Sitting of 23 November 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the borough of Wigan, v. Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose Election has been declared to void.
MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—WIGAN NEW WRIT.

    RESOLUTION.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Wigan, in the room of Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose Election has been declared to be void."—(Mr. Winn.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENREAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that before the
    1898
    Motion was acceded to, he was very anxious to state publicly that the suspension of the Writ for Wigan for nearly two years had not been the result of any arrangement whatever between political Parties in that House, but that all had been done in the matter had been done openly and publicly before the House. In opposing a Motion made some time ago by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), the view he expressed, that further time ought to elapse before the Writ was issued, was expressed only in the House, and had been acted upon until the present time. Now that the present Motion was made, he thought it right to rise and protest against its being supposed that the suspension of Writs by the House without due inquiry before a proper tribunal was a course that ought to be encouraged; and he thought the House ought in some way to mark its opinion that the practice should not be made a precedent. His own view was that the vote by which the House, in August, 1881, refused to assent to an inquiry being instituted upon the Report of the learned Judge that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at Wigan, was much to be regretted. Up to that time it had always been held that an inquiry should follow such a Report from the learned Judge who tried an Election Petition; and the suspension of Writs without a further inquiry was only a rough-and-ready method of doing justice, and a substitute for the more proper method of a regular investigation. He hoped that the House would mark the course followed in that case as one which ought not to be pursued again in like circumstances, and that the refusal of an inquiry would not be drawn into a precedent.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Attorney General was quite right in stating that all that had been done on the one side or the other in regard to that Writ took place openly in the House, and that there was no concealment or arrangement in connection with it. Personally, he was not a party to the vote, having been absent from London at the time; and there was no reason, therefore, why he should say whether he considered it right or wrong. He entirely agreed that, although that Writ had been suspended by the action of the House in consequence of the Motion

    1899
    which had been referred to, it was a matter which certainly ought not to be drawn into a precedent, because in ordinary circumstances, where action was taken against a constituency, it was taken, not by a vote of the House, but by an Act of Parliament; and it would not be Constitutional for the House to make that case a precedent for itself. Nevertheless, he felt that it would be most unjust that the issue of the Writ should be again refused, as this Writ had been suspended for two years, and the borough could not be included in any Bill which might be introduced to deal with other boroughs which had been found guilty of corrupt practices. It seemed to him, therefore, that the time had come when it would be right to issue the Writ; and he joined the hon. and learned Attorney General in entering a protest against that case being drawn into a precedent for their future action.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was glad that the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman were now ashamed of the unconstitutional course which had been followed in regard to that Writ. He had himself always understood that the representation in that House could only be suspended by an Act of Parliament; and while agreeing that that case ought not to be drawn into a, precedent, he went further and asserted that such a case ought not to have occurred at all. It was right to suspend the Writ when it was intended to issue a Royal Commission of Inquiry; but in August, 1881, the House refused to address the Crown for a Royal Commission; and it seemed to him that at the beginning of the Session, if the Government did not intend to renew their proposal of a Royal Commission, there was no Constitutional reason why the Writ for Wigan should not then have issued.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him there was very little need for apology for not having issued a Writ; but he thought there was very great need of apologizing for issuing one in the case of a borough in which a learned Judge had deliberately reported that in his belief exceedingly corrupt practices had prevailed, and yet no subsequent inquiry had been made upon that Report. He hoped that before they had any case of this kind again they should have a more efficient Corrupt
    1900
    Practices Bill; but he wished that this should not pass without a protest against the scandal which it seemed td him was involved in the issuing of a Writ of this kind without any inquiry whatever.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had heard the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General with the utmost astonishment. For the sake of public decency and public justice the House ought to be reminded of what had happened. In May last, acting on the principle now so tardily acknowledged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he submitted to the House a Resolution that the Writ for Wigan should issue; and the Attorney General had to-day admitted by implication that the state of circumstances which existed in May were exactly the same as existed now. But the hon. and learned Gentleman then took a totally different course; he did not produce any precedent for the course the Government then pursued; he remained obdurate, constituting himself judge of the amount of punishment he would inflict, through the Ministry, on the constituency of Wigan; and, by a majority, they succeeded in intercepting the Writ. It was then proposed, indeed, that no Writ for certain constituencies should be issued during the present Parliament; but now the Attorney General said—"I venture to protest against the issue of the Writ now being made into a precedent." Who made it a precedent? Why, the Attorney General, who invoked all the power of the Government to suspend the Constitutional rights of the constituency; and the hon. and learned Gentleman now protested that nobody else should follow his vicious example. Why, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had appeared in the white robe of penitence and walked from the Bar to the Table, he could not have done more to show that he stigmatized his own conduct.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained that what he protested against was the course taken of not issuing a Commission upon the Report of the learned Judge that corrupt practices prevailed, and which rendered it necessary for the House to take the subsequent course, which, he trusted, would not be repeated.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he was sorry if he failed to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the hon. and learned

    1901
    Gentleman had said he had made a mistake and regretted what he had done, that would he a different matter; but the Government were not sinners in this matter alone, for there were other boroughs besides Wigan that were existing politically between life and death. Last year, instead of dealing with them, they introduced their Corrupt Practices Bill; and, by a curious coincidence, it was not until the Liberal Party had at last found a candidate that the Writ was issued. He congratulated them upon the coincidence. The consequence would be that what with the clôture and the new method of issuing Writs the Government would not only shut the mouths of the Opposition, but take away their seats also by waiting until it was convenient to fill up a vacancy. He had no doubt that hon. Members opposite, who were secure in their seats, thought it of no importance that other constituencies should be represented; but he trusted the electors of Wigan would not easily forget the way in which they had been treated by the Attorney General, but would recollect that through this impropriety of conduct they had remained for six months without a Representative. He would like to ask any Constitutional lawyer in that House, what excuse was there for delaying the issue of the Writ for one hour when the House had once decided against the issue of a Commission? They were entitled to the issue of their Writ immediately; but the Motion was opposed by the whole force of the Government. 220 Members formed the majority in the division that was taken, and they were all the supporters of the Government. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I did not.] He (Mr. Lewis) was very glad to find that the hon. Gentleman was the one virtuous Member, and supposed that the propinquity of the borough of Salford to that of Wigan exerted a favourable influence upon his conduct. What he wished to point out was this—These proceedings were carried on in the name of purity of election, and in order to exercise a favourable influence upon constituencies; but their only result would be to contribute to the corruption which had previously existed. He was happy to find, however, that although the Attorney General had not confessed his sin, he had at least owned that the ray of justice
    1902
    and duty had penetrated his conscience and was contented at last to allow the Writ to be issued.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the speech they had just listened to would have been a very suitable one for an election meeting; but it compared very unfavourably with the tone and spirit of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), whose constituency, in point of propinquity, was somewhat nearer to Wigan than Derry. But he would not have risen to take part in the debate had not the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) misunderstood, and therefore misstated, what fell from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. His hon. and learned Friend said that he regretted that upon the Report having been made by the Judges who tried the Petition the invariable custom of issuing a Commission had not been followed; and he added that that was a circumstance that he trusted would never be repeated. He distinctly stated that he hoped the method adopted in the case of Wigan would never in the future be drawn into a precedent; and he referred to the method then adopted as an inconvenient practice. The House adopted a course less penal than the issue of a Commission in suspending the Writ. At the beginning of the Session, when it was proposed by the hon. Member for Londonderry to issue a new Writ, the House declined to do so; but it was publicly stated in the House, and with the acquiescence, he thought, of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that at the end of the Session the time would come when it was thought that the Writ might properly be issued. Therefore the course was one thoroughly well understood and straightforward from the first; and as to there being any connection between the finding of the Liberal candidate and the issue of the Writ, he did not suppose that any Member except the hon. Member for Londonderry would suggest anything of the kind. He would only add that he joined with his hon. and learned Friend in hoping that the course—which was adopted in leniency towards the constituency, and was not according to the regular rule—would not be followed in future as a precedent, and that whenever Judges made a Report, a Commis-

