, the appointment of an additional Land Commissioner, and exemption in respect of public charges upon Arrears of Kent extinguished, and an Amendment relating to payment for collection of Loan Kent-charges."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. GREGORYappealed to the Government to re-commit the Bill generally, so that he might be in a position to move a new clause that he had upon the Paper relating to exception being made in respect of charges upon arrears of rent.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Bill could not be re-committed generally; but the
1132
Government would not object to the subject referred to by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) being introduced.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill he re-committed in respect of New Clauses and Schedules relating to Emigration, the appointment of an additional Land Commissioner, and exemption in respect of public charges upon Arrears of Kent extinguished, and an Amendment relating to payment for collection of Loan Kent-charges.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision therein, pursuant to the Resolution reported from the Committee on Arrears of Kent (Ireland) [Salaries and Emigration] this day, and then agreed to by the House.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHAIRMAN: I have to point out to the Committee that, by the Instruction from the House, the first point to be dealt with has reference to the expenses, and the next to the question of emigration.
MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to move the following Clause:—
(Power to appoint an additional member of the Land Commission.)
"In addition to the three persons named as commissioners in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, is hereby constituted a member of the Irish Land Commission at a salary of three thousand pounds a year, and for a term of two years from the passing of this Act.
"Save, as aforesaid, the provisions of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, which relate to the members of the Irish Land Commission, other than the Judicial Commissioner, shall apply to the said and to every person appointed as hereinafter provided to a vacancy in his office, as if he had been named in the said Act a member of the Land Commission other than the Judicial Commissioner.
"If and so often as during the said term of two years any vacancy occurs in the office of the said by the death, resignation, inability to act, or otherwise, of the said or any person appointed in his place, Her Majesty may, by warrant under the sign manual, appoint some fit person to fill such vacancy; hut the person so appointed shall only continue in office until the expiration of the said term of two years: Provided, That any act or matter which under the said Act shall be done or performed, or may be done or performed by three Land Commissioners sitting together, shall and may after the passing of this Act be in like manner done or performed by three of the Land Commissioners."
I have already indicated the nature of the clause, and the reason for it. The

1133
Bill adds very considerably to the labour of the Land Commission, and, therefore, it has been deemed necessary to strengthen that Commission. The Government have sought to do so by the choice of a person who has already received some marks of confidence, both from the Crown and the Legislature, in connection with the Irish Church Act; and our impression is that he enjoys, and very deservedly enjoys, a largo amount of public confidence in Ireland. He has also had the advantage of a legal training, having been called to the Bar, and, in addition to being acquainted with the mode of conducting business, he is thoroughly respected in every relation of life. We do not, however, think we should be justified in asking the House to continue the appointment of a fourth Commissioner for a longer period than two 3years, because there is no reason to suppose that the plethora of work which now exists will continue for any length of time. I have already mentioned that there is another object in making the appointment, brought prominently forward by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who pointed out that, from the necessities of the case, two Commissioners only have during the last month or two been hearing appeals, thereby to some extent dissappointing the assurances with respect to the hearing of appeals given by the Government to the House at the time the Land Act passed through Parliament. The intention of Parliament certainly was understood to be that, as a rule, three Commissioners should sit. That was another object we have had in the clause we now propose, so that after that time it would be always practicable to have one Commissioner in Dublin hearing appeals, and at the same time to keep up the full strength of the Court.
New Clause (Power to appoint an additional member of the Land Commission,)—(Mr. Gladstone,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. GIBSON: I must say that I regard this clause with a considerable amount of hesitation and anxiety, seeing that it proposes largely to increase the patronage of the Government in Ire-
1134
land. There never was a time in the history of that country when such an immense and stupendous amount of patronage was created in one year as has been created by the present Government within the last few months. I pass by the judicial patronage, because it is, no doubt, within the strict right of the Government to give the appointments to their own political friends, and I do not mean to say that they have not appointed men who will perform their judicial functions satisfactorily; but, last year, the Land Act, and this year, the necessity of obtaining the assistance of a considerable number of Resident Magistrates, threw into their hands an immense amount of patronage. In addition, we now have, at the last moment, a clause presented to enable the Government to appoint, for a period of two years, a now official of the highest class, at a salary of £3,000 a-year. I think that the matter is one that should be closely and jealously scrutinized, and the Committee should not be content until the Government have proved the uecessity for creating this new appointment at the last stage of the Bill. It was obvious, at the earliest moment the Bill was introduced, that there would be a considerable amount of work entailed by the Bill, and that numerous inquiries would have to be carried on under it. That fact was pointed out during the debate, but it was not deemed worthy of the notice of the Government until the very last moment. It was only yesterday intimated that they had the smallest intention of dealing with the personnel of the Land Commission, and changing it to any extent.
MR. GLADSTONE: I stated that when the duties were largely increased it would be necessary to consider what increase should be made in the strength of the Commission.
MR. GIBSON: I have followed closely the discussion of this Bill, and I at once accept any statement made by the Prime Minister. Any statement he says he has made I am quite sure he has made; but it certainly was not present to my mind until yesterday that it was proposed to appoint a new Land Commissioner, which is the statement I am dealing with now. The only particular ground now alleged by the Prime Minister for that proposal is the fact that, beyond the increase of

1135
business, it is necessary because there has been a certain amount of irregularity in the hearing of appeals, which has occasioned some comment among the classes affected by it. Now, in my opinion, it is not necessary to appoint a fourth Commissioner to cure that evil. I have closely examined the Land Act this morning, when I saw this provision, and I think that the Act might he easily worked under the existing powers of the Land Act by constituting a Sub-Commission to do the ordinary routine office work during the necessary absence of the three Commissioners. The Government have exercised their discretion in another way; but I do not think there is anything of a special character in the ordinary routine work under this Bill which might not he done by a Sub-Commission. They are all matters which a superior clerk of adequate training would he able to perform without calling into existence a new official of this high class. However, the Government may have had present to their minds all the difficulties with which they had to cope, and they have elected to appoint another Commissioner for two years, with a salary of £3,000 a-year, and they have selected for that position a very well-known Nobleman, Lord Monck. Now, there is nothing so distasteful as personal criticism; but I think it hard, in legislation which deals with all the landed property in Ireland and with all the landed proprietors of Ireland, that a tribunal should be constituted altogether of one political aspect. If ever there was a tribunal which ought to be constituted by the Government with impartiality and, if possible, with some neutral elements, it is a tribunal which has to decide on the property of those the majority of whom are your political opponents. Instead of that, you have deliberately, in the Land Act and now, so selected your tribunal that every man of them is a decided supporter of the present Government. [Cries of "Oh!"]' Yes, every man of them, and they have all indicated—certainly Lord Monck has indicated throughout his career—the strongest political sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he has in everyway, by speech and by writing, advocated every decision and action on the part of the Land Commission. I admit that Lord Monck is a Nobleman of capacity, a man of high honour and
1136
of high character, who has been employed in important service by the State; but that does not prevent him from being fairly and legitimately criticized. And I must say that if the Government thought it necessary to appoint a new Land Commissioner, I think they might, for the sake of novelty, at all events, have appointed someone who was not so absolutely in accord with their own politics and all their own views on that subject, and who has not committed himself to such entire identity on all points with the decisions which have been pronounced.
MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought there could be no doubt that the Land Commission was now overworked, and required strengthening; and if, instead of one, two or three Commissioners were added to it, and it were sub-divided, so as to enable as many of the tenants as possible to avail themselves of the advantages of the Court as early as possible, he should not have objected to the proposal as far as abstract principle was concerned. Lord Monck was not a Tory, and, therefore, his appointment was something very dangerous in the eyes of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). That right hon. and learned Gentleman would have approached the subject more rationally if, instead of considering to what political Party Lord Monck belonged, he had thought of how the case stood as between the landlord and the tenant class in Ireland. To say that a man was a Tory or a Whig had nothing whatever to do with the question. The Land Commission, which had to adjudicate between those two classes in a time of great excitement, consisted of throe gentlemen, two of whom were landlords. Mr. O'Hagan was not; but now a third landlord was to be appointed, and there would be on the tribunal three persons who were landlords against one who was not. He admitted that Lord Monck had conducted the Church Temporalities Commission in a way which gave general satisfaction; but that was an experiment involving no political feeling or passion, and his fitness for discharging the duty of conducting an inquiry into the Church Temporalities might afford no conclusive proof that he was also fit to discharge the duties of the present position. The fact that Lord Monck sympathized with

1137
the Government would not induce him (Mr. Sexton) to regard that Nobleman with favour. Some time ago Lord Monck presided at a meeting of magistrates in Dublin, and on that occasion he made a speech which he (Mr. Sexton) regarded as singularly unworthy of the high magisterial position he held, and as tending to excite hatred between class and class. He, therefore, did not think Lord Monck was a Gentleman fitted for the administration of the Land Act, especially after the bias he had displayed in regard to the disputes between landlord and tenant. He only expressed his own opinion upon the point; but he certainly thought the Government might easily have got a person who would have commanded greater confidence on the part of the people of Ireland.
MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member opposite has urged that because Lord Monck has taken a very severe view of the state of crime that has existed in Ireland, he is unfit to discharge the duties of a Commissioner to administer the Land Act and the Arrears Bill. I cannot conceive why, because Lord Monck has taken a view of that subject in accordance with the view generally entertained on the subject of crime in Ireland by persons of the education and of the station of Lord Monck, he should be disqualified from administering these Acts. He may be strict in his views as to the propriety of maintaining law and order; but I cannot see how that circumstance is to interfere with his efficiency in working under the present Act and the Land Act. The appointment of Lord Monck has also been found fault with on the ground that he is a partizan of the present Government. All I can say is that he has not been appointed to this office on the ground that he is a partizan of the Government.
MR. GIBSON: He is one of four.
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not admit that he is one of four. Mr. Vernon never described himself as a partizan of the Government. I remember perfectly well being introduced to Mr. Vernon in Ireland, but he was not introduced to me as a supporter of the Government.
MR. GIBSON: He is a supporter of the present Government.
MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that Mr. Vernon supports the principles of the Conservative Party. Lord Monck has described himself as an independent
1138
politician, although, doubtless, he has said that in certain matters he is prepared to give his adhesion to the Party to which I myself have the honour to belong. I wish to point out that Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, who was a very decided Tory, was one of the Church Commissioners named under the Irish Church Disestablishment Act, not because he was a Tory, but because he was a man of large financial experience, and we knew his competency, and we were glad to name him, Tory though he was. The present Government would have been very glad to have selected a Tory to fill the position now filled by Lord Monck, if they could have found one possessing the necessary qualifications to discharge the duties of the office. [Cries of "Oh!"] Perhaps hon. Members do not understand what are the necessary qualifications for discharging these duties. If we had merely to look for a man possessing learning, ability, and character, no doubt we could have found one among the Tory Party in Ireland; but we wanted a man who would work the Land Act in the spirit in which the Legislature has conceived and passed it. In the case of Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, we had the most entire confidence in him, and believed he would work the Act in the spirit in which it had been passed by the Legislature. Her Majesty's Government would have been very glad to have found some gentleman who could have discharged the duties of the office, who was altogether dissociated from themselves, provided he possessed the essential qualifications to which I have referred; but we have failed to find such a man, and, in these circumstances, we have determined to select Lord Monck to fill the post.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they had now on that side of the House stated their objections to this appointment; and, considering the amount of Business they had to dispose of, it would now be much wiser not to waste further time on the discussion at the present moment. It had not been anticipated that the Government had really any serious intention of enlarging the strength of the Commission.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question, "That the blanks in the Clause be filled in with

1139
the name of the Eight Honourable the Viscount Monck, "put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
MR. TREVELYAN,in moving the following New Clause:—

Part III.
Emigration.
(Power of guardians to borrow for emigration.)
From and after the passing of this Act, the board of guardians of any union in Ireland are authorised to borrow money for the purpose of defraying or assisting to defray the expenses of the emigration of poor persons resident within their union, or any electoral division thereof, in manner provided by "The Poor Law Amendment (Irelend) Act, 1849,"as amended by subsequent Acts, subject to the following modifications (that is to say):

(1.) The provisions of the said Act in relation to the repayment of the advance by annual instalments shall not apply;

(2.) The advances may be made by the Commissioners of Public Works out of any moneys granted to them for the purpose of loans in place of the Public Works Loans Commissioners;

(3.) Every such advance made by the Commissioners of Public Works shall bear interest at the rate of three and-a-half per centum per annum, or at such other rate as the Treasury may from time to time fix, in order to enable the advance to be made without loss to the Exchequer;

(4.) Every such advance made by the Commissioners of Public Works, and the interest thereon, shall be repaid within such period from the date of the advance, not being less than fifteen years nor more than thirty years, as the Treasury may from time to time fix;

For the purposes of this Act "The Poor Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, 1819,"means the Act of the Session of the twelfth and thirteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and four;
said, that, after the words that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross), he intended to introduce this important question very briefly indeed. He regretted that he had not a little more time to discuss it at greater length. He regretted also that it was not introduced by some gentleman whoso practical benevolence in carrying out the work of emigration had already established him as one of the pioneers in that great undertaking. It was only by a sort of Parliamentary anomaly that the duty fell to his lot to discharge. He would now very shortly state to the House the object of this important clause. By the Poor Laws Amendment Act of the year
1140
1849 Government aid was given to emigration, and loans were authorized to be made to Boards of Guardians for that purpose. These loans were for seven years, and were repayable by seven annual instalments. At first these loans were taken up to a very considerable extent. During the first three years after the passing of the Act no less than £80,000 was advanced to various Unions, and about 16,000 people wore assisted to emigrate. After that the borrowing almost entirely ceased, and emigration under loan almost died away, until Parliament last year endeavoured to revive it. A clause in the Land Act authorized £200,000 to be advanced to public bodies for emigration purposes. The Law Advisers of the Crown had come to the conclusion that the words "public body" did not include the Guardians of Unions. Now, Guardians of Unions were probably the only public body in Ireland who did seriously care to assist emigration, and the proof of this was in the annual Report of the Local Government Board, from which it appeared that during the last 27 years the Guardians of Unions had out of the rates assisted 18,000 persons to emigrate—a cost to the rates of £60,000. Now, the Government, seeing that Parliament evidently desired that this £200,000 should be utilized for the purpose of emigration by means of loan, proposed in this clause to give general powers of borrowing to the Unions, and thus to carry out the undoubted intention of Parliament. But this was not enough. Besides the Unions who could borrow, there were other Unions which specially required to be assisted by means of emigration and who could not assist themselves. These were Belmullet, Newport, Swineford, Clifden, Ouguterard; and these Unions contained a population of upwards of 131,000. In these Unions, of which two wore in Mayo and three in Galway, there were something like 20,000 agricultural holdings, of which 14,400 were valued under £4, and only 890 were valued over £8. To give the Committee a notion of the poverty of these bodies, he might say that the valuations per head of the population were as low as 13s. 4d., 16s. 2d., 15s. 2d., 14s. 11d. and 14s. 6d., or let them say an average of 15s. per head. As a contrast to these Unions he would instance Tallycarbet parish, Tyrone, where there were 1,974

1141
people to the valuation of £4,600. That was at the rate of £2 5s. per head. Another parish in Tyrone—namely, Inish-keen—had a valuation of £2 6s. per head; and when the Committee considered the difference between £2 6s. and 15s., they had the full measure of the extent to which these Unions were below the standard of comfort. In Marri parish, County Down, however, the valuation rose to as high as £4 5.?. per head; and taking Ireland as a whole, the valuation was £2 12s. 6d. per head of the population. In the five Unions he had specified the people in olden days found it the greatest difficulty to keep body and soul together. They just tried to get along because they were contented with the lowest standard of comfort; but even in those days a partial failure of crops and loss of stock would plunge these districts into the greatest misery. In the last 10 years there had been a great change. There had been some tendency to aim at something like human comfort, and this had brought the people to live on credit—and once they began to live on credit they began to go down hill. Three bad seasons completely broke them down. The credit on which they lived was practically extinguished, and the population was in a state of destitution—he might say of despair—whether they looked at individuals or at the community. In Clifden Union alone there were 800 people at this moment actually homeless, actually without homes of any sort or kind. Some little time ago, when the harvest in Ireland promised to be better than it did now, though he earnestly hoped it could not yet be said to have failed, it was calculated by the officers of the Local Government Board that next winter the cost of maintaining the outside pauper population in Clifden would be £6,400, or at the rate of 12s. in the pound; and in the Belmullet Union the local Inspector reported that he expected to see the rates as high as 19s. in the pound. An hon. Gentleman said a few nights ago, and said it no unfriendly spirit, and still less in a way which implied a want of humanity, that there never was more money in the West of Ireland than now. People told him (Mr. Trevelyan) that it was quite certain there was never less money. The earnings of the people in the English harvests had been very low for some years past, and it had been a
1142
very common thing for relatives to actually pawn the most necessary domestic articles in order to pay the return fares of the harvest men to Ireland. He thought the hon. Member of whom he spoke must have been listening to someone who distrusted the people, and who went about saying that poverty in Ireland was a got-up thing. It was quite true that women in Ireland might be seen drinking tea now who did not do so 10 years ago, and that there might be certain articles of finery now worn in the streets; but an observer, who had every possible means of judging of the condition of the people, and who had lived in the district, told him (Mr. Trevelyan) that many of these people—
"Have already pawned everything of value they possess. I would he almost afraid to say how many beds I have seen in the Clifden pawnshops alone, belonging to these poor people, but I am sure there must be three or four hundred."
Now, the Government, during the past two years, had actually paid £20,000 in relief of distress, under the Relief of Distress Act, in these Unions, and it was much to be questioned whether the principle of making constant grants of aid in relief was not highly injurious—whether it did not engender distrust of the administration of the Poor Law, and cherish the hope that if they could only contribute to make the rates sufficiently high the Government would be bound to help them. He was not going to unnecessarily worry the Committee, at this time of night, but it was worth}' of remark what the maintenance per head in workhouses cost. In the five Unions he had spoken of the maintenance per head was £8 13 s. 1d., £10 13 s. 1d., £8 Is. 9d., £7 19 s. 8d., and £8 16 s. 8d—that was to say, whether to the ratepayers or Consolidated Fund, it would cost less to emigrate the person once for all than to maintain him for a year at the public expense at home. Under these circumstances, the Irish Government, knowing that the State must assist these people, preferred to do it by the aid of emigration. The Government honestly believed that the people preferred that course themselves. The official accounts confirmed and supplemented the testimony. Their Inspector said—
"As to the feeling of the people in regard to emigration, it is greatly changed. Three years ago, when I first took charge of this district, the subject was one which had to be mooted and approached with great caution. It was 'exile'

1143
'expatriation;' but now I have only to say that hardly a day passes that I do not get letters from people asking me if I know of any means by which they could get employment, gain a livelihood, or he emigrated; and each day I am obliged to make the same reply—namely, that I know of none."
Of the last passage, perhaps, he might read the concluding words. The Inspector said—
"To sum up, I have to say that throughout Belmullet, Newport, Swineford, Clifden, and Oughterard, there is a general demand for emigration among the poorer classes; that the people arc prevented from emigrating by their not being in a position to obtain the necessary funds; that if steps arc not taken to meet this demand for emigration, the resources of the Poor Law will soon be inadequate to provide for the wants of the destitute people; and that the charge upon the occupiers will become so largo that persons in that position who are now solvent will be pauperized in consequence of their having to provide for the destitute."
Under those very exceptional circumstances, the Irish Government had come to the conclusion that if the money was not provided now it would have to be found by the public in the course of the ensuing winter, and if applied to the relief of the poor rates, it would only increase and perpetuate the evil which, if applied to emigration, it would do much to remedy. The way had been shown by the private exertions of a group of public-spirited men, including the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rath-bone). The Irish Government had come to the conclusion which had been embodied in the clause; the principal details had been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. The clause provided that the Boards of Guardians of any Unions might borrow money from the Board of Works for emigration purposes alone. The loan was to be for the term of not less than 15 years, nor more than 30 years, and was to be advanced at the rate of 3½ per cent where the loan was for a term not exceeding 20 years, and 8¾ per cent if the loan exceeded 20 years. They proposed to submit these loans to the provisions of the Treasury Minute of 1879, which, roughly speaking, governed all loans which were made now, and were made to individuals. This clause was, he thought, sufficiently guarded by provisions, which he need not enter into here, of the Poor Law Amendment Act—provisions which were then very effectual in limiting the amount of these loans. That part of the clause
1144
which laid down the condition of loans was to extend to the whole of Ireland; but in certain Unions the Board of Works might make a free grant in aid of the loan. The sum to be granted should not exceed £100,000, and the sum to be granted to any one Union should not exceed £5 for each person for whoso emigration the Guardians were making provision. The grants could only be made on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant, stating that he was satisfied of the inability of the Guardians to make any adequate provision for emigration, having regard to the numbers anxious to go. Then power was given to the Lord Lieutenant to make rules for the guidance of Boards of Guardians in making arrangements for the shipping and transport of emigrants from their Unions. The Lord Lieutenant would have the power also to make arrangements for the reception of the emigrants abroad. This would enable the Lord Lieutenant, in cases where the Boards of Guardians had not the necessary experience or administrative power, to avail himself of the machinery that had been sot up and worked by the gentlemen who had hitherto conducted this beneficent undertaking, to such extent as he thought it to the interest of the public he should avail himself. [Mr. PAR-NELL: What gentlemen?] The association of gentlemen who had Mr. Tuke at their head. The Lord Lieutenant would be enabled to obtain assistance by their advice and their local knowledge, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought it would be a great waste if the energy and devotion which Mr, Tuke and those around him had shown were not utilized. The Lord Lieutenant would be enabled to take care that people should not leave their native shores in a state of destitution and discomfort, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) took it that the sums which the Government would give could, with those coming from other sources—from, for instance, the gentlemen who had hitherto conducted these operations—provide that emigrants could leave these shores perhaps with greater comfort even than they had hitherto enjoyed. It would be for the Lord Lieutenant to see that families should leave together; that whether they were on the ocean or in the now country they might still keep up the family life which they had enjoyed, and, he (Mr. Trevelyan) hoped, under happier cir-