    1903
    sion for a proper judicial inquiry should issue.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the Home Secretary had made one remark which ought not to pass unobserved. It was that this course, which had been stigmatized by the Attorney General as an inconvenient one, had been adopted with the concurrence of Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What I said was that after the refusal to issue the Writ was determined by the House, the intimation that at the end of the Session the Writ would be issued was received with the concurrence of the other side.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that he entered his emphatic protest at the time against the unconstitutional doctrine founded by the Attorney General, under which he took upon himself, on his own fiat, to inflict a punishment upon a constituency contrary to all precedent, and in the teeth of what would be, under ordinary circumstances, the will of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the course pursued was most inconvenient; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) reminded the House that when the Writ was moved for the Attorney General opposed it, and the Opposition urged that the Writ should issue unless the Government were prepared to ask Parliament to deal by means of Statute with the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman declined to introduce a Bill, or to do anything beyond suspending the Writ on his own fiat. It might not be the fact that the coincidence of finding a Liberal candidate was in any way connected with the mysterious decision of the Government in favour of the issuing of the Writ, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) suggested; but it was quite clear that the practice ought not to be drawn into a precedent.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would not use any hard words in respect to the Attorney General, because he had told them when the Writ should be allowed to issue—namely, at the end of the Session, and he had kept his word. But he wanted to call attention to the unconstitutional doctrine that the House had the power to punish by suspending a Writ. It was not the case of a Judge who had the power to inflict a penalty; it was the case of a wronged man acting
    1904
    as Judge. The Attorney General was not the person to regulate how long a constituency should be deprived of its Members. He (Mr. Warton) wished to call attention to the serious development of this principle. In 1881 the House passed an Act suspending the elections of a number of seats. All those cases were adjourned for consideration early in 1882. The Government had again done the same thing, and adjourned these cases by an Act, and the cases had therefore not been considered by Parliament. How did the Government avoid their consideration—by putting forward the Corrupt Practices Bill, which might be a good Bill or it might not be; but certainly, by its enormous length and by its containing a great number of novelties, it was not likely to pass quietly through the House. The result was that some half-dozen places were all deprived of their Members. Delighted as he was to find that the unconstitutional doctrine that places could be deprived of their seats was abandoned, he was sorry to see another doctrine set forth by the Attorney General and the Home Secretary, following upon a suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), that the construction of the Act of Parliament did not render it imperative upon the House to issue a Writ. He (Mr. Warton) was not going to be a party to the House abandoning its Privileges. There was the case of a Commission issued in respect of the election at Northallerton, which was one of the purest elections that ever took place. These things were a lesson to the House to be cautious. The Government had not answered his question when they were going to fill up the other vacant seats? He supposed some other great Bill was to be brought forward. He protested, however, against the unconstitutional doctrine that the issue of a Commission would justify delay in issuing a Writ; at the same time, he was delighted that another unconstitutional doctrine had been abandoned.
    Motion agreed to.
    Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Wigan, in the room of Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose Election has been declared to be void.

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS —RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the diversity of the provisions for the constitution and punishment of Police offences in the Private Police Acts in force in the various towns in Scotland, the different powers of sanitary supervision and administration, and the different rules as to the levying of local assessments enacted under them; whether he contemplates, during next Session, the introduction of a general Police Bill for Scotland, laying down general principles on those and other points, and granting powers to be adopted by local authorities in whole or in part; and, if so, whether his intention will be made known to town councils and other local authorities in Scotland in time to prevent them incurring the expense of introducing Private Bills dealing with questions proposed to be dealt with in a general measure?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am aware that there is much diversity in the provisions of the Private Police Acts in force in different towns in Scotland—a diversity which sometimes proves unsatisfactory. I hope to be able during next Session to introduce a general Police Bill for Scotland of the nature indicated in the Question, and before doing so I shall communicate with the local authorities referred to.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will take into consideration the recommendations of the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations of this Session; and, whether, in order to give effect to their Report, and to put a stop to the recent practice of altering the general Law of the three Kingdoms by unsystematic and anomalous provisions in Private Police Acts, he will, next Session, after conferring with the Local Government Board, either introduce a General Police and Sanitary Clauses Bill for the United Kingdom on the lines suggested by the honourable Member for Glasgow, or propose that such Standing Orders shall be adopted with regard to the introduction of Private
  1906
  Police Bills as will give effect to the same Report?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am not quite sure that I understand the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. I imagine this matter was sufficiently dealt with by the Standing Order which, was passed and came into force on the 11th of August. If the hon. and learned Member wishes anything further in the matter, I shall be happy to communicate with him.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RETIRED RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, Whether the Government have yet assigned pensions to Major Percy and other lately retired Resident Magistrates; if not, what is the cause of the delay, and, when will the matter be settled; are those gentlemen, since their compulsory retirement, in receipt of any public money; and, is it intended to take into account, in settling their pensions, that, but for the reorganisation of the Service, they would probably have held their situations for life?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Treasury Minute assigning pensions to Major Percy and all the other retiring Resident Magistrates, except two, went over to Dublin yesterday. These gentlemen have remained on full salary until about the 4th of October, and their pensions will run from the day following the cessation of their salary. A delay in the award of a pension makes no difference in the date of its commencement. They are being pensioned on the special terms allowed on abolition of office; but it is erroneous to suppose that a Civil servant has any right to look forward to holding his situation for life, and such an assumption is specially unwarrantable in the case of Resident Magistrates, whose duties are of a more active nature than those of ordinary Civil servants.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman say who the exceptions are?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not quite sure; but I think Mr. Dennehy and Mr. Byrne.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— COURT VALUERS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1907
  Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memorandum or Recommendation of the Irish Land Commission submitted to the Irish Government relative to the appointment of official Court Valuers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The recommendations of the Land Commissioners were made partly by private, partly by official Correspondence, and I do not think the documents ought to be laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. GIBSON: Why?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a good instance. Last Session hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House took exception to certain Sub-Commissioners being employed in some districts. I corresponded with the Land Commissioners on these Questions, and I am bound to say—looking to the sort of semi-official Correspondence which this class of Questions necessitates—it will be quite impossible to lay the Correspondence on the Table of the House. The Correspondence between the Government and the Land Commissioners is extremely diversified.
  MR. GIBSON: Am I to understand, then, that the House and the country will not be given any document or Memorandum whatever to show what was the representation made by the independent Court of the Irish Land Commission to the Irish Executive?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]
  MR. GIBSON: I will repeat the Question to-morrow.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—THE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION, BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the report is correct that placards have been exhibited upon some of the Board Schools in Birmingham, soliciting votes for certain candidates in the forthcoming election for the School Board; and, whether he considers that to be a proper use for buildings erected and maintained out of the rates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received no complaint from Birmingham on the subject of the hon. Member's Question; but an inquiry which I addressed to the Chairman of the School Board has elicited the following reply from Mr.
  1908
  George Dixon, who was for several years a highly-respected Member of this House:—
  "In reply to your note of yesterday, I have been told that placards of the kind referred to have been posted on one of our Board Schools; but it has been done without the knowledge or sanction of the Board, and the caretakers on a former similar occasion were told to have the placard washed off. I object to our walls being so made use of, and shall again bring the subject before the Buildings Committee, and hope that some remedy may be devised."
  This entirely exonerates the Birmingham School Board; and I take this opportunity of expressing my opinion that all schools aided by Government grants should be held strictly neutral in election contests.

  STATE OF IRELAND (APPREHENDED DISTRESS).
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board have any means of coping with exceptional distress, as far as the able-bodied poor are concerned, unless additional powers are conferred upon them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Ample relief may be afforded to the able-bodied poor in the workhouses while there is room therein, and when the workhouses are full, they may legally be afforded outdoor relief.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked if a single able-bodied person applied for outdoor relief in the last famine period?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—QUETTA AND CANDAHAR.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it has now been decided to extend the Railway from Sibi; and, whether any and, if so, what means will be taken to connect Quetta with the Indian Railway system?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It has not been decided to extend the railway beyond Sibi towards Candahar; but a branch line has been made from Sibi to Pir Chowki, at the foot of the Bolan Pass. There is, therefore, no direct railway communication with Quetta; but Quetta is connected with the railway system of India by a road through the Bolan Pass.

  TURKEY—SHEIKH OBEIDULLAH.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the recent statement of a letter having been written by the Sheikh Obeidullah, alleging that he had been offered assistance by the Russian Government, with a view to the establishment of a quasi-independent Principality?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have not heard of any such letter having been written.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—REMITTANCES FROM INDIA, 1882–3.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, What was the total amount estimated in the Budget to be remitted from India for the service of the Home Government during the financial year 1882–3, and what amount has been, so remitted up to the present time?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The amount estimated in the Budget to be remitted from India in 1882–3 was £15,342,000. Of this sum, however, about £900,000 was received before the 31st of March, 1882, in excess of the revised Estimate for the year 1881–2; and£400,000 received from the Southern Mahratta Railways Company, which will be expended in India this year, is also treated as a remittance by the Government of India. These sums reduce the requirements for 1882–3 to £14,042,000. The amount remitted up to the present time is £4,503,866.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MOUNTED INFANTRY.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, after the past experiences of Mounted Infantry, it is contemplated to establish some permanent nucleus of such a Force, so as to avoid having again to improvise it in the face of the enemy?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (for Mr. CHILDERS): On the 4th of May the Secretary of State for War answered a similar Question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire; but I presume his Question is directed to ascertain whether his views had been altered by the experience of the late war. In reply, I have to say that while
  1910
  it is intended to keep on record the organization requisite for such a force and to maintain the necessary equipment in store, it is not deemed advisable, with our limited establishments, to create the nucleus of a force of Mounted Infantry such as that to which the Question of the hon. Baronet would seem to point.