1145
cumstances; that when they reached America they should not find themselves turned adrift in the great cities on the coast; but, on the contrary, should be met by friendly hands and passed on by them until they found themselves in regions where congenial work could be obtained, and where a permanent and happy settlement could be effected—in fact, that all those conditions might be observed by which the great trial and the great misfortune of leaving a native country might be, as far as possible, mitigated and turned into a blessing. The scheduled Unions were those five Unions whose condition he had described; but the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, they proposed, should be able to enlarge or contract that Schedule within the limits of the districts scheduled in the first instance by the Board of Works' Notice of November, 1879. That Schedule he imagined to be tolerably familiar to hon. Members who had followed the debates in this House since the time that the late Irish distress began to take a permanent form. This the Government believed to be sufficiently elastic as to meet the objects in favour of which they believed there was at this present moment an overwhelming feeling, and against which they could not help thinking there was a less rooted opposition than perhaps at any time in the recent history of Ireland. He begged to propose the new clause which stood in his name.
New Clause (Power of guardians to borrow for emigration,;—(Mr. Trevelyan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. RATHBONEsaid, that after the speech they had just heard all must agree with him that so far from what happened yesterday being what a right hon. Gentleman had called a public calamity, it was a most fortunate occurrence, for it would have been impossible for any private Member to have spoken with the authority, or the knowledge, he might, perhaps, be almost permitted to say with the same ability, with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had just addressed the Committee. Of course, it was much more
1146
desirable that a measure like this should come from a Government who were to carry out the work, rather than from a private Member, and he felt that the Committee owed the right hon. Gentleman a debt for having so thoroughly mastered the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had, with great clearness and effect, described the necessity for facilities for emigration, and he (Mr. Rathbone) would only supplement what the right hon. Gentleman had said with one single fact, and that was that not only had these districts to deal with a state of things which had long existed, but, in addition to all the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, they had to deal with the failure of those industries in consequence of which the people were only able to eke out a most miserable existence. The kelp industry had so greatly failed of late that the wretched existence which many so formerly lived was now no longer possible. In speaking of the question of the impoverished districts of Ireland—the Clifden Union—-the right hon. Gentleman had said there were 800 persons absolutely homeless; but, if emigration had not stepped in, the condition of things would have been very much worse. Mr. Tuke's organization had emigrated 1,300, and placed them in happiness and comfort on the other side of the Atlantic. One of the most valuable merits of the plan of the Government was its limitation. They often heard wild talk of emigrating 1,000,000 of people from Ireland; but it would be a very great curse if they attempted any such thing. In many parts of Ireland he believed emigration was going on as fast as it was desirable it should. It was proceeding rapidly by natural causes. He fancied they would all agree that no man wished one single individual, or one single family, to leave the country in which he could live decently and in comfort; and, what was more, they could not induce an Irishman, especially among the classes it was proposed to deal with, to leave his country against his wish. It was not, therefore, their object to induce a single person to emigrate; it was only to assist those who, by the necessities of the case, must emigrate or starve. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt so fully with the subject, that he (Mr. Rathbone) need only deal with it very briefly. The efforts of Mr. Tuke's association had established two facts—

1147
namely, the great demand from these districts for emigration, and the necessity to give some assistance to the districts for the purpose of emigration. He (Mr. Rathbone) had long been connected with Irish emigration schemes; but he had never taken any part in any scheme in which the greatest care Was not exercised that the people did not leave the country without decent clothing and provisions, and without steps being taken that they should be met on the other side of the water, and not thrown on the large cities on the seaboard where wages were high, but where, unfortunately, spirits were cheap. Within these rules he had never found any expenditure of money upon public objects which had returned such satisfactory results as the expenditure upon a careful and judicious system of emigration, and, as the right hon. Gentleman had just pointed out, the choice which lay before them was a simple one. They would have to emigrate these people; they could not possibly live on the small holdings which they possessed. With the consent of the Committee, he would read a very short extract from the report of two gentlemen, one a very well-known Catholic clergyman, and the other a Liverpool merchant, who were sent over to investigate the state of matters in the West of Ireland in January, 1880. After stating that the immediate cause of the distress had been a succession of bad harvests, combined with a great and unexpected fall in the prices of cattle, and all other products of the land, just at the time when the same causes prevented the agriculturists in this country employing the Irish labourers, the report went on to say—
"But behind that there exists a system so rotten that the recurrence of the existing distress is inevitable so long as that system lasts. The population in places is far too dense to he supported on the poor patches of boggy land, interspersed with rocks and stones. There are large districts where the average holdings are three to five acres of the poorest land imaginable, and as every cabin or such holding seems to swarm with children, it is below the mark to put the average number of mouths to be fed from the produce at six; and, in fact, they could not exist were it not for the money earned by the father and sons in this country and Scotland at harvest. Last year this source of income entirely failed them ….. but if the land were given to the people for nothing, they would be in a worse plight ere long, because a check on the sub-division of their holdings (which the landlords now exercise) would be
1148
withdrawn. In many of the poorer districts a man when asked how much land he holds says £2 10s. or £3 worth. How much farther from the brink of starvation would the abolition of that rent place him? The foundation of any improvement lies in emigration, which would benefit those who left the country and those who remained."
Those were the words of an Irish Catholic clergyman; and he believed the same language was used by everybody connected with these extremely distressed districts of Ireland. The questions for the Committee to decide were these. Would they pass the people of these districts through a degrading process of pauperism, and reduce them to a state of demoralization which would insure them but a scant welcome in any country they might go to; or would they, before they became pauperized, take them from their miserable farms and place them in the position of honest labourers in America? The Government offered them the latter alternative, and, in the hope that it would be passed by the Committee, he should give the clause his hearty support.
MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to bear testimony to the great and valuable services which had been rendered by Mr. Take. With reference to emigration from Ireland, he thought the reason why the plan of last year proved to be inoperative was because the money which the Government proposed to allow was so very moderate in amount, and because the scheme was so fenced about with stringent conditions that no company or parties of sufficient respectability thought it worth their while to take it up. Now, with reference to the present proposal of the Government, he begged to impress upon the Committee the fact that the present moment was particularly propitious for making the arrangements necessary to insure that the people who took advantage of the clause should be received on the other side of the Atlantic with decency and comfort, because it was too late this year for emigration to Canada or America. He trusted that this would be secured, and, moreover, that the Government would make arrangements with the Governments abroad that work should be found for the emigrants on arrival. He agreed with those who said that emigration from Ireland should be conducted on the principle of "family emigration;" and

1149
he did so not because he believed the elder members of Irish families would practically benefit the countries they went to—and he spoke with some knowledge of American and Canadian settlements—but because he wished to lessen the dissatisfaction and pain that would result from the members of families being separated. He had heard the Colony of Minnesota referred to by hon. Gentlemen as one in which the Irish people who went there had starved and perished miserably; and, in connection with that subject, he might mention that when he visited the Colony last autumn he found, on inquiry, that the matter stood in this way. The senior members of that community who went over there just before the commencement of the winter found that no work was to be obtained at that season. However, their fellow-countrymen who had already settled in the Colony, with Irish kindness and hospitality, maintained them through the winter; but, when the spring came, not being accustomed to hard work, they were unwilling to undertake the task of supporting themselves. But the younger members of the families were willing to do the work which offered, and were now doing well. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not hesitate to avail themselves of the services of Mr. Tuke and the gentlemen who assisted him in his continued and laborious endeavours to ameliorate the condition of the people in the poorer districts of Ireland. He also urged on the consideration of the Government the great necessity that the Irish emigrants who went to America should be well cared for in point of clothing, and have, if possible, a trifle of money in their pockets on arrival; because there was no doubt that this question of Irish Emigration was regarded with great attention by the denizens of the Western States of North America, who, whilst they were willing to receive those who would work, naturally feared that the importation of a number of half-starved and ill-clad people who could not support themselves would not in the end be for the benefit of the country to which they were sent. Therefore, he trusted the Government would take care to insure that the emigrants should have at least two decent suits of clothes, some money in their pockets, and work on arrival in America.
MR. GORSTsaid, he must congratulate the Government on their return to the simple and rational practice of placing the emigration arrangements proposed in the clause before the Committee in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. The Committee would be aware that under the Act of last year the Boards of Guardians were excluded, and the emigration was intrusted to public bodies who might be approved by the Land Commissioners. When the Emigration Clause in the Act of last year came before the Committee, his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) moved an Amendment, the object of which was to place the emigration about to take place in the hands of the Boards of Guardians; but his noble Friend upon that occasion was strongly opposed by the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the Prime Minister, who introduced convincing arguments to the Committee to prove that the Boards of Guardians were the very worst bodies to whom the emigration could be intrusted. Those arguments would be interesting to the Committee on the present occasion—hon. Members need not be alarmed, he was not going to read them—but he would simply observe that experience had changed the opinion of the Prime Minister and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who now recommended the employment of the very bodies whom last year they denounced. He thought it was only just to his noble Friend to point out that, although the arguments he used last year did not convince the Government, their force was now acknowledged, the proposed emigration being now in the hands of the most proper persons to deal with it—namely, the Boards of Guardians.
MR. MOOREsaid, he did not know what the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) meant by placing emigration in the hands of the Boards of Guardians. If he meant that some power of selection was left to these bodies, he had no objection to that arrangement; but, as he read the clause, it was the Lord Lieutenant who might from time to time make provisions that arrangements should be made for securing the satisfactory emigration of persons for whom means of emigration was provided under this Act by prescribing rules for the guidance of the Guardians.

1151
Now, in relation to such matters, he believed the Boards of Guardians were wholly ignorant; and, moreover, he feared they would not be sufficiently liberal in their views or anxious in then-endeavours to have the emigration scheme satisfactorily carried out. On these grounds he strongly objected to their having anything to do with it, except, perhaps, by way of exercising the power of selection already alluded to.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was sure the Committee would agree with him when he said they had now approached one of the most difficult branches of the Irish Question. In the first place, he wished to say that, considering the magnitude of the evil with which it was intended to deal, he regarded the proposals of the Government as very inadequate in their scope; and, further, that he looked upon the sum of money which they proposed to set aside in aid of emigration as entirely insufficient. He had ventured to state, when the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was under consideration in that House, upon the clause having reference to emigration, that, from its restricted character, it was foredoomed to absolute and utter failure. That prediction having been fulfilled, he was anxious that if the matter of emigration were touched at all, it should be touched effectively—that whatever steps were taken should be of a kind which not merely excited some curiosity and pointless conversation on the subject, but which wont to the root of the difficulty once for all. He need not trouble the Committee by stating the unfavourable views which had from time to time been taken by Irish Members on the question of emigration generally; but he might be pardoned for saying that he belonged to the number of persons who knew something of the condition and resources of Ireland, and who still adhered to the opinion that, taking any large county of Ireland as a whole, there was no such thing as over-population there. He was, on the other hand, ready to admit that there were overcrowded districts in various counties, and the county which he represented was one which suffered in that respect to a certain degree, but was not, on the whole, over-populated. They had always advocated a scheme of migration as opposed to a scheme of emigration; but, so far, they had not succeeded in con-
1152
vincing the House that this was the proper remedy for the existing evil. They were now face to face with that evil; and he asked whether the Government were going to deal with this question effectually, and once for all? If so, then they would have to go very much further than they seemed to intend, because if they succeeded, by the offer of £5 a-head, in inducing a number of destitute persons to leave Ireland, and settle on the other side of the Atlantic, what was to become of the persons who would be left behind, and who would be ready to take the place of the first batch of those who were sent out? How were the Government going to prevent the subsequent occupation of the districts by other families just as destitute and miserable as those who went away? They had had the advantage of seeing the different views taken of this proposal by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant on the one hand, and the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee (Mr. Northcote) from those Benches above the Gangway on the other. The Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that it would be very demoralizing to the Guardians, and to all who were connected with the administration of the Poor Law, if they were allowed to entertain the idea that Parliament would come forward from time to time with what the right hon. Gentleman called "Constant aids to the relief of the poor." But he did not see how the Guardians could fail to entertain that idea, from the very nature of this proposal, which, he said, was of a very halting character, and only nibbled with the question they wished to settle. Reference had been made to the exertions of Mr. Tuke; but if hon. Members had studied the figures given by that gentleman, they would see that the Government ought to be prepared to advance a much larger sum of money than that named if they wished to deal with this question effectively. He noticed also, that while there was a general agreement as to the advisability of emigrating families rather than single individuals, there was also a general agreement that the people on the other side of the Atlantic might possibly not be so ready to receive these families. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rath-bone) stated that the Colonizers in Canada and the United States were