  CRIMINAL LAW—JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the following ease, reported in the "South Wales Daily Telegram," of November 15th, is correct:—
  "Tredegar Petty Sessions.—Margaret Jane Evans, aged 11, William Cochlin, aged 11, Bridget Murphy, aged 11, Margaret Fordham, aged 12, William Edwards, aged 8, John Price, aged 8, Howell Thomas, aged 14, and Ann Price, aged 10, were summoned by Constable Vaughan for stealing coal. The Bench sent them to the lock-up for one day, which will be recorded as a conviction against them. It is sad to see such sights as these. The dock being quite full of delinquents so young that two of them, aged 6, were ordered to stand down;"
  whether it be the fact that convictions will be recorded in these cases; and, whether he can relieve these children from the stigma of having a conviction recorded against them?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the facts stated in the Report were probably correct. He, however, had no control over such cases. Everybody must regret that children of this tender age should be sent to prison; but those eases of coal stealing were connived at, if not instigated by, the parents, and. some mode of repression must be provided. One of the arrears of legislation was a measure which he hoped to introduce, whereby he hoped to get at the parents and impose fines upon them, which he believed would have far more effect than sending the children to prison.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TREATMENT OF CROWN WITNESSES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, at the meeting of the Drumcondra Town Commissioners on last Friday, a report was read from. Mr. John Kelly, the Sanitary Officer of the Board, stating that he had recently visited the house, No. 19, Richmond Road, Dublin, which is occupied by

  1911
  Crown witnesses; that, in this house of five small rooms and a kitchen, he had found twenty people lodged; that one small room, 18 feet by 9, was used as a sleeping apartment for seven persons, a father, three sons, and three daughters—the eldest daughter nineteen years of age, the eldest son fourteen—and only two beds for the whole family; that in another room, six brothers and sisters, the eldest boy thirteen, the eldest girl eleven, slept together on two mattresses placed side by side on the floor; that the earthen floor of the house was damp and dirty, the bedding filthy, and the most primitive sanitary necessities were disregarded; whether the Sub-Sanitary Officer of the Board was refused admission to another House, No. 15, Richmond Road, Dublin, also used for accommodation of Crown witnesses, and, whether this house has been inspected by a medical gentleman, Dr. Nedley, who reports that he found thirty persons lodged there; that he saw in front of the house "a mound composed of used up palliasses, over which are thrown the products of an adjoining pigstye, and a garnishing of potato peelings and decomposing cabbage stalks;" and that there was a total want of sewerage and drainage, and a gross defect in sanitary accommodation; whether the facts are as stated; whether one or both of these houses has been used by the Crown to lodge Crown witnesses since about the year 1848; whether policemen are in charge of the houses; whether adequate provision is made from the public funds for the housing and lodging of Crown witnesses in Dublin; and, if so, who receives the money, and how is it accounted for; and, what steps will now be taken to ascertain whether there has been embezzlement of the public money; to look after the condition of the inmates of those houses; and to punish such agents of the Crown as may be found responsible for a state of things so inimical both to decency and the public health?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am aware that a Report was read from the Sanitary Officer of the Drumcondra Town Commissioners to the effect that the Crown witnesses were most improperly accommodated. Dr. Nedley also reported to the same effect; but I have reason to believe that the sanitary state of the houses is not so bad as has been repre-
  1912
  sented. Dr. Gibbs, who is the Medical Officer of Health for the district, is medical attendant at the houses in question, and he reported, on the 15th instant, that there was little ground for a reasonable complaint against their sanitary state; and Dr. Nedley added in his Report, with regard to the inmates—
  "Their food, I have reason to believe, was abundant and wholesome; they were comfortably clad, and looked contented."
  One of the houses has been used by the Crown since 1848; the other was taken about two months ago, and is held from month to month. With regard to the refusal of admission to Mr. Kelly, the sanitary officer, the facts are that the constable in charge received orders not to admit any person unless authorized by his officer to do so. Mr. Kelly had no order, and was refused admission. He was subsequently informed by the Sub-Inspector that he would at any time accompany him to the house; but he had not availed himself of the offer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PETTY SESSIONS COURTS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a case was recently heard at the Murroe Petty Sessions, county Limerick, before the Resident Magistrate of the district, and three other local magistrates, where two caretakers of the Property Defence Association, named Parker and Eakins, were charged with entering houses at night and demanding arms and money; whether the charge against them was dismissed by the Bench; if it is true, as reported in the daily Dublin papers of 17th and 18th instant, that, notwithstanding such hearing and dismissal, the Lord Lieutenant sent down two other Resident Magistrates to rehear the case; If it is also true that these Resident Magistrates objected to the local magistrates taking part in the proceedings, and that the latter retired, protesting against the proceedings; whether these Resident Magistrates then committed the two men for trial without hearing the evidence for the defence; and, if he will state to the House under what statute the Lord Lieutenant has power to send Resident Magistrates to review and set aside the rulings of properly constituted Petty Sessions Courts?
  MR. TREVELTAN: As this Question relates to a matter of law upon which the Government consulted the Attorney General as their Legal Officer, I must beg to refer the hon. Member to him. As far as policy is concerned, I cordially agree with what has been done, and it was done on the urgent representation of Mr. Clifford Lloyd.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL For IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I am responsible for this, and the facts are these—Application was made at Murroe Petty Sessions that informations should be received against two men named Parker and Eakins, and that they should be returned for trial on a charge of entering houses armed at night and taking arms and money. These men are, I understand, in the employment of an Association called the Property Defence Association. The Bench, consisting of one Resident Magistrate and three local magistrates, by a majority, refused the application. This was without prejudice to a further application if the Crown was so advised. The matter being then brought under my attention, it was my duty, as Public Prosecutor in Ireland, to see that justice did not miscarry. Of course, the House will understand that I offer no opinion whatever either as to the guilt or innocence of these men; but I was, and am, of opinion that if the deponents were credible persons, a case was made out proper to be submitted for investigation by a jury, and, that being so, my duty was plain. I directed a fresh application to be made, and that was done. The Government directed two Resident Magistrates to attend; the same local magistrates also attended. The Resident Magistrates stated that if a case was established, proper in their opinion to go before a jury, they would, on their own responsibility, return the persons charged for trial. The local magistrates stated they did not contemplate taking part in the proceedings. The hearing proceeded; all evidence adduced was heard; and the solicitor for the accused reserved his defence. The men were returned for trial, and I have directed a prosecution at the Munster Winter Assize before a special jury. In reply to the last paragraph of this Question, the Lord Lieutenant did not send Resident Magistrates to review and set aside the rulings of properly constituted Petty Sessions
  1914
  Courts, and there is no Statute for that purpose.
  MR. GIBSONassumed, as there was some confusion on the subject, that the Resident Magistrates who re-heard the case sat under the Petty Sessions Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I take it for granted that they were sitting under their ordinary jurisdiction, and under the Petty Sessions Act. I may be permitted to say that I used the words Property Defence Association, because the hon. Member used them in his Question. It is quite immaterial whether these men were employed by this Association or not; the sole question was, was there a case for a jury?

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE DROMOD PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the result of the inquiry that has recently been held into the circumstances attending the election for clerk of Petty Sessions of the Dromod and Drumsna Districts, County Leitrim; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence, and of the Report of the Inquiry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have inquired very carefully into this case, and have found that there are two magistrates who support Mr. Ruthven's statement that he took part in the general business of the Petty Sessions on the days in dispute—the 9th of January and the 20th of March—which attendance would be necessary in order to qualify him to vote. On the other hand, there are two magistrates who maintain that on those occasions he took no part in the business. Under these circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the original entry in the order-book must govern the case; and I have, therefore, recommended Mr. Ruthven's vote to be set aside, on the ground that it was not properly registered on the occasions in question.

  STREET REGULATIONS (METROPOLIS)—CABMEN'S SHELTER IN THE HARROW ROAD.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it be true that the Vestry of Paddington have, by a majority of one, decided

  1915
  to give notice for the removal of the Cabmen's Shelter in the Harrow Road, the mover of the resolution giving as his reason for making the proposition that he had purchased a coffee shop, which was interfered with by the Shelter; and, whether he will use his influence with the Vestry to procure a reconsideration of the resolution, which will, if carried out, deprive the men of the Shelter just at the approach of winter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he was not sure that he had any authority in the case. The Question affected a class of people to whom they were all very much indebted, and he would direct the police to make inquiries and see what could be done.

  PERU—TREATMENT OF CHINESE COOLIES.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any recent Reports have been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Lima regarding the condition and treatment of the Chinese in Peru; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that such Reports should be made?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The only recent Reports on the subject from Her Majesty's Minister in Peru relate to the kidnapping of free Chinese and their sale to the planters in the Northern Provinces for employment on their sugar estates. Her Majesty's Minister made official representations against this practice to the Commander of the Chilian Forces last year, and I am happy to state that measures were in consequence taken, which it is hoped have put an end to these proceedings. Admiral Stirling, commanding Her Majesty's Naval Force on the Pacific Station, assisted in the suppression of the traffie by sending officers to search the outgoing steamers, and warning British subjects against allowing these Coolies to be shipped under the British flag.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE X.—THE VARNA RAILWAY.
  MR. ALDERMAN COTTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the stipulations of the Berlin Treaty with regard to the Varna Railway have not yet been carried out; what negotiations are now pending; and what the British Government proposes
  1916
  to do to bring about a speedy settlement of this question?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The claim of the Varna-Rustchuck Railway Company has not been settled, on account of differences between the Company and the Bulgarian Government as to the extent of the obligations of the latter under Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin. Her Majesty's Government have been for some time in negotiation with the Bulgarian Government for the settlement of this question, and it has been agreed to refer it to arbitration. The draft of an agreement for that purpose is at the present time under consideration.

  PARLIAMENT—PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—THE CENTRAL HALL.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the First Commissioner of Works, What steps he intends to take in the next Session of Parliament for completing the decoration of the Central Hall of the Houses?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, it was very improbable that any steps would be taken in that direction. So far as he could understand he believed the existing arrangements were fairly satisfactory, and that the House did not desire any change to be made.
  MR. SCHREIBERgave Notice that early next Session, if the Rules of the House allowed, he would call attention to the continued exclusion of the three National Saints from their places in the Central Hall, and move a Resolution.

  NAVY—THE "LONDON" HULK, ZANZIBAR.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the hulk "London," stationed at Zanzibar, has been reported as insanitary by a competent surveyor, her timbers being rotten and leaky; and, whether there have been, since that Report, severe outbreaks of fever among the sailors who are stationed in the "London;" and, if so, whether some other system can be adopted at Zanzibar, or some other ship substituted for the "London?"
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is true that there was for sometime a good deal of sickness on board the London, at Zanzibar. Much, however, has been done to improve her condition, and the latest reports show a diminution in the amount of sickness. The whole

  1917
  Question is under the consideration of the Admiralty; and Rear Admiral Sir William Hewett, the Commander-in-Chief on the Station, has been directed to proceed to Zanzibar to inquire fully into the subject.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—GOLD MINING COMPANY'S GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
  MR. O'DONNELL,asked the Secretary of State for India, If the Government have received information showing that in 1880, certain officials in Madras, among whom were two Secretaries to the Government of Madras, the officiating Deputy Adjutant General Madras Army, and several heads of departments under the Madras Government, were promoters of a number of Gold Mining Companies with a capital of a million sterling; that these officials asked the sum of £245,000 as purchase money of a portion of one large block of land granted them free of price by Government; that in September 1880 these officials stood to receive in cash and shares from Mining Companies the following sums:—£55,000 from the Mysore Gold Mining Company; £50,000 from the Madras Gold Mining Company; £50,000 from the Ooregawm Gold Mining Company; £90,000 from the Colar Gold Mining Company; whether he authorised these proceedings; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the amount and value of the lands belonging to the Native State of Mysore which were alienated by gift or purchase during the past seven years?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The India Office has not received any information to the effect indicated in this Question. I shall, however, cause inquiries to be made in India regarding the matters referred to by the hon. Member.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE—SALEM RIOTERS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that, at the trial of the prisoners accused of rioting at Salem, which ended in the infliction of sentences of penal servitude for long terms of years, both the native assessors of the presiding Judge declared that the evidence was insufficient to convict the prisoners;
  1918
  and, if the presiding Judge was alone in his judgment of guilty?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It appears from the reports in the Indian newspapers—from which alone I have any information on the subject—that it is a fact that at the trial referred to, the two Native assessors declared the evidence insufficient to convict the prisoners. As there was but one Judge, there can be no doubt that he was alone in his judgment of "guilty." The cases were tried in the usual way by the Sessions Judge with the aid of two assessors. The assessors are not jurors, nor are their duties those of a jury. By law it is expressly enacted in the Criminal Procedure Code, and has for many years been the recognized practice, that the opinion of each assessor is to be given orally, and recorded in writing by the Court; but the decision is vested exclusively in the Judge; and the law directs that the Judge shall proceed to pass judgment of acquittal or conviction "having considered the opinions of the assessors, but not being bound to conform to them."
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the noble Marquess if he would take care that the opinions of the assessors in future should be submitted to the Judges of the Supreme Court before the ratification of the sentences upon Hindoo prisoners?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he had no power to deal with the question.

  INDIA (BENGAL)—THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE OF CALCUTTA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the departure of Mr. Marsden, Chief Magistrate of Calcutta, on leave of absence, Mr. B. L. Gupta, the magistrate next in rank, was not appointed to act in Mr. Marsden's absence, but was passed over in favour of an English barrister, Mr. Henderson; whether it is true that Mr. B. L. Gupta was called to the Bar in 1871, is a civilian of eleven years' standing, and has been Presidency Magistrate for more than two years; whether it is true that Mr. Henderson was only called to the Bar in 1876, and was never in Government service; and, whether this appointment is in conformity with the Government un-

  1919
  dertaking towards the Native Indian Civil Servants of the Crown?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My attention has been called by the Question of the hon. Member to this appointment. The positions of Mr. Gupta and Mr. Henderson appear to be accurately stated in the Question; but I have no information as to the circumstances under which the appointment was made, and I have no reason to suppose that in making it any injury to the Native Indian Civil Servants of the Crown was either done or intended to be done. The appointment is one not of a class to which members of the Covenanted Civil Service have any special claim. The vacancy was only for three months, and for such a short period I am informed that there is always a difficulty in providing satisfactorily for carrying on the duties of the office. I have no reason to doubt that the Lieutenant Governor made the best arrangement he could under the circumstances.

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true that the Government have refused to afford Naval or Military aid to the landlords of the Skye Crofters in their proceedings against their tenantry?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The views of the Cabinet upon this question were conveyed to the authorities of the county of Inverness in a letter written to the Sheriff of that county by the Lord Advocate, and dated 3rd November of this year. It would be too long to read that letter to the House, and I would refer the hon. Member to that letter, in which, I think, he will find an answer to his Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any objection to state the substance of that letter, and whether it is the fact that the Government have refused naval or military aid to the Skye landlords against their tenants?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think it would be very unwise to answer that Question "Yes" or "No," because the view of the Government on the subject is expressed very carefully in that letter. If the hon. Member will move for that letter he will have it; but to
  1920
  answer otherwise than in the way stated in that letter would not be wise.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to lay that letter on the Table of the House?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes.