1153
anxious to get strong men and strong women; but that they were not anxious to get old men and helpless children. If that were so, how were the Government going to make the necessary arrangements? He was sure the Committee would not think he was anxious to obscure the issue before them; but these were practical difficulties in the way of the Government proposal to relieve the congested districts of Ireland, and he was desirous of knowing how the Government intended to grapple with them before he joined in the congratulations which had been offered to them on the strength of their proposal. Emigration by families was not made compulsory by the clause, and if families were to be emigrated rather than single persons, the carrying out of that plan would depend on the efficiency of the rules framed by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, he would much prefer to see the clause so worded as to indicate that it was the desire and intention of Parliament that by some means or other families should be emigrated. Again, he desired to see some direction given in the clause which would enable those interested in the work to go right to those districts which were overcrowded. They knew that Boards of Guardians were partially representative bodies, or, at any rate, whether they were representative or not, they were susceptible of certain influences that might be brought to bear upon them; and he was afraid, unless the scheme of emigration were carefully devised in the manner indicated, that the Guardians would be found offering money to persons who had their passage tickets already in their pockets, or who had received from their friends in America or Canada the means of emigrating. Therefore, he said, if stringent rules were not framed, they would be simply adding their little contribution to the large amount of emigration funds which accumulated in Ireland. Every farthing might be spent, and it might then be found that the money had got into the pockets of persons who did not care whether the people emigrated or not. Under such circumstances, at the end of the year the congested districts would be as badly off as at present. In Ireland, with the decrease of population, there was an absolute increase in the area of uncultivated and waste lands. Now, he said, there must be something
1154
wrong when that description could be given of the condition of Ireland. He only wished it were possible to induce that House to enter upon a large scheme for the development of the resources of the country, which would place the unoccupied land in Ireland at the disposal of peasant proprietors brought from the crowded districts. If such a scheme could be carried, he should certainly be willing to receive, as a great favour, a proposal of this kind if it went to the root of the matter. While he appreciated the intention of the Government in bringing in the clause, he was bound to say that unless its scope were enlarged, and unless the sum of money proposed to be given were multiplied by five, the scheme was doomed to failure.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Committee would hardly expect him to repeat, at that distance of time, the arguments which were used last year on the subject of the employment of the Boards of Guardians in this matter; but he believed the understanding was that the Board of Guardians would be a proper public body to act if they were willing to fulfil the conditions imposed by the clause of last year. Now, it had been discovered that they could not fulfil those conditions, because, by the Poor Law, they were only able to borrow money which was to be repaid in seven years. That was a matter, then, which plainly had to be rectified by another Act. The experience gained by him since last year had confirmed the opinion he then expressed, that in some of the districts the only practical remedy for the distress existing there was emigration; but, at the same time, they were now in a different position to what they were last year, and he admitted that to act through the Boards of Guardians was much more feasible now than it was then. The people themselves were more anxious to emigrate, and he believed the ratepayers had found that it would be to their advantage to assist them to do so, to prevent the heavy taxation that would otherwise come upon them in future, owing to the increased demands upon the workhouses. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made an objection to this proposal, on, as he said, the ground of its insufficiency. Well, he did not himself pretend to believe that the measure proposed would entirely meet the case; but

1155
he thought it would do so to a greater extent than the hon. Member supposed. In the first place, although the distress was very great in some districts, and although it was very clear that in those districts nothing practical could he done for the people to lessen their distress, except by assisting them to emigrate, the people there were, after all, hut a small part of the population. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member in saying that Ireland, as a whole, was not over-populated. It might be said that no province of Ireland was over-peopled. There was, in certain districts, undoubtedly, a great portion of the population without the means of subsistence. If you could migrate these people, it would, no doubt, be for their advantage; but he would point out that there was no land ready for them to take, and therefore, unquestionably, they would have a better chance in Canada or the United States of America. The hon. Member said, if they were emigrated, their place would be immediately filled by others as destitute. But he did not think that would be the case. They hoped that they would be able to place the Irish peasant in a bettor position than he had been in before, and, if their hopes were realized, he would not be likely to leave his district whore the standard of living had been raised. The object was to assist a certain number of people to emigrate, so as to put those left behind in a better position, and raise the whole standard of life in the various districts. Some time ago the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) made a speech which had a very great effect. He spoke not only of the love of country held by many small tenants, but of their willingness to work hard, and said that was proved by their going-year after year to England and saving the money they there earned, adding that many of them would make a most creditable and hard-working population, of which the country should he proud. He quite agreed with the hon. Member in that; but he thought there were too many of these people, and if some of them were taken away the rest would be able to thrive. The point was, whether what the Government now proposed would be sufficient for that purpose. He rather doubted it; but he was inclined to think it was almost as much as the Government could be expected to do at
1156
this immediate time, because they had not only those on this side of the Atlantic to think about, hut they must take care they did not glut the market in the United States and Canada. If they sent more out than could be taken, they might give a had character to emigration and spoil it altogether. He looked at this plan in this way. Under careful superintendence it would be a success; and what more was necessary to be done, or could he done? He agreed with the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) with regard to Boards of Guardians; but he did not think those Boards would he fit to undertake the arrangements for the reception of emigrants in America, and he did not think they would attempt to do it. But he thought the Government would obtain the assistance of private individuals in the matter, and it might fairly he loft to the Lord Lieutenant to recommend such rules as seemed best calculated to carry out this work. He had known Mr. Tuke over since he was a hon. That gentleman's benevolent action in Irish matters was well known, and he was most anxious to put his services at the disposal of the Government. But, of course, the responsibility must rest with the Government; and no Lord Lieutenant would think of referring to any private individual, however benevolent, or able, the real responsibility of taking care that the emigrants were well looked after on the passage. He could only most heartily thank the Government for taking this matter up, and express his belief that this scheme would be one way by which great good would be done to Ireland.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought he had come reason to complain that this very important matter should be left to the very last moment, and that the Committee should only have received notice this morning of the clause by which the Government proposed to carry out their new scheme of emigration. He could not think the Chief Secretary had justified the course he wished the Committee to take, either by the urgency which he said surrounded the question, or by the nature of the proposals themselves. He could not see, if there was to be any large distress in the districts in the West of Ireland this winter, how a few thousand pounds which would emigrate 20,000 people, or 4,000 families, would

1157
have any but a partial effect in alleviating that distress. He thought it would have been better for the Government this winter to have relied on the Arrears Bill and the machinery of the Poor Law, devoting the interval to considering this question and bringing forward a well-digested scheme, instead of the present crude and, as he feared, unworkable scheme. As the Government had invited the Committee to consider these proposals, he supposed they would now move to report Progress, in order that the Irish Members might lay their views before the Committee to-morrow with regard to the scheme.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
MR. BUXTONsaid, he thought the appeal of the hon. Member could hardly be acceded to, for this Bill, to be of any value, must be used at once. Although he had not been connected with the institution which Mr. Tuke so well represented, he had taken great interest in the emigration movement; and he found in Mr. Tuke's estimate that in some districts the whole population might be induced to emigrate, and he was sure that other districts were in an almost equally bad state, he hoped the Government might be able to enlarge the sum they had, named, because £100,000 seemed very small, although Mr. Tuke himself was very well satisfied with the proposal. He believed Mr. Tuke had carefully considered the proposal, and was thoroughly satisfied that it was the best that could be adopted at present. He believed that if the Government pursued their course thoroughly it would meet with every success.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he very much agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but, at the same time, he thought this experiment was well worth trying. What was required to be done in emigration was to relieve the population of adult persons and children. His experience as a Poor Law Guardian was that in the case of excess of population, one of the greatest difficulties was to deal with children. He thought that with regard to the Irish population it was desirable to try this experiment, and when it had been tried to see whe-
1158
ther what had been done in the first instance was likely to be successful in the future. The wisest plan was to begin a matter of this kind on a small scale. The Poor Law Guardians in Ireland were so thoroughly alive to the difficulties from which their country suffered that they might be trusted with the small discretion the Government proposed.
MR. BLAKEwished the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give him some information on certain important points. He had himself strongly advocated emigration last year, and did now in certain cases; but the plan of the Government was one of the most undefined and crude schemes he had ever heard of. According to the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was intended that the whole expenditure for the people should be £5 per head. The people were to be sent to America and would have little money in their pockets on their arrival. He did not see how the scheme was to be carried out for £5 a-head, for that would only land the people on the shores of America, and do nothing else for them. A well-defined proposal had been addressed to the Home Government by the Governor General of Canada; and if the Chief Secretary for Ireland could give some assurance that something of that kind was contemplated he should not oppose the present scheme; otherwise he must. The Canadian Government, in their scheme, sympathized, they said, with the Irish people, who were in distressed circumstances, and would joyfully cooperate in a systematic emigration from Ireland. They proposed that means of maintaining emigrants until an homestead had been built for them and the land had been sown should be provided, and undertook to give each emigrant 160 acres of land and the right to 160 more at the current price of the day. He wished to know from the Chief Secretary for Ireland what he was going to do with the emigrants when he got them on the other side of the Atlantic at this rate of £5 per head? Where was the money to come from to make provision for them? Would they be sent to the United States or to Canada? He should like also to know what had become of this excellent proposal of the Government of Canada, and whether it was intended to adopt it in any shape?
MR. RAMSAYsaid, the Government had now proposed a plan which would aid in removing the radical cause of discontent in Ireland—-namely, the distress suffered by a numerous class of the people. There wore masses of occupiers of land living in a state of chronic starvation, and he could not see how it was possible for anyone acquainted with rural populations to fail to see that the transformation of their condition was essential for their peace and prosperity. Disaffection was the only result of such distress; and he was not surprised that Radical Members below the Gangway, considering the numbers requiring aid, complained of the inadequacy of the sum proposed—namely, £100,000. He thought millions, instead of hundreds of thousands, would be required to deal with the people he had referred to, and he thought such occupiers should only be moved in families. He believed the taxpayers would willingly bear this expense if they could see the people freed from the cause of disaffection. He expressed his satisfaction at finding the Government had at last begun to consider the real cause of discontent in Ireland, and he hoped that a more extensive and expansive scheme would be proposed. The Land Act of last year and the Arrears Bill would be fruitless to produce peace and contentment in Ireland; and it had been little better than a waste of time to raise those questions, when no attempt was made otherwise to relieve the distress of the people.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would appeal to the Government to allow Progress to be reported, as it was impossible at this hour to take a full discussion on the question. This was the most important question with regard to the welfare of Ireland that could possibly be raised.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I had hoped that the Committee would agree to dispose of this clause this evening, and I have an opinion that the Committee is practically unanimous on the subject. Although the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) says this proposal is not satisfactory, I do not understand either from him or from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that they intend to offer any opposition to the clause, nor do I gather that they have any intention of pro-
1160
posing Amendments to the clause. The only complaint I have been able to gather in respect to this proposal is that it is inadequate. The hon. Member for the City of Cork says it is inadequate; but this proposal will not in the least degree interfere with the operation of the Arrears Bill, which will operate at the same time, and from the description given of the distressed districts I think it is quite evident that no Arrears Act could deal with the state of things so described. Then, with regard to the Poor Law Guardians, this will only be an additional means by which we hope to relieve destitution. Then the hon. Member for Waterford says the amount per head is inadequate. I must point out that the total sum is £5 as the limit to the Government grant. That is supplemented either by Poor Law Unions or by private persons. Therefore, it does not follow that £5, which I admit by itself would be inadequate, will not be a satisfactory sum. I do not propose to go into this question, and I will only say that I think it is to be regretted that, when the Committee is practically unanimous on the subject as far as I gather, we should not be allowed to dispose of the clause to-night. Of course, this is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Committee; but I think there is a unanimous agreement that this Bill ought to leave the House to-morrow. Whether the discussion is to be concluded to-morrow morning or carried on to the Evening Sitting is a matter, so far as the Government are concerned, of indifference; but I think that the House, having had to absorb so much of the time of private Members during the present Session, would be disposed, if possible, to allow private Members to have to-morrow evening. This is a matter entirely for the House to decide; I can hardly venture to give any opinion on it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 147.]
(Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Saturday next, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to make just one observation upon this Saturday Sitting—he wished to call the special attention of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and the House to the state of Supply at the present moment. Though he was clearly of opinion that it might be necessary at this time of the Session to sit on Saturdays for express purposes, on the other hand he was also of opinion that now that they had practically disposed of the important Irish measures, they ought not to take any Business of any sort or description until they had made substantial progress with Supply. He did not suppose there ever was a Session in which Supply was so backward as at present. There were 190 Votes this year, and of these they had only voted 13, which loft 177 still to be considered and agreed to. Little or no opportunity had been given to hon. Members to bring forward those Motions they wished to bring forward on going into Committee of Supply; and, more than that, if, as seemed likely to be the case, Supply were put off until the beginning of August there would be no time to discuss it. Last year, in the middle of June, they had only 150 Votes to pass; but this year they were worse than ever, having 177 to dispose of. In 1877, 1878, and 1879, very grievous complaints were made by hon. Members now on the Ministerial side of the House with regard to the backwardness of Supply. In those years he had heard the strongest speeches from those hon. Members about the neglect of Supply, and the absolute necessity of bringing it on at earlier periods of the Session, and in denunciation of the manner in which it was put off from time to time, and the manner in which Bills were pressed forward at the expense of Supply. He should like to compare the state of Supply in those years he had mentioned with its condition now. In 1877, on the 18th July, out of all the Votes—[A laugh]—the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) might laugh, but this was no laughing matter, and least of all for the hon. Member who was the person who ought to be specially interested in the subject. If
1162
the hon. Member considered it a laughing matter, he was probably the only person in the House who did. In 1877, in the middle of July, though great complaints were made, there were only 12 Votes to get. In 1878, by the end of June, there were about 70 Votes to get, and great complaints were made at that time; and in 1879, at about the same period, there were 84 Votes to get, and the complaints then grew louder and louder still. But, taking the last two Sessions, the condition of affairs was that though at the end of June last year, there were 150 Votes to get, there were now, on the 20th of July, no less than 177 to get out of 190. Surely, if Supply was to be brought forward at all, this was making a poor mockery of the thing; and he was surprised that the present Government should have so grievously erred in this particular matter, when they had, no doubt by the exercise of their proper discretion, brought the late Government to task so often for neglecting Supply. If a Saturday Sitting was held it ought to be for the purpose of making progress with Supply. No doubt, it was extremely convenient for the Government to be able to pass two or three Bills that were promised in the Queen's Speech; and, no doubt, one particular object the Government had in view was the satisfaction of the Scotch Members, who had great cause of complaint. The Government wished to pass some Scotch Bills for the purpose of saving their credit should a General Election, unfortunately, take place; but he ventured to say that the interests of the Empire were still greater than the interests of the Government, and this question of Supply ought not to be neglected. If the Government were ready to take Supply on Saturday, he, for one, should be willing to sit in the House for a whole week and discuss it; but he was not willing that the House should hold Sittings on Saturday for the purpose of passing one or two Bills to save their own credit, and not for the purpose of advancing the general interests of the country.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not intend to treat the subject he had raised in that spirit of levity which the right hon. Gentleman seemed so strongly to object to. He was perfectly aware that the Business of the House, particularly Supply,

1163
was in a condition which, reflected no credit on those responsible for it. It would not, however, be perfectly just now to go back into a review of the circumstances that had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman; and he thought the House would admit that, at all events during the greater part of the last three months, the House had been engaged in the discussion of most urgent measures, and which the right hon. Gentleman himself would admit could not have been postponed for the purpose of making progress with Supply; and at that period of the Session the right hon. Gentleman should not ask them to go back more than three months. If a Saturday Sitting were taken the question was whether it should be devoted to a Scotch Bill or to Committee of Supply. Though hon. Members who sat near the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) cheered him while he was describing the state of Supply, and what had happened in previous years, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not think the right hon. Gentleman had received a single cheer when he had said that a Saturday Sitting would be devoted to Supply, and he had no doubt that if a Saturday Sitting for such a purpose had been proposed by the Government, it would have been received with an almost universal storm of condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that the only object the Prime Minister had in endeavouring to proceed with the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill and some other measures was in order that they might make a figure in the Queen's Speech, and produce some effect in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman altogether set aside the fact that these measures were promised by the Government, and that a considerable number of Members looked upon them as of great importance. He (the Marquess of Hartington) understood that a great number of Scotch Members were extremely anxious to make progress with the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill—so anxious, in fact, that they were willing that a Saturday Sitting should be devoted to its consideration. This measure, and the Entail (Scotland) Bill, were not Bills which the general body of the House took a very strong interest in; and, therefore, the arrangement was one which the general run of Members
1164
would be able to assent to without inconvenience. He believed that a Saturday Sitting was, about the greatest infliction that could be imposed upon the House; and when it was the painful duty of the Government to have to propose such a Sitting, it was incumbent on them to endeavour to make the infliction as little objectionable as possible. He believed, as he had said, that the great majority of Scotch Members were willing to make a sacrifice; but he doubted whether a great number of Gentlemen who were desirous, and very properly desirous, of taking part in a discussion of Supply would care about the Government taking it, and having a comparatively large number of Votes debated in a comparatively empty House. Though they were well aware of the discreditable condition of Supply, the Government could not help thinking that the arrangement they had proposed was really the best that could be adopted.
COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that, as an Amendment to the Motion before the House, he would move that the Bill be committed on Monday instead of Saturday, and he proposed to say a few words—he proposed to state, as briefly and succinctly as he could, why, in his humble judgment, the House ought not to be asked on Saturday to discuss this Scotch or any other Bill It would be in the recollection of the House that on Saturday last Members were brought down at 12 o'clock to keep a House for the Electric Lighting Bill. Some hon. Members were brought down under false pretences and kept there five hours, until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when the Scotch Bill came on. Hon. Members from Scotland had grumbled a little at that; but their grumbling had been of no avail, for they were only offered "Hobson's choice." They were told that they might either sit that day or the following Saturday; and they naturally, therefore, elected to sit last Saturday. Now, forsooth, they were to have the pleasure of sitting on another Saturday. The fact of the matter was that the grumbles of the Scotch Members had, on the last occasion, been silenced by a little judicious flattery that was administered to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). The right hon. Gentleman had on that occasion appealed to what he was pleased to term the characteristic

1165
good sense of Scotch Members. If they desired to get round a Scotchman, they should always appeal to his characteristic good sense. He did not know whether an appeal of this kind would have the same effect on Irish Members sitting below the Gangway on the Conservative side of the House; but, whether or not, it seemed to him that hon. Members would be displaying real good sense by refusing to sit on the sixth day to transact Scotch Business, after they had been sitting five days to transact English and Irish Business. The result of last Saturday's Sitting was anything but satisfactory, for though Scotch Members protested their readiness to sit until midnight, if necessary, as the dinner hour approached they became very impatient, and a lot of hon. Gentlemen from Scotland collected on that occasion behind Mr. Speaker's Chair, and interrupted every Member who attempted to speak with what the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would call "unearthly noises." Even the hon. and learned Member for Bridport himself on that occasion forsook them and fled. What he (Colonel Alexander) objected to was the bad precedent which this Saturday Sitting would cause. If it were allowed, the Government would put any number of Bills in future into the Queen's Speech, knowing they would only have to get Saturday Sittings at the fag-end of the Session for their discussion. More than that, it was necessary for the House to consider whether, except on very rare occasions, they should consent to sit on Saturdays at all. It appeared to him, with all due respect for Mr. Speaker, that some consideration was due to that right hon. Gentleman's comfort, and also to the comfort of the officers of the House, and those who reported the speeches, and that those who were kept during the whole of the Sittings five days in the week were fairly entitled to rest on the sixth day. There was just one other point on which he wished to speak, and it was this. He desired to remind the noble Marquess that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government was a Scotch Member. He (Colonel Alexander) did not at all complain that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had not attended in his place on Saturday last in his capacity as a Scotch Member, because he thought, looking
1166
at the nature of the right hon. Gentleman's labours, that he was entitled to rest on that day. But it certainly did seem anomalous that a most important Scotch Bill should be discussed without the most important of all the Scotch Members being present.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the word"Monday,"—(Colonel Alexander,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not think that the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander) had altogether correctly described the arrangement come to with regard to last Saturday. As he (Mr. Anderson) understood it, they were told that if they kept a House and assisted in the passing of the Electric Lighting Bill, they would get the remainder of that Saturday and also the first place on the coming Saturday for their Education Bill. The consequence was that last Saturday the Scotch Members had gone through the ordeal of keeping a House for the Electric Lighting Bill; and, although they got a very small portion of that Saturday for their own Bill, they were sustained in their efforts by the consciousness that they were to be rewarded by getting the first place on the following Saturday. Scotch Members did not like Saturday Sittings any more than anyone else; but they felt that this Education Bill was a measure of very great importance, and they were, therefore, willing to make some sacrifice to have it carried. But they earnestly hoped that what had occurred would not be considered a precedent for Scotch Business in future Sessions.
MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he should vote against the proposal of the Government to come down for a Saturday Sitting.
MR. WARTONsaid, he must say that the noble. Marquess had exercised a very wise discretion in not going back further than three months, because the real root of the difficulty they were now under was the obstinacy of the Premier in insisting upon his attack upon the House of Lords, and upon bringing forward his ClMture Resolution. Neither the noble Lord nor the Prime Minister could any more restore the time lost at that period

1167
of the Session than could the spendthrift restore the money which he had thrown away in the days of his extravagance. The present condition of Public Business was owing to the action of the Prime Minister, and the Government ought to suffer for it. He (Mr. Warton) desired to get a definite pledge from the noble Marquess as to what Bills would be taken on Saturday.
MR. A. ELLIOTsaid, that if there was to be a Saturday Sitting, would it be quite certain, and understood beyond all possibility of a doubt, that the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill would be the first Order of the Day?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes; the Bills to be taken on Saturday were mentioned at the beginning of the Sitting.
MR. WARTON: What are they?
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 36: Majority 94.—(Div. List, No. 283.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee upon Saturday next.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE AMENDMENT DILL [Lords].— [BILL 243.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)

SECOND HEADING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he trusted the House would allow this Bill to be read a second time. The Bill was brought in last year, but in consequence of the pressure of Business it could not be proceeded with. The details of the measure required discussion in Committee, and as the Bill in some shape must be introduced, he hoped the House would assent to the second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, it was quite correct that this Bill was brought in to fulfil a pledge given last Session with reference to the patronage which was vested in the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice. But this Bill went a great deal further than to deal with patronage; it introduced a serious and retrograde alte-
1168
ration in the judicature jurisdiction of this country. It was to be deplored that the House was called upon at 2 o'clock in the morning to consider so serious a change as this Bill contemplated. He did not wish to weary the House, but he would indicate the clauses to which he meant to take objection when the House got into Committee. The chief objection he had was to the clause which enabled the Lord Chancellor to place Puisne Judges in the present Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was now working to the entire satisfaction of the country; he believed there was no Court which had given so much satisfaction. It was now proposed to reintroduce the old system of chance Judges sitting in a chance way in the Court of Appeal. The proper way of dealing with this question was to abolish the necessity of the Lords Justices going Circuit. The Chancery Judges ought also to be relieved from going Circuit; in fact, the working part of the present system was not satisfactory to the Profession or the public. He meant to raise this question in Committee; and he also intended to propose in Committee the insertion of a clause in the Bill dealing with that great public scandal, the Long Vacation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

UNION OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL. 75.]
(Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Saturday next."—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
MR. BIGGARsaid, he understood from the Prime Minister that no Bill to which any substantial objection would be raised would be set down for Saturday. Without going into the question of the merits of this Bill, he might say that a large number of Irish Members were very much opposed to this measure, and on this account he appealed to the Government to keep the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave

1169
earlier in the evening. He would move formally that the Bill be set down for second reading on Monday next.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the word "Monday,"—(Mr. Biggar,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
MR HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he thought what the Prime Minister said was that one or two Bills of second-rate importance might be taken; he certainly did not convey the impression which the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) seemed to have formed. He (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) did not think this Bill was generally opposed by hon. Members from Ireland; on the contrary, he believed it met with very general approval. He was quite aware it met with the uncompromising hostility of the hon. Member for Cavan; but he would appeal to the characteristic good sense of the hon. Member to give way to the general opinion of his Colleagues. The Bill was approved by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland sitting opposite, as well as by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland sitting below the Ministerial Gangway, and it was not disapproved of by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). Under the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment.
MR. MONKsuggested that the Bill should be put down to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and that, in the meantime, the Government should consult the Irish Members, who were now conspicuous by their absence, as to whether the Bill should be taken on Saturday or not.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not pretend to use the exact words of the Prime Minister; but he did say most emphatically that the right hon. Gentleman conveyed the idea that no Bill to which any substantial objection would be raised would be set down for Saturday.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 5: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 284.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Second Reading upon Saturday next.