  STATE OF IRELAND (APPREHENDED DISTRESS)—TORY ISLAND.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that a third of the population of Tory Island, on the coast of Donegal, are in destitution; that the main cause of the poverty of the people is due to the want of any harbour accommodation for fishery purposes; and, whether he will recommend the commencement of works of the kind required, which will, at the same time, afford immediate employment to the necessitous inhabitants? The hon. Member added that since he put this Question on the Paper he had received a letter from the Catholic clergyman in charge of the Island, stating that not only were one-third of the population totally destitute, but that the remaining two-thirds had not supplies sufficient to last them beyond Christmas, and that during most of the wintry weather, Tory Island, being nine miles from the mainland, was almost inaccessible, and consequently the danger of famine was imminent indeed.
  MR SEXTONwished, before the Question was answered, to read a telegram he had that day received from the Rev. W. P. Cosgrave, P. P., County Sligo, stating that on Tuesday no Indian meal could be had in Sligo for any price, and that the poor people from the rev. gentleman's district, which is 20 miles distant, came home empty and were in great distress. The telegram concluded by asking what would the Government do. Would the people starve?
  MR. TREVELYAN: An Inspector of the Local Government Board has just been to Tory Island, and I have received his Report, which is dated the 18th instant, this morning. In that Report, he states that he has not found anything so exceptional in the condition of the Islanders as to lead him to fear that the Poor Law in its ordinary administration will prove insufficient to meet their wants. They gave him the impression

  1921
  of being a fairly thriving fishing popution; they have as many boats as they can use or man; and passing steamers afford them facilities for selling fresh fish in Liverpool and Glasgow, and salted fish at Falcarra. Three steamers returning weekly from Sligo take whatever fish is ready for Liverpool or Glasgow, and bring back coals or provisions, or other necessaries, in return for the fish thus disposed of. They have plenty of seaweed thrown on the Island, from which they manufacture kelp. The Inspector was informed that the quantity made last year was sold for£600. The Census of 1881 gives the population as 140 males, and 192 females, and they have 30 boats, generally from 25 feet to 30 feet long. I therefore consider that, being within nine miles of land, they are in no great danger of starvation.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to ask, with regard to the statement of the Poor Law Inspector that the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law would be sufficient to meet the distress, how many miles was the nearest workhouse from Tory Island?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Sligo, a definite telegram like that deserves a definite inquiry. Reports are constantly coming in from that district, and they have not foreshadowed any immediate necessity of the kind stated.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: There is one point in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo to which I would like to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary. It is whether he is aware that Indian meal, which is the staple food of a large portion of this poor population, is very scarce and almost as dear as flour?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is a statement which, I think, deserves inquiry.
  MR. CALLAN: May I ask what is the name of the Inspector who visited Tory Island, the date of his visit, and whether he saw the Catholic priest, the only educated person on the Island?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The name of the Inspector is Mr. MacFarlane, and his Report is corroborated by information which has been received from the officer of the gun-boat. As I have received his Report this morning, I suppose he returned a few days ago.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will ask the Chief Secretary how many miles the nearest workhouse is to Tory Island?

  NAVY—H.M.S. "POLYPHEMUS."
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the "Polyphemus" is a failure?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: In reply to the brief but comprehensive inquiry of my hon. Friend, which involves a question rather of opinion than of fact, I have to say that, so far from the Polyphemus being considered a failure, the intentions of the designer have been fulfilled as regards the essential conditions of draught and stability. It has also been ascertained by trial that, with the stipulated horse-power, the estimated speed will be attained, and even exceeded. The experiment with a group of locomotive boilers has not proved so successful as was hoped; and boilers of a known and successful type are being constructed, which will, it is believed, give the stipulated horse-power.

  PENAL SERVITUDE COMMISSION, 1879—IRISH CONVICT LABOUR.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the future employment of convict labour has yet reported upon the employment of Irish convict labour; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Penal Servitude of 1879 as regards the removal of convicts from Spike Island?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Report of the Committee is in type, and I have seen a copy of it; but it is not yet ready for public circulation. The question of how the convicts now confined in Spike Island Prison should be provided for is not dealt with in that Report, having been postponed until there has been time for the Government to give further attention to the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND (APPREHENDED DISTRESS)—ROSCOMMON.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1923
  Whether any report has been received by the Local Government Board from Captain Spaight as to the failure of the crops and consequent impending distress in the county Roscommon?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have not received any special Reports from their Inspector, Major Spaight, as to impending distress in the county Roscommon; but in some observations made by him respecting the Castlerea Union, he stated he believed there would be distress in consequence of the failure of the potato crop. He further stated, in reference to a representation from the Guardians of the Boyle Union, in the same county, that he thought they had taken an exaggerated view of the impending distress; but he has been directed to visit the Union to ascertain the facts.

  INDIA—CONSULS AT THE NATIVE STATES—THE CASE OF MR. SILBIGER.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to the reply given by the British Government to the Austrian Ambassador's representations on the case of Silbiger versus the Maharaja of Jeypore, high English and Indian legal opinion has been submitted to the India Office to the effect that "the so called award, if judged by the standard and principles of English Law, is invalid;" and to the further effect that "the so called arbitration does not seem to have been conducted in a judicial mode;" and, if so, whether the British Government is still able to rely on the so called arbitration as a ground for refusing the inquiry asked for by the Austrian Ambassador?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Legal opinions to the effect stated by the hon. Member have been submitted to the India Office; but I have had no opportunity of seeing the statement of facts upon which they are based. All the facts connected with the arbitration were before the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council when the case was under consideration. I have, therefore, nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the Question of the hon. Member on the subject on the 31st of July last—namely, that I saw no reason for re-opening the case.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—ARKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he has seen the following statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of 20th November:—
  "On Saturday a fleet of herring boats went out to fish, but, owing to the boisterous character of the weather, they were forced to relinquish the attempt. When returning all the vessels save two failed to take the bar, and two boats were wrecked. One boat was smashed to splinters, and, but for the assistance promptly rendered by a number of other boats, the men would, it is only too certain, have been lost. The crews of the boats that failed to take the bar put in at Wicklow, and they were compelled to walk home to Arklow, a distance of fourteen miles;"
  and, if he will communicate with the Board of Works in Ireland with a view to having the Arklow Harbour works begun immediately?
  MR. COURTNEY: I stated the other day that there would be no avoidable delay in getting the Arklow Harbour works carried out, and I can only repeat that promise now. I learn by telegraph that the tenders have been opened and one selected; the successful competitor has been informed and requested to proceed with the least possible delay; and the formal contract will be completed as soon as possible.

  IRELAND—SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the project approved by the Treasury for the erection of the National Science and Art Museum in Dublin, Whether he is aware that the project in question was unanimously condemned, by men representing all sections of the community, at a meeting of the Municipal Council of Dublin, held on Monday last; that every public journal in Dublin, without distinction of political opinion, has joined in condemnation of the project; and that the Lord Mayor, by unanimous request of the Corporation, has convened a public meeting of citizens to consider and pronounce upon the scheme; and, whether the Treasury, before taking any further step in the matter, will be careful to inform themselves of the condition of Irish public opinion on the subject, and will have regard to the nature and weight of

  1925
  that opinion in deciding upon the course to be pursued?
  MR. COURTNEY: When the period of exhibition of the designs has expired, the Treasury will obtain the collected results of any expressions of opinion which may have been given in Dublin on the proposed new Museum. If the hon. Member's description of local sentiment be correct, it has undergone a complete revolution in less than two years; and it is open to the remark that we heard nothing of any change until after it was discovered that the designs of no Irish architect had obtained a place among the selected designs.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TREATMENT OF CROWN WITNESSES.
  MR. SEXTON: Before I ask Question 27, which stands next on the Paper, I wish to say that in consequence of the unsatisfactory and evasive reply which I received to Question 12, which related to the accommodation of Crown witnesses in Dublin, I shall pursue the inquiry from day to day until I get a direct reply.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks my answer evasive. Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me on what point it was evasive. If so, perhaps I have the information he requires.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall question the right hon. Gentleman further as to what steps have been taken to stop the scandalous state of things in which seven persons are obliged to sleep on one palliasse; and also what steps are being taken to ascertain whether the public money has been embezzled; and what agents of the Crown are responsible for the indecency of the state of things described in my Question, and whether they will be punished?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Several of these Questions are new.
  MR. SEXTON: Not one of them.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The agents of the Crown in this matter were the Constabulary, and there is no reason to suppose that any of the public money has been embezzled. The money grant for the maintenance of Crown witnesses is defrayed out of the Vote for Law Charges, and is disbursed through the Constabulary officers for the district. The two houses in which the witnesses were lodged were in charge of a con-
  1926
  stable, who himself lived in one of them; and, in point of fact, the arrangements made for the sleeping accommodation of the witnesses were made in accordance with the wishes of the heads of the families.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether it was in accordance with the wishes of the heads of the families that seven persons were put to sleep in one room; or was it because there was not another room in the house?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid that, as a matter of fact, there was another room in the house. The heads of the families were the father in one case, and the father and mother in another, and they made the arrangements for the sleeping. It was revealed at the trial that the people were accustomed to very miserable accommodation; and, as a matter of fact, it was in accordance with their wishes that they slept in one room.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it contemplated, that when a grant of money is given by the country for the maintenance of Crown witnesses seven witnesses should be obliged to sleep in one room; and, if not, how is the money expended?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The answer to that is that there was another room.

  IRELAND—GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS—PRINTING.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the rule or usage in force with regard to having the printing locally required by Irish Government Departments executed in Ireland?
  MR. COURTNEY: Printing locally required by Irish Government Departments is almost invariably executed in Ireland—in fact, the only real exceptions to this rule in recent times have been cases where the matter to be printed has been of an especially confidential character, such as falls to be printed only at the confidential press in London.