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. J. N. Richardson, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Corry, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Thomas Dickson, Mr. Meldon, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Blake.)

[BILL 148.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time upon Saturday next."—(Mr. J. N. Richardson.)
MR. DODSONsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member not to ask that this Bill should be set down for Saturday. The hon. Member would gain nothing by doing so, because the number of Government Bills put down for Saturday was such that no other Bill could be brought on at an hour when the House would consent to sit on Saturday. He thought there was a general understanding on the part of the House that no Bills would be set down for Saturday except Government Bills, and to put this Bill down for Saturday would certainly lead to misconception. He did not make this appeal to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Richardson) in any spirit of hostility to the Bill.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, if private Members were willing to come down on Saturday, he saw no reason why the Bill should not be put down for Saturday.
MR. BLAKEsaid, there was just a chance of the Bill being reached on Saturday; and, therefore, he advised the hon. Member to persevere with his Motion. The Bill was of very great importance to the people of Ireland.
MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he did not regard this as his Bill, but as a Government Bill. It was brought in at the instance of the Government, and at the request of the Government. Thanks to the kindness of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had had no opportunity of getting this Bill read a second time, or even discussed. He must appeal to the Government to allow the Bill to be taken on Saturday.
MR. W. E. PORSTERsaid, he would not enter into the question whether this was a Government Bill or not; but he must say it was most important this matter should be settled this year. It was impossible that the Act could be

1171
allowed to expire, and he believed there was a general feeling on the part of Irish Members to come down on Saturday with the view of the Bill being then taken. He hoped the Government would agree to the Motion.
DR. LYONSsaid, there was a strong feeling in Ireland against the Bill. He did not see what was to be gained by putting the second reading down for Saturday; there was no chance of its coming on, and, therefore, he should vote against the Motion.
MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved that the second reading be fixed for Monday. Earlier in the evening a distinct pledge was given by the Government that nothing but Government Business would be taken on Saturday. Were they to put any faith at all in the pledges of the Government?
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the word "Monday,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
MR. DODDSsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warton); but he did so on the present occasion. If this Bill were put down for Saturday, the inevitable result would be that other Business would be prolonged to prevent this Bill being brought on, and the Government would not succeed in getting through the Business which it was important should be transacted. As a matter of prudence, he appealed to the Government to support the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).
Question put.
The House divided:—Aves 30; Noes 25: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 285.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Second Beading upon Saturday next.

PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC-HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Brodhurst.)

[BILL 185.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Beading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time
1172
upon Saturday next."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the word "Monday,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
MR. BROADHURSThoped the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would not press his opposition to the Bill being read next Saturday. It had already passed the other House, and as it was of very great importance to the working classes, who were anxious that it should become law without delay, he trusted the second reading would be fixed for Saturday next.
MR. WARTONregretted his inability to comply with the request of the hon. Member for Stoke.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 1: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 286.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Second Beading upon Saturday next.

CHURCHWARDENS' ADMISSION BILL.— [BILL 45.]
(Mr. Monk, Sir Gabriel Goldney.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Saturday next, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Monk.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the word"Monday,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
Question put, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 11: Majority 1.—(Div. List, No. 287.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Duke of Grafton, after the death of his brother.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment* (201).
Committee—Vagrancy, now Casual Poor (161–200).
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 4)*. Third Reading—Baths and Wash-houses Acts Amendment* (180), and passed.

EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should like to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him pri-
  1052
  vate Notice, with reference to the statements made by the President of the Council in the French Chamber. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Whether he can give the House any indication of the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue with regard to an armed occupation of any portion of Egypt? The two statements of M. de Freycinet to which I refer are, if correctly reported—first, that the French Government had resolved upon armed intervention in Egypt; and, secondly, that the French and English Governments had come to an agreement, which they wore about to submit to the Conference, for the guardianship of the Suez Canal. As regards the latter, we were assured in this House, by Her Majesty's Government, that they looked upon the Suez Canal as a matter outside the Conference. I shall, therefore, be glad to hear what the noble Earl has to say now upon the point.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I have to state that on Monday next my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) will ask for a Vote of Credit in the House of Commons, and on the same day, with your Lordships permission, I will make a statement to your Lordships on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the affairs of Egypt,

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLEET AT ALEXANDRIA.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAMsaid, he also wished to ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question, of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether he has received despatches with reference to the bombardment of Alexandria from Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and, whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Standard" newspaper, which states that the noble Earl has expressed his sense of the services rendered by the "Condor," under Lord Charles Beresford, and that he will receive some special mark of recognition for those services? I wish to ask if the noble Lord can give us any information on the subject?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, the Admiralty have received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour to-day a despatch giving a preliminary report of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Fleet at

  1053
  Alexandria on the 11th. That despatch will be published in The Gazette in the customary manner. It does not enter into the services rendered by the Condor, and only mentions by name one officer, Captain Hunt-Grubbe, who was the senior officer in command of the ships engaged with the Northern forts. There is not the slightest foundation for the paragraph which my noble and gallant Friend has read from The Standard newspaper of this morning as to the recognition of the services of the gunboat Condor, under the command of Lord Charles Beresford, for this simple reason, that no despatches have yet been received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour as to the particular services of Commander Lord Charles Beresford, or of the other officers who, equally with him, were engaged in the attack on the forts at Alexandria.

  VAGRANCY (now CASUAL POOR) BILL.
  (The Earl Stanhope.)

  (No. 161.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he regretted very much that he did not ask their Lordships to reject the Bill on the Motion for second reading. As far as he could make out the Bill, it seemed to him to be suitable for dealing only with cases in the Metropolis and some large towns, and wholly unsuitable to the Unions in the rural parts, where it would have the effect of largely increasing the cost of Poor Law administration. He wished to know in how many Unions throughout England there now existed in the workhouses sufficient appliances to enable the Guardians to keep casual paupers within the casual ward for a period of five days, as was proposed to be done under the Bill? He believed that few of the workhouses at present possessed the requisite appliances for that purpose, and he thought, so far as that class of paupers was concerned, the country Unions would be obliged to lay out large sums of money for the purpose of building casual wards. They had heard a great deal of late years of the increasing burdens imposed on the shoulders of the taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country, and he thought it would be a serious matter to further increase these burdens by calling on the
  1054
  Unions to increase the accommodation for casual paupers. The effect the Bill would be to drive casual paupers from those Unions where there were appliances for enabling the Guardians to detain them five days, to Unions where there wore no such appliances. The Guardians in the last-named Unions would not consider themselves able to maintain the casuals five days; therefore, the provisions of the Bill would not apply. Beyond that, it was undesirable, in his opinion, that casual paupers should be mixed in the ward with the other inmates of the workhouse.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, that the Bill, at first sight, might appear a somewhat harsh and cruel measure, but it was really founded on benevolent motives. It had for its object to enable the Guardians if they pleased—it did not compel them—to retain casual paupers five days instead of three days when they came to the workhouse twice in the same month. He was willing, however, if it were the wish of the Committee, to consent to the alteration of the maximum period for a pauper to be detained to four days instead of five, if the latter period was thought to be too long. All Poor Law reformers had asked for some such measure as this; the Government approved the general principle of the Bill; and he believed its adoption would not really entail any burden on the ratepayers for additional accommodation The real effect of the Bill would be that tramps walking through the country would not proceed so rapidly through the country, as the Guardians would have the power to detain them for a longer time. It was also expected that it would render the vagrant's life less pleasant, and lead to a decrease of expense, inasmuch as its deterrent effect would keep the tramps from going to the workhouses, and treating them as mere common lodging-houses. The result, he hoped, would be a decrease in the number of vagrants, and that less accommodation would consequently be required than was the case at present.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso objected to the Bill, because he feared its operation would create expense to the ratepayers. He would be glad to hear the opinion of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject, as he had some knowledge of county matters.
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 200.)

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD UNIVERSITY STATUTES).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from the proposed Statute for the University of Oxford, framed by the University of Oxford Commissioners, concerning the nomination of examiners, and now on the Table of this House,"
  said, it was in their Lordships' recollection that four or five years ago an Act was passed by that House having for its object the appointment of Commissioners in order to make certain reforms in the Universities and Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. In that Act Parliament confined itself exclusively to questions of endowment, to the nature of, and the adaptation of the income of the University to the wants which had recently arisen, and of the income of the various Colleges to the wants of the University. There was neither discussion nor proposal on the part of the Government in favour of affecting in any way the constitution, or the powers of the University itself. The Commissioners, however, acting, as he supposed they were legally entitled to do, on certain words that were in the Statute, had passed a Statute differing from all the other Statutes which they had passed in this, that it directly affected the powers of the University itself. They had passed a Statute for the purpose of taking the appointment of examiners out of the hands of the University itself, and placing it in the hands of a Board designated by the Statute of the Commissioners. That might seem a slight matter to appeal to Parliament upon; but, in reality, it was a matter of the very largest importance for the University and the interests of the University, because the examinations were the tests that were applied throughout all its teaching. It was towards the examination that everything which took place in the University tended; all the efforts of the teachers, all the efforts of the students, had the
  1056
  examination as their end and aim; and the persons who had the moulding of the examination had the moulding of the studies of the University as well. Those who could control the examination could control the character and direction of the studies, and teaching of the University. The University was, therefore, naturally very jealous of the power and independence which it had for a very long time past enjoyed with respect to the management of the teaching within its walls. That teaching never had been interfered with. That right which was inherent in the University it had enjoyed ever since it first existed. It was not affected by the alteration made in its Statutes in 1854, nor was it attempted to be affected by the Statute of 1877. And it must be distinctly understood that it was not necessarily on behalf of the present system of appointment that the University was now appealing. It might be a fair question for consideration whether the present mode of appointing the examiners was the best or was not. What he contended for was that the body, which was the right judge of that, was the University itself, and that it was not expedient that Parliament should interpose its authority to place the University in that matter under the control of a body external to and independent of the University itself. Now, the mode of appointment was this. The Vice Chancellor appointed one examiner, a proctor appointed another, and another proctor appointed a third. To that mode of appointment objection was taken. It was said that the proctors were too young for the work, and that they had a tendency to make the appointments without sufficient reflection. That might or might not be proved; and if any change were consequently to be made, it should be carried out by those who knew the general feeling existing in the University. There was, however, a certain advantage in young men having the appointment, because it kept the studies of the University in sympathy with all the newest discovery and literature on those subjects. But the certain advantage there had been in placing the choice of examiners in the hands of a changing body was that the studies of the University had been kept in accordance with the common sense of the University. If they placed the whole direction of the examinations and the teaching in the

  1057
  hands of a fixed Board, of course the effect was that they gave an additional weight and power to cliques and schools of thought, and made it possible for a state of things to arise in which the teaching of the University should run on particular subjects in grooves, in accordance with the prepossessions of particular men. A system like the present, which changed the appointing power with the changing officers of the University, kept the selection of the examiners in accord with the general feeling and common sense of the University. It was very like a principle which they found in many of their institutions. He took, for example, Select Committees of their Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament. It was often urged that the powers exercised by those Committees ought to be exercised by experts, who would, no doubt, know more of the particular subjects referred to them than the Committees. Those Committees consisted merely of average Members of both Houses, who were usually ignorant of the technical matters submitted to their judgment. Yet Parliament deliberately and pertinaciously adhered to that mode of decision, because, by doing so, it kept out of the hands of cliques and schools engineering and other technical subjects, which might otherwise fall under their absolute control. The same principle had actuated the University with regard to its examinations. But what he wished most anxiously to impress upon their Lordships was that the University pleaded for its independence. They did not wish for any particular mode of appointing examiners. The University was willing to consider whether this was the best mode or not; but the question had never been raised for the consideration of Convocation by the Hebdomadal Council since it came into existence. There was no ground for saying that the University would not make such reforms as were desirable. The opposition to this Statute proceeded from men of all schools of thought and from men of great eminence. He would not balance the eminence of the one set of men against the eminence of the other, for there were many eminent men on both sides of the question; but a very competent authority, Mr. Robinson, of the Hebdomadal Council, had stated that the University itself should deal with the
  1058
  question. With regard to the changes the Commissioners had introduced, he objected to the power of appointing examiners being taken out of the hands of the University altogether. They proposed that the appointment of examiners should rest in the hands of a Board of which one-half would be named by the Board of Faculties, which consisted chiefly of Professors appointed in a variety of ways, but independent of the University itself. He would state what changes the Commissioners proposed to make. Taking the School of Liter œ Humaniores, it was clear that this new system would create an entire change in that School, and would probably impair or entirely destroy the character of the training in ancient language and literature, and substitute for it a group of special studies brought together in one examination, which in the end might prove unworkable. This might be seen from the constitution of the Faculty of Arts, which comprised two Professors of Greek and Latin, one each of a variety of other subjects, including Ancient History, Arabic, Celtic, Chinese, Comparative Philology, Fine Arts, Logic, Political Economy, and Sanscrit, English History, Poetry, two of Modern History, three of Moral Philosophy, and other sciences. Was that a proper Body, out of which to appoint a Board to choose examiners in Latin and Greek, which had always been the staple teaching of the Universities? He did not wish to enter into the question of the mode of the application of the Statute; but it showed the kind of danger to which the University studies would be exposed, if the management of them was taken out of the hands of the University and they were allowed to be dealt with by an external body of Professors who were entirely independent of the University, for there was no reason why these Professors should act in sympathy with the views of the University in any subject whatsoever. Where it was sought to take away the powers of an ancient and great Corporation, it was necessary at least to show that those powers had been abused, or that there was in that Corporation a preponderance of discontent at the way in which its powers had been exercised, or that some great public advantage would result from the alteration. He believed that the proposed Statute

  1059
  would paralyze the power of the University over its own Body as regarded its studies, and that such an eventuality was contrary to the intentions of those who introduced the Act of 1877, and, therefore, ho asked their Lordships to assent to the Petition of the University and to accede to the present Motion.
  Moved,That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from the proposed Statute for the University of Oxford, framed by the University of Oxford Commissioners, concerning the nomination of examiners, and now on the Table of this House.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,in opposing the Motion, said, he wished to point out that the Statute had not been suggested by the Commissioners, but by the Hebdomadal Council, the Body from which the legislation of the University proceeded.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Hebdomadal Council has petitioned against the Statute.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that at a meeting on the 14th of December, 1880, the Hebdomadal Council resolved, by a majority of 10 to 8, to take into consideration the Statutes sent up to them by the Commissioners. Although it was quite true that the Hebdomadal Council had since passed a resolution that any Statute which was brought forward should contain a power to make alterations therein without the necessity of applying to Parliament, they had not receded from their original position. The Statute was opposed on two grounds—first, that the Commissioners were going beyond their powers; and, secondly, that the Statute would tend to the deterioration of the University. He presumed that the House would hesitate very much before they rejected the Statute of the Commissioners, confirmed as it had been by the Privy Council, as exceeding the Powers of the Commissioners, and therefore he need only consider whether it was an undue interference with the University itself. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) was under a misapprehension in saying that, up to the present time, the Commissioners had not dealt with any of the administrative acts or rights of the University, for, on reference to the Statute, it would be
  1060
  found that the Commissioners did inter-fore with acts of administration which it had been competent for the University to perform. For instance, the Commissioners created the Boards of Faculties, and intrusted to them certain duties which the University might have intrusted to them if it thought fit. Was it not natural to suppose that when certain Professors were placed on the Boards of Faculties those Professors should be allowed to exercise some influence on the University examinations? The present system of examination was not now objected to for the first time; objection had been made to it for the last 30 years. The noble Marquess said that Convocation had never rejected any measure for dealing with this subject, since the Hebdomadal Council had been in existence. It was notorious that any measures presented to Convocation with the view of effecting a change would be certain to be defeated in Convocation; and it was because the Hebdomadal Council knew that it would be useless, that no measure had been proposed. Had there been any chance with Convocation, the Hebdomadal Council would not have gone to the Commissioners. It was alleged by the noble Marquess that no complaint was made against the present system. That mode of argument was always used against interfering with any system. The noble Marquess had also called attention to the fact that there had been no complaints from the University itself against the present system; but he (the Earl of Camper-down) was not prepared to allow that there had been no complaints. Did not the noble Marquess consider that the Petitions presented from a large number of the Heads of Houses and from a large majority of the Professors were complaints against the present state of things? Those eminent persons would not petition against the present system unless they considered that in many respects it had broken down. He would ask their Lordships why the University should not have the best system of examination that could be devised? If so, what smaller change could have been proposed than that proposed by the Commissioners? The examiners were now appointed in rotation by the Vice Chancellor and the Senior and Junior Proctors. With all due re-

  1061
  spect for those persons, it should be remembered that they were not chosen for the special purpose of appointing examiners. He did not think that the Proctors were the most likely persons to know who would make the most capable examiners in the different Schools. It seemed to him that the various Professors would be much more likely than the Proctors to know who were the most capable men. Of course, if their Lordships chose to reject the Statute, they had it in their power to do so; but, if they did, they would be virtually perpetuating a system which had been at various times condemned by every public body that had had the subject under consideration. Another consequence of rejecting the Statute would be, that vast power would be placed in the hands of the noble Marquess, who was not only Chancellor of the University, but a member of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council and the Leader of the Conservative Party in that House. In the first instance, this change was proposed by the Commissioners, who thought it desirable that a Statute should be brought forward. The University objected, and brought the matter before the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. The question was argued by able counsel before four members of the Committee, of whom the noble Marquess was one. It was natural to suppose that there was a division of opinion in the Committee, and that the noble Marquess was in a minority of 3 to 1. Now he came down to this House to try whether he could, by a Party vote, overthrow the opinion of the Commissioners, of the Hebdomadal Council, and the decision of the majority of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. He (the Earl of Camperdown) hoped their Lordships, before throwing out this Statute, would inquire thoroughly into the merits of the case, and satisfy themselves that the Bodies he had referred to were all in the wrong.
  VISCOUNT CEANBROOKsaid, he very much regretted that the noble Earl who had opposed this Motion (the Earl of Camperdown) had endeavoured to give it a Party character. The question raised was by no means a Party one, and he would call the attention of their Lordships to the fact that the Petitioners
  1062
  on both sides embraced Members of both Parties, while some of the strongest opposition out-of-doors to the Statute had been experienced from extreme Members of the Liberal Party. He would, therefore, ask the House to consider this matter dispassionately, entirely apart from Party feeling, and on the merits, not of the particular Statute, but of the great question they had to decide, which was, whether the University of Oxford was to be degraded from its ancient position of acting as a self-acting and independent Body, and to be placed in a different position from Cambridge or any other University? He admitted that the Hebdomadal Council wished for certain alterations; but they wished the University to have the power, which Convocation had at present, of altering the mode of electing and nominating the examiners. He did not see why the University of Oxford should be deprived of a power which was possessed by every other University in the Kingdom of appointing their own examiners in such manner as they thought proper. If this Statute were passed, the University would be left the power of introducing new examinations not covered by the Statute, to which they could appoint examiners as they thought fit. The power of changing any one of these examinations, and of instituting and of introducing new Schools was left to the University; and, in those cases, the Statute did not hinder them from appointing examiners. They could abolish the present Schools, although they were hindered from appointing examiners. The University of Oxford had from time immemorial had this right; and it seemed to him that it was a right which was inherent in the University to have the direction of the Statutes itself, and to have the means of appointing such persons to investigate the Statutes and in such a way as it thought proper.
  THE MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the opposition to the Statute did not seem to rest so much upon the merits of the question as on the fact that it was an invasion of the existing rights of the University, and he thought that the defence of the present system had been put forward in an extremely half-hearted manner. He trusted, however, it would be understood that those who were in favour of the Statute supported it, not

  1063
  because there was any allegation that the Body now responsible for the nomination of these examiners had in any way abused the trust committed to them. No such charge was made. All that they contended for was this—that it was necessary, in the interests of the University itself and of the public, that the machinery for the selection of these examiners should he the best possible machinery, and the existing machinery was not the best possible machinery. There never was a moment when it was more necessary than at present that the examiners should be selected. He thought that the Body responsible for the selection ought to fulfil three conditions. It should, in the first place, be a Body commanding the confidence of the University and the public. It should be guided by some continuous and consistent policy, and, as far as possible, it should hold the balance fairly between the different sections of opinion in the University. The contention of those who were in favour of the Statute was that the existing Body did not fulfil those conditions. For the last 30 years the present system of nomination had been complained of. The Commissioners who had inquired into this question had come to the conclusion that the present system of its choice of the examiners was not an efficient one, and, at all events, infinitely inferior to the mode embodied in its new Statute. It had been frequently complained of by the University itself, and he found that it had been actually admitted by high University authorities that some alteration had become necessary; and he would point out that the proposition was not exactly, as stated by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), by a fixed Board, for the Vice Chancellor and two Proctors, who at present appointed the examiners, would have a preponderating influence on the Board proposed as the appointing Body. They would form half of the Board in number, and the Vice Chancellor would have a casting vote. He was bound to say that he concurred with the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) up to this point—that he should have been very glad if this necessary reform had been carried out spontaneously by the constituted authorities of the University, and not by an external Body, because
  1064
  it had always been the policy of Parliament to interfere as little as might be with what might be called the domestic concerns of the University, avoiding as far as possible what the noble Marquess had termed an invasion of the province of the University. An additional reason for abstention from such action was to be found in the fact that the University bad never, as a rule, shown itself unwilling to introduce salutary and useful reforms when the necessity for these reforms could be demonstrated. But, on the present occasion, their Lordships had absolutely no guarantee that any such change as was believed to be necessary would be carried out by the University of its own accord. The noble Marquess said the present system was capable of improvement; but that did not give any security whatever to those who believed that the present system stood in urgent need of alteration. It seemed to him, after having listened carefully to the noble Marquess, that this was a most desirable alteration, and that it would be a matter for regret if their Lordships should think fit to rescind the Statute. It proceeded in the first instance from the University. It had been thoroughly considered before the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. An amendment of the existing state of things had been recognized as desirable for a great many years past; and he thought it would be deplorable if their Lordships were to throw out a useful piece of machinery merely upon the ground that it did not happen to have been carried out in a way which some of their Lordships might prefer.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should not have troubled their Lordships with any observations, but for the fact that he had served on the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, by which the questions before their Lordships had been considered. He did not claim to be an authority on the subject; but he claimed to have approached it with complete impartiality, and to have founded his opinion solely on the arguments adduced before the Committee. He quite agreed that the matter was not one which could be looked at from the point of view of Party. In fact, it was not at all fitted for treatment as a Party question, being concerned only with the subject of academical administration, he