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the County Authority of Inverness-shire recently resolved to double the police force at a computed cost of £3,000 per annum; whether the Government has agreed to recognise the increase, and

  1927
  pay half costs; whether, before involving the ratepayers of the county and the community in this large increase, he satisfied himself of the justice and necessity of such a step; and, whether, in view of the dissatisfaction and discontent prevalent amongst considerable numbers of the rural and crofter population in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the desire expressed by many interested, including an influential portion of the Press in Inverness, Edinburgh, and London, for a Commission of Inquiry, Government will now accede to the request?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In answer to the first Question, it is true that the authorities of the county of Inverness—that extensive county—have determined to increase the police force by 60 men. With reference to the second and third Questions, in the letter to which I have already referred the hon. Member will see that the Government did say—and it was their duty to say so—that they would sanction any force of police which the authorities of the county thought were necessary to vindicate and to execute the law. With reference to the last Question, it is one of so grave a character that I could not answer it now without consulting my Colleagues upon it.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he can state what are the facts that have caused this necessary increase in the police of Inverness-shire? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to say whether or not it is a fact that this extra sum to be charged upon the county and the ratepayers of the United Kingdom arises solely and entirely from a dispute about £100 between a landlord and his tenant?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member will see it would not be at all wise to answer a Question of that kind. Everybody4must feel that it is the duty of the Local Authority and the Government to see that the law is respected. As to the other Questions, they are very proper Questions for inquiry; but it would be entirely out of my power at this moment, in answer to a Question, to enter into so large a matter as that.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, with reference to his letter to the Sheriff of Inverness,
  1928
  dated the third instant, If he will be good enough to specify the statutes or statute whereby the county authority (the ordinary strength of its police force being annually reported as efficient) is bound to provide and maintain a police force, unlimited in number, for the due execution of writs issuing from the Supreme Civil Courts of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The Act of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 72 is the leading Statute on this subject. It requires that a sufficient police force shall be established for each county; and by Section 5 it provides that it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Supply, on the recommendation of the Police Committee of any county, from time to time, with the consent of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, to increase or diminish the number of constables appointed for such county. The number of constables annually required to constitute a sufficient police force must, of course, depend upon the condition of each county. One of the chief duties of such a force is to protect from violence persons exercising their lawful rights, or performing their duties within the county; and officers of the law executing writs or orders issuing from the Supreme Court are eminently entitled to be protected from violence in discharging this important duty.

  STATE OF IRELAND (APPREHENDED DISTRESS)—CO. CLARE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will order an experienced official of the Local Government Board to thoroughly investigate the state of the small farmers and labourers within the Unions of Kilrush, Ennistymon, and Corofin, county Clare; and, if so, whether he will lay the report furnished by that official before the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have already received Reports from the Local Government Board relative to the state of Ennistymon and Corofin Unions, and one of their most experienced Inspectors has been in County Clare making further inquiries. No allegations of any unusual distress in the Kilrush Union have reached me; but the Inspector will be instructed to make inquiries there also. There will be no objection to producing the Reports relating to Ennistymon and Corofin.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—ENNIS AND WEST CLARE RAILWAY.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received an answer from the Treasury to his communication respecting a guaranteed loan towards the construction of the Ennis and West Clare Railway; and, if not, whether, in view of the relief to the distress of the labouring classes in the district which employment on the works would afford, he will move the Treasury to speedily announce its decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received an answer from the Treasury on this subject, in which they inform me that, having referred the matter to the Commissioners of Public Works in Dublin, they have received a Report from that Board stating that no application has yet been made by the Directors of the Railway Company to the Board for a loan, and that the conditions precedent to their borrowing, with regard to the subscriptions for and paying up of share capital, have not yet been fulfilled. Until the Directors are legally competent to contract a loan, and have applied for one to the Commissioners of Public Works, it is obvious that the Treasury cannot take any steps in the matter.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1872—SCHOOL BOARD ACCOUNTS.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, inasmuch as the Report for the year ending Whitsunday 1881 by the Accountant for Scotland to the Scotch Education Department has only been laid upon the Table on the 21st November 1882, he will take steps to have future Annual Reports presented at an earlier date?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The 49th section of the Education Act of 1872 directs that the accounts of the school boards in Scotland, for years ending Whitsunday, should be transmitted to the accountant on the 1st of January following. Very frequently they are not sent in for three or four months after this date, and sometimes without vouchers. These accounts, nearly 1,000 in number, have to be examined and reported on by the accountant, and in past years his Report has been presented to Parliament some 16 or 17 months after the date—January
  1930
  1—at which they were due in Edinburgh. My attention was called to this delay in the early part of the Session by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour), and a Circular was issued to the school boards requesting that their accounts might be sent in with greater punctuality. This year, by great exertion on the part of the acting accountant, the Report has been presented within 11 months, five or six months earlier than heretofore; and though every effort will be made to insure the appearance of these Reports at an earlier date, I cannot hold out much hope that the time required for a careful examination of the numerous and intricate accounts can, as the law now stands, be much reduced. The question of the audit of the accounts of Public Boards in Scotland has been, and is still, under consideration by the Government.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—CASE OF ANTHONY GALEAGHER.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can yet state what decision the Land Commission has come to with respect to the declaration of General Tisdal (Investigator for Sligo under the Arrears Act), in the case of Anthony Galeagher, tenant, that, although the tenant had paid a half-year's rent after the first gale day in 1881, and another half-year's rent after the second gale day, it would be necessary for him to pay a third half-year's rent, in order to gain the benefit of the Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of Anthony Galeagher has not been brought judicially before the Land Commissioners. In cases where the question of the construction of Section 1, Sub-section 3 of the Arrears Act, appears to arise, the attention of solicitors of tenants was called to the advisability of bringing the cases before the Court for a judicial decision. As yet none have done so, although they have been informed that every facility would be given; and it was even indicated that, if the matter of costs and expenses stood in the way, the Land Commissioners would be prepared to make some arrangement whereby that objection would be obviated.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the solicitor has

  1931
  been invited to bring the case before the Court of Land Commissioners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will look again at the letter, which I have here; but I have no doubt whatever that is the case.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any assurances from the Spanish Government that the Cuban refugees will not be subjected to any penalty or maltreatment until the Commission of Inquiry have made their report, or until Her Majesty's Government are in a position to state their views upon the subject to the Government of Spain?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We feel sure that the prisoners will not be subjected to penalty or maltreatment pending inquiry into the rights of the case; and Her Majesty's Government think it would be unadvisable and scarcely courteous to make any representation or request which would imply a doubt on the subject.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTobserved, that on Tuesday the Question that had just been answered was said by the hon. Baronet not to arise out of a Question on the same subject then on the Notice Paper. He doubted whether it fell within the hon. Baronet's province to make such a statement.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether it was true that General Maceo had been deprived of the right of communicating freely with his friends?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am unable to answer that Question, as we have no information with regard to the treatment of the prisoner named by the hon. Member.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER AND PARTY.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state what steps have been taken to punish the murderers of Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, R. E., and Lieutenant Charrington, R. N.?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In the interval that has elapsed since this Question was
  1932
  asked for the first time, we have received no additional information. We will take care to communicate without delay any news that may reach us on the subject of the unfortunate fate of these gentlemen.

  CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN—LOCAL APPOINTMENTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Minute of 27th March 1849, on the subject of the acceptance by Civil Servants of directorships of companies and the like, has been strictly enforced; whether the principles in regard to the same subject, more precisely set forth in the letter from the Treasury to the Home Department of 6th April 1878, have been put into practice in the Treasury and Home Offices, and in any other Departments; and, whether it is to be understood that before another Session of Parliament the whole subject of extra-official occupations of Civil Servants will be reconsidered with a view to the settlement of definite rules for the whole Civil Service?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The answer to the Question of the hon. Member is very simple. As to the first paragraph, it appears to me that in the Treasury the rule has been strictly observed; but in the other Departments I am not able to say that it has been observed with equal strictness; but I may refer my hon. Friend to a Return made in May, 1880, giving the names of certain Civil servants who are Directors of Trading Companies. With regard to the prospective part of the Question, in the third paragraph, I have already stated that this subject has had the very particular attention of the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, who happened, just before the question was raised, to have left London on his much-needed vacation; and I propose to wait until his return before taking any further steps in the matter.