  1065
  might almost say of academical detail. Their Lordships, no doubt, had a right to disallow the Statute; and, if it were obviously unjust or oppressive, it would certainly be their duty to interpose; but there were strong reasons of expediency against the adoption of such a course of proceeding. It was not, however, their business to revise every detail of the work of the Commissioners, nor to reverse decisions arrived at by those functionaries, after long and careful consultations in situ with the persons chiefly interested. It was argued that the Commissioners had in this instance overridden the opinions of the majority of the Colleges of the University. But if the independence of the University was to be so far respected that no reform which did not find favour with the Governing Body was to be pressed upon that institution, what, he asked, was the use of giving the Commission the power of overruling the local authority? And if those powers were not to be exercised, it would surely be necessary to show that they had been exercised wrongly, and not merely in a way disagreeable to those affected by them. The Commissioners, he maintained, were entitled to be considered right, when they were not obviously in the wrong. The Statute had been adopted by them after full consideration, and if they had acted within their legal right, he did not see why their judgment should be disturbed. There was no reason to suppose that they would act otherwise than on a clear consideration of the real merits of the case. Whatever might be the numerical preponderance against them, he was quite sure that there would be a great intellectual preponderance in their favour. If for no other reason, their opinion was entitled to respect, inasmuch as they were appointed by Parliament; and, if they had acted within their legal rights and without prejudice or private feeling, there was no reason for adopting the Motion. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had spoken of the possibility of reform on the part of the University itself. If, however, the present proposals were rejected, surely but little hope could be entertained that those who were now opposing the suggested reform would at some future time institute some reform of their own. Their Lordships, there-
  1066
  fore, would have to consider whether they would withhold their assent from the proposed Statute, which undoubtedly had the approval of a large majority of the University, and thereby delay the settlement of the question for a considerable time, perhaps for many years.
  THE EARL OF PEDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, as a Member of the Commission, he only wished to say that nothing that he had heard in the course of the debate had altered the convictions that he entertained on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he felt bound to express the gratification he felt at the moderate and temperate manner in which the subject had been discussed by their Lordships. He was himself one of the University Commissioners, though not, indeed, when this Statute was passed; but during the time he was a member of that Body, the expediency of some change in the mode of appointing examiners was a good deal discussed, and he was enabled to gain a considerable knowledge of the views generally entertained upon the subject. In the whole of the discussion their Lordships had listened to he was able to discover but one single argument in support of the Motion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) which, to his mind, was of the smallest force, and that was that a number of eminent men at Oxford, belonging to different schools of thought, had objected to the proposal of the Commissioners, on the ground, apparently, that it was desirable to keep the power in the hands of the University. But while he had a great respect for many of those names, they were, in his opinion, counterbalanced by names of at least equal authority on the other side, and when he applied his own judgment to the question, he failed to discover any valid reason for objecting to the new Statute. He had heard one thing in the discussion with great satisfaction—namely, the statement of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) that the matter was one which ought not to be regarded from any Party point of view. He rejoiced to hear that sentiment—nothing could be more just—and he hoped all their Lordships would remember that they were asked to keep their minds per-

  1067
  fectly open on the subject, free from all political bias. Their own Leaders had invited them to do so, and nothing could be more creditable or wise than that advice, which, he was sure, would be followed. He wished, therefore, to call the attention of their Lordships to the first University Commission, which sat in 1852, in April, which recommended, in principle, what was now proposed to be done. That Commission stated that they considered there was a want of stability and consistency in the examinations, and they thought the appointment of the examiners should be placed in other hands, and that the Proctors should no longer have any authority in the matter. Their proposal, therefore, went further than the one now before their Lordships. Among the Commissioners who made that recommendation was the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who took a great interest in all matters connected with the University. He (the Lord Chancellor) held in his hand a letter from him, addressed to his noble Friend (the Earl of Camperdown), expressing his regret at being compelled to be absent on that occasion. The letter proceeded—
  "You are quite at liberty to remind the House that I was a member of the University Commission in 1832, which recommended the same change in the examination system, and I have always regretted that no steps have been taken to carry into effect those recommendations during the 30 years which have since elapsed."
  In the winter of 1853 the Board of Heads of Houses and Proctors considered the subject. They recommended that the examiners should be nominated by a Board consisting of the Vice Chancellor, the Proctors, and two other persons to be nominated—almost precisely the scheme proposed at the present time. Considering the 16th clause of the Act of 1877, which was passed at the instance of the noble Marquess himself, it was astonishing that he should entertain any doubt that this subject was within the powers of the Commissioners. The Hebdomadal Council, of their own accord, requested the Commissioners to do the very thing which they had done; and they had never receded from the position so taken up, except that they desired that the University should be able to alter any provision of the Sta-
  1068
  tute, if any change made by the Commissioners should be found inexpedient; but a general power for the University, without the concurrence of the Queen in Council, to repeal Statutes made by the Commissioners, would be in the teeth of the Act of Parliament. The noble Marquess spoke as if, under the present system, there was a variable Body well adapted to reflect the various phases of opinion, and that it was proposed to have a fixed Body unsusceptible of those influences; and he thought it was a mistake that certain members of the Board were to be nominated by Professors on the Boards of Faculties unconnected with the study of Latin and Greek. But the College Tutors had equal influence with the Professors in the Boards of Faculties; and it was not to be imagined that because a man understood Arabic or Hebrew, he was ignorant of Latin and Creole, or incapable of choosing proper examiners; and the examiners to be appointed were not for the classical schools only, but also for the schools of Mathematical and Natural Science. But what had been done by the Act of 1877? He found by the Act of 1877—
  "That it was expedient that provision should be made for enabling and requiring colleges to contribute more largely to the funds for university purposes and for the better instruction of students in arts, and science, and learning, where the same were not adequately taught in the university."
  The Act was passed with a view to the advancement of Arts and Science and other branches of learning, and the Commissioners were to make provision for it by altering or repealing the Ordinances of the University, and by substituting any Statutes for the same end. That being so, it was absolutely astonishing to see the noble Marquess taking the course which he had done. Were they going to say that the Body newly endowed at the expense of the Colleges—the Professorial Body—should have no power or voice in the teaching of the University, but that the whole power should be given to the Colleges only; and that, too, not merely as regarded classics, but as regarded all other schools of learning? The University had already provided for the appointment of examiners in Theology by a Board, which included all the Professors in the Theological Faculty. Surely the Professors in

  1069
  the other Faculties ought not to be refused that voice in the selection of examiners which the Professors in Theology, in their Faculty, already possessed. He hoped their Lordships would exercise the independence they had been invited to do, and not accede to the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in reply, said, he thought that the present debate must have convinced their Lordships that the question as to the best mode of selecting examiners, one of great complexity and difficulty, was not before the House. It involved the question whether the University should be and should remain the judge of its own education, although no malfeasance had been shown against it. No one had shown that there was any agitation in the University for this change by the Governing Body, and there was nothing to show that the Governing Body would not, if asked, take the matter into consideration, and make such changes as upon argument and discussion appeared necessary. But whatever changes were made ought to be such as the University itself could repeal or modify. What the Hebdomadal Council and Convocation prayed was that, in this matter, the ancient independence of the University should not be taken away. The Statute took out of the hands of the University the power of making modifications and alterations when occasion arose. It took away from the University that independence which was the greatest stimulus to action, and was one step towards that universal centralization—one of the dangers against which they had constantly struggled. He trusted that their Lordships would not imagine that the question to be decided was as to the particular mode of appointing examiners. He did not think that the present system was perfect, nor that the proposal of the Commissioners was perfect. Those questions he would not go into. All he desired was that their Lordships should by their votes affirm that those were questions of which the University should be the judge, and that not having been convicted of any miscarriage of its own powers and privileges, it should not have them taken away.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 57; Not-Contents 70: Majority 13.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Richmond, D.

  Boston, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Colchester, L.

  Denman, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Digby, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Forbes, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Bucclcuch and Queen-sberry.)

  Lamington, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massc-reene.)

  Lathom, E. [Teller.]

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Bar-vington.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Romney, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Trevor, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Ventry, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Windsor, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Melville, V.

  Templetown, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Saint Albans, D.

  London, L. Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Belper, L.

  Bath, M.

  Blachford, L.

  Lansdowne, M. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Northampton, M.

  Brabourne, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Braye, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E, Breadalbane.)

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Durham, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Granville, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Minto, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Morley, E.

  Fitzgerald, L,

  Northbrook, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Sydney, E

  Hothfield, L.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Canterbury, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eversley, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Methuen, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Month.)

  1071

  Monson, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Mount Temple, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Sudeley, L,

  Suffield, L.

  Reay, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)

  Rosebery, L. (E Rosebery.)

  Vernon, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Wavency, L.

  Save and Sele, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Scfton, L. (E. Scfton.)

  Resolved in the negative.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will cause to be laid on the Table, Copy of the report of a committee which has lately inquired into the Channel Tunnel scheme; also copies of any other papers which may exist on the same subject,"
  said, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) had promised, some time ago, that Papers on the subject should be laid upon the Table. The general tenor of the Report of the Committee on the subject, which had been made some time since, was to the effect that if the Tunnel were constructed, a considerable fortress would have to bo built at the English end, at an enormous cost, and it would necessitate the stationing at the Tunnel mouth of several thousand troops, which would add considerably to the military expenditure of the year. It was known that those opinions had been expressed by the Committee, and also that the Commander-in-Chief had expressed a strong opinion against the construction of the Tunnel, and that Sir Garnet Wolseley and Sir Lintorn Simmons, who had been Inspector of Fortifications—in fact, all the high military authorities—had expressed strong opinions of the same character. He was quite sure that his noble Friend would agree with him that, in a matter of this enormous importance, it was desirable that if the Tunnel were to be proceeded with, it should only be after the fullest information had been laid before the public. He therefore ventured to claim the fulfilment of the promise which the noble Earl had made at an earlier period of the Session, that these Papers should be laid on the Table.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to tier Majesty praying that Her Majesty will cause to be laid on the Table, Copy of the report of a committee which has lately inquired into the Channel Tunnel scheme; also copies of any other papers which may exist on the same subject."—(The Viscount Bury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had never promised that the Papers should be laid on the Table at any particular time. What he had said, and what he now repeated, was that the Papers when they had been fully considered by the Government would be laid before Parliament, At the present moment the Papers were being prepared, in order that they should be considered by the War Office and the Government; and after that was done those which were not of a strictly confidential character, and which it would not be injurious to the Public Service to publish, should be laid upon the Table of the House. It would be inconvenient for the Papers to be laid on the Table in a fragmentary form; but, at the same time, there was no desire on the part of the Government to conceal anything which could possibly be made known to the public on the subject, which was, as the noble Viscount had stated correctly, one of the greatest importance.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o' clock.