  IRELAND—SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the opposition to the Government plan for the proposed new Museum of Science and Art, Kildare Street, Dublin; and, whether he will authorise the Irish Local Administra-

  1933
  tion to consult the wishes of the Irish people in this matter?
  MR. COURTNEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question as relating to a subject with the details of which he is not conversant. Irish opinion has not been neglected in this matter. It was in deference to local Dublin feeling that the site was most reluctantly abandoned which seemed to the Lord President and other Members of the Government, as well as to their skilled advisers, most eligible; and it is in the interest of the people of Ireland that the Government are reluctant, on account of a sudden reversion of feeling stated to have occurred in Dublin, to postpone indefinitely the commencement of this important work.

  INCOME TAX—INSOLVENT FIRMS.
  MR. LEAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is generally found that insolvent firms have paid Income Tax on fictitious profits up to the time of their failure, and for several years before; whether this arises from the inquisitorial zeal of Income Tax officials working upon the dread of the exposure of their accounts; and, if, having regard to the losses that are known to have occurred in some of the manufacturing districts during the last few years, Surveyors of Income Tax will be instructed to forbear from pressure which tends to compel the payment of Income Tax at the expense of the creditors of the estate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): The Question has been put under some misapprehension as to the facts. It is not the fact that it has been found by the Government Department that insolvent firms had commonly paid Income Tax on fictitious profits. That being so, it follows that the second paragraph of the Question also must be answered in the negative. With regard to the third paragraph, I have to reply that pressure compelling the payment of Income Tax at the expense of creditors has not been exercised by the Surveyors. On the contrary, payment is frequently allowed to be deferred pending the result of an appeal at the end of the financial year, the 5th of April, when the true statement of accounts can be ascertained.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the statements in the "Freeman's Journal" and other Irish papers to the effect that the Arrears Act has proved a total failure; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in view of so deplorable a result?
  COLONEL COLTHURSTpointed out that now only a few days remained in which to make the payments required under the Act, and that it was to be feared that many people were holding back under the idea that the time might be extended. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would give the House an opportunity of discussing the whole subject that night.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to the hon. Member opposite, I am bound to say that I have received information to the effect that many cases which might be brought under the operation of the Arrears Act are held back in consequence of the prevalence of an idea that Parliament may be asked to alter the provisions of the Act; and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it is desirable that there should be no doubt of our intentions on this subject. With respect to the statements in The Freeman's Journal, I do not think it is necessary to refer to that paper in particular; but we do not agree that the Arrears Act has proved a total failure. The Land Commissioners and some of the highest authorities besides the Land Commissioners are of opinion, in the first place, that the full effect, or anything near the full effect, of the Arrears Act cannot possibly be estimated with any justice until after the expiration of the month of December. They also believe that the number of tenants who will be incapacitated by the limitation of date from using the Act for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Land Act is a small minority. That is the best judgment at which they can arrive. I may add, that the Commissioners learnt with some satisfaction that there has been a marked falling off in the number of evictions during the last three weeks—the diminution of evictions being the aim with which the Arrears Act was passed.
  MR. PARNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will introduce a Bill to amend the Arrears Act, so as to extend the period within which the year's rent in respect of 1881 maybe paid for such time as may be necessary to enable the Court of the Land Commission to decide how much rent is payable in respect of that year on estates where the existence of a hanging gale is alleged by the landlord, and also to make provision for the payment out of the Church Fund to the landlord of the costs incurred in proceedings of ejectment, and for the recovery of arrears of rent which the tenant has proved his inability to pay?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My answer to this Question will, in effect, be a supplement to the answer which I gave just now to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst). This Question inquires from the Government on two points—first of all, whether we are willing to introduce forthwith, during the present Sitting of Parliament, a Bill to amend the Arrears Act, so as to extend the period within which the year's rent in respect of 1881 maybe paid; and, secondly, whether we will make provision for the payment, out of the Church Fund, to the landlord of the costs of proceedings in ejectment, and for the recovery of arrears in rent which the tenant has proved his inability to pay. We do not intend to make any proposal for the extension of the time limited for payment. To this extent the hon. Member will probably agree with me—that when that is our view it is best for all parties that it should be at once clearly and definitely understood. It is most desirable that there should be no uncertainty as to the date up to which the rent must be satisfied, and before application can be made to the Court. As far as we can gather from the opinion of the Land Commissioners, the advantage to any number of tenants concerned—which I have already stated we believe to be small—from an extension of the time would be very slight compared with the injurious results from any extension of the date. It is from that comparative advantage and disadvantage that we have come to this conclusion, and that we desire that this conclusion should be universally known. As regards the subject of costs, it is not a new point. It was raised when the Arrears Act was passing
  1936
  through this House, and the House decided not to make any provision to the effect stated by the hon. Member. We believe that very serious questions would be involved by any relaxation on this point; and it must be remembered that we have already gone to very great lengths in the Arrears Act for the benefit, not of the whole, but of a particular portion of the population. I know when extraordinary measures have been taken in a particular direction they are always made a reason for further legislation. It is not our business to admit that reason. On the contrary, we think ourselves bound not to admit it; and we cannot, therefore, recommend Parliament to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. ONSLOW: I should like to ask the Prime Minister—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Parnell.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, I hold that this question of the failure, or partial failure, of the Arrears Act, in view of the very critical state of the country in Ireland, and the imminence of severe distress, with which the question of arrears is undoubtedly connected, is "a definite matter of urgent public importance." I wish to ask the leave of the House to move its adjournment, in order that I may bring this matter before them, and explain our views for thinking and supposing that the Prime Minister has received erroneous information from the Land Commissioners.
  MR. ONSLOW: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is not competent for me, or any other Member, to put a Question to the Prime Minister, or any other Member of Parliament, before the adjournment of the House is moved? I wish to put a Question, which is not on the Paper, to the Prime Minister.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will look at the Resolution passed by the House in reference to the adjournment of the House, it says, in effect, that that course may be taken after the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of. Now, all the Questions on the Notice Paper having been disposed of, the Motion may be made. Does the hon. Member for the City of Cork propose to ask the leave of the House to make the Motion?
  MR. PARNELL: I do, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that Mr. Parnell be now heard?
  And there being many voices for and against—
  MR. SPEAKER: Having heard negative voices on the matter, I must ask the hon. Member whether there are 40 Members prepared to support the Motion.
  Whereupon, a large number of Members—not less than 40—rising in their places—
  MR. SPEAKERcalled upon the hon. Member for the City of Cork to proceed.
  MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to avail myself of the. privilege which has been afforded to me of calling the attention of the House to this question of the failure, or partial failure, of the Arrears Act to fulfil the intentions of the Government, and the objects of those intentions. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has stated that, according to the information he has received from the Land Commissioners, only a comparatively small number of tenants will be shut out by the limitation of time at which the rent in respect of the year 1881 can be satisfied; but I think—in fact, I have every reason to believe—that the Court of the Land Commission is not in a position to know how many tenants are desirous of availing themselves of the provisions and benefits of this valuable Act, simply because they do not come into contact with the estate in arrears of rent until applications have been made to them by the tenants on those estates. Therefore, it follows that although the Land Commissioners may have accurate information with regard to the number of applications which have been made to themselves, and the number of such applications which may probably be granted, yet it is impossible for them to know anything about the vast number, as we think the many thousands, of small tenants in Ireland who, through want of time, or through other causes which I shall explain to the House, have not yet been able to apply under the provisions of this Act, or to satisfy the rent in respect of the year 1881. Now, Sir, after the last day of November it will be impossible for these tenants, either by the
  1938
  consent of the landlord or without his consent, to satisfy the rent in respect of the year 1881; and hence it will follow that, owing to the insertion in the Bill of an Amendment—against which the Irish Members protested strongly at the time it was introduced—in one of the last stages of the Bill, by this most pernicious and detrimental Amendment, the time in the Bill was limited to the end of this month, during which the tenants should pay a year's rent in respect of the year 1881, and owing to the fact that up to this moment no decision has been given by the Court of the Land Commissioners as to how much a tenant should pay in view of the operation of what is known as "the Hanging Gale Proviso" of the Act, many thousands of the tenants of Ireland are now in this position, that they do not absolutely know how much rent they ought to pay in respect of the year 1881, and there is no machinery provided by which they can lodge a sufficient amount of rent in Court to cover any amount which the Court hereafter may decide should be paid by them. Now, this is one of the points on which, I think, there has been a failure, or partial failure, of the Act. I do not propose to say that the Act has proved a total failure. That may depend very much upon the decision of the Land Commissioners with regard to the operation of the Proviso which is known as "the hanging gale;" but if that Hanging Gale Proviso, the nature of which I will shortly explain to the House, be interpreted against the views of the tenants, it will undoubtedly result in the total failure of the Arrears Act. I trust and hope that an interpretation may be given by the Land Commissioners Court in favour of the tenants; but if it be not so, I say that the Arrears Act of 1882 will be added to the long list of measures which the people of Ireland have received with high hopes from this Parliament, only to find themselves bitterly and disgracefully disappointed. With regard to the Hanging Gale Proviso under the Bill as it was originally drafted, and as it was read a second time in this House, it was necessary for the tenant to satisfy the landlord in respect of the rent payable for the year of the tenancy expiring on the last day of the last gale of 1881. Under the reading of the sub-

  1939
  section it was perfectly plain that if the tenant paid a half-year's rent on or at any time after the first gale day of 1881, he would be entitled to claim credit in respect of the rent payable for that half year; and if he made application on or after the second gale day, he would be able to claim credit in respect of the whole year's rent. But by the Proviso in the Bill the whole matter has been thrown into confusion, and it is not possible for any tenant in Ireland to know how much rent he ought to pay in respect of 1881, in order to be sure when the time has expired he may not, after he had made his payments, find he has been thrown outside the benefit of the Act. The Proviso was as follows:—
  "That where it appears that, according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of the holding, the rent of such holding has usually been paid on some day after the day on which it became legally due, the usual day of payment shall be deemed, for the purposes of this sub-section, to be the time at which the rent accrued due."
  So utterly incomprehensible a section as that has never, I venture to believe, been inserted in an Act of Parliament before. We protested against it, and moved Amendments against it: but it was all of no use—the Bill went through both Houses of Parliament with this Proviso inserted. Up to the present the balance of legal opinion in Ireland is quite divided in regard to the interpretation to be put upon this Proviso. The Court of the Land Commission has not ventured, up to the present moment, to give any authoritative decision with regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant explained that a few days ago the Court had invited a case to be submitted to it upon this question; but of what use would the submission of such a case be now, unless we can get an extension of the time within which the tenant can make the necessary payment? If the Court of the Land Commission should decide that he has not paid sufficient, the decision of a case taken before the Court in response to the invitation of the Chief Secretary or the Commissioners would be too late to affect the question at all. It should have been given months, or at any rate weeks ago, in order to enable the smaller tenants, who are many of them extremely ignorant of every-
  1940
  thing, even in numerous cases of the English language, and who live in remote districts, to understand what their legal rights are as to this complicated section. The Commissioners do not appear to have given any definite instructions to their investigators. Many of these gentlemen have given the most contrary decisions as to this matter. Several decisions that have been given by the investigators have had such an effect with regard to this disputed point on large masses of the tenants in the West and North of Ireland, that the tenants have given up making applications under the Arrears Act at all, because they think the decisions given before their eyes in the Court by the investigators must necessarily be the law of the land, and it is no use making their applications. The landlords claim the benefit of the Proviso wherever the rent was usually paid at any time after the gale day; and as no rent is usually paid on the gale day it follows that in every disputed case the landlord claimed the benefit of the Proviso as to the hanging gale. The legal advisers of the tenants, on the other hand, had given it as their opinion that a usual fixed day or date subsequent to the gale day for paying the rents which exists on the estate must exist to entitle the landlord to claim the Proviso in his favour. In the absence of any decisions on the subject the tenants and all concerned are at sea. If the Proviso be interpreted according to the landlord's view, it will follow that the great majority of tenants who have applied to the Court will derive little benefit from their applications. In any case the decisions given by some of the investigators—some of which have been brought before the House—have had such a deterrent effect on the tenants that they have ceased on several estates with which I am acquainted registering their applications to benefit under the Arrears Act. If it were possible for the tenant to make a lodgment of money to pay the amount, he would have to pay in any case with the possibility of having it refunded to him. If he had paid too much the evil would be mitigated. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant says the Government asked the Land Commissioners to grant such money; but they refused on the ground that they had not sufficient power. The view of

  1941
  the Government has been carried ont out, and the Land Commissioners are without the necessary powers. The Government refuse to give the Land Commission Court the necessary legal powers that they (the Government) admit the Court ought to possess. The second point of difficulty is the limitation of time. That limitation of time was inserted in the Act contrary to our express wishes and in spite of our protests. We pointed out that it would in all probability diminish enormously the value of the Act; but it was inserted notwithstanding, and the result has been that many thousands of these poor families in Ireland will be utterly unable to obtain the benefit of the Act. The third point of difficulty is the question of costs. I did think the Government would have seen the justice and equity of extending the provision of the Act so as to enable the Court to relieve the tenant of costs where it is proved he is unable to pay. I have here some remarkable statistics as to the number of tenants who have been evicted in Ireland during the years that have elapsed since the Famine of 1879–80, which families are most of them utterly unable to obtain the restoration of their holdings, owing partly in some cases to the fact that they are not able to find a year's rent in respect of 1881, but chiefly to the fact that they are not able to pay the overwhelming costs that have been heaped on them, which in many cases exceeded the amount of rent they obtained remission upon. In 1879 the number of families evicted was 903, or 4,500 individuals. The number in 1880 was 2,110 families, or 10,657 persons. In 1881, 3,415 families, or 17,541 persons; and in the 10 months of this year, ending October, 4,249 families, or 21,225 persons, including 306 families, or rather over 1,500 persons in the month of October. This makes a total for the four years, or since the distress, of 10,677 families, or 53,723 persons evicted; and it must be remembered that the vast majority of these evicted families and persons have not been benefited or protected in the smallest degree by the Land Act of 1881. Seventy-five per cent of these families were evicted before that Act was passed, and the remaining 25 per cent have been evicted since, while the Land Courts were vainly struggling to hear
  1942
  the cases of the appealing tenants. You must recollect that in almost every case where the tenants have been able to bring their cases for adjudication for the fixing of a fair rent, the Court, more especially where the applicants were small tenants, have given a reduction averaging 30 per cent. Of these families it would be a liberal estimate to say that half had been restored to their homes. If we allow that—which I believe is far beyond the proper estimate—and admit or guess that they will receive the benefit of the Arrears Act, and will get clear back into their homes, we shall be speaking very liberally. You have still the remaining 5,000 families who appeal to you for protection—5,000 families whom you are going to permit to go through the terrible winter that is coming on us in Ireland with no food but Indian meal, the potatoes being all consumed, and with that meal now at 10 guineas per ton, as compared with six guineas per ton last year. These people receive no hope or comfort from the Government. These questions of distress and arrears are most intimately connected. The evicted families, and the others who have not yet been evicted, but over whom the sentence of death is hanging, and who will shortly be evicted—who are being evicted at the present moment, as we have heard, at the rate of 306 per month, are increasing. Every day, every week, every month, this horrible total of evicted families is being added to, and there is no use saying there is any attempt being made to induce them not to pay their rents. If by means of the Arrears Act it was possible to protect them, they would be prevented from going into the workhouse; and the scheme of emigration sanctioned this Session, under that Act, or of emigration which we hope to obtain the adoption of, would have some chance of coming into play, and would prevent the exasperation which must follow the tearing down of roof-trees and the turning on the road side of these poor people, who have been told by the Prime Minister of England that justice is being done to them. We look in vain for justice. The fate of the Irish people who rely on a British Parliament for the redress of their grievances has always been an unhappy one. I had hoped that this Arrears Bill would have been left untampered with; but it has

  1943
  been trammelled by the insertion of detrimental provisions that have rendered it a partial failure, and may probably bring about its total failure. We protested against the insertion of these provisions; but, owing to the unfortunate influence of "another place," and the landlord party in this House, these three provisions we objected to were inserted, and the result has been as you see.
  MR. GIBSON: The changes in the Bill were all made in this House.
  MR. PARNELL: I did not say they were not. I distinctly said I had hoped that this Bill might, at least, have passed without these detrimental alterations, thereby inferring that they had been made in this House. I have not had time to refer to the Journals of the House; but I have no doubt the alterations were made partly owing to a desire on the part of the Government to get the Bill through "another place." It was obvious that the Prime Minister had sufficient force at his disposal to carry the Bill through this House without any risk. The fate, I say, of the Irish people, who depend on this House, and who look with confidence on this House for remedial legislation, has always been an unhappy one. I was in hopes that the unhappy precedents that have been set in this matter would have been reversed, and that we should at least have been able to point to the Arrears Act of 1882 as an Act that was both just and generous to the long-suffering among the people of Ireland. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he wished to say a few words in support of the necessity, if possible, of extending the time for payment of the arrears, or, at any rate, of amending the provision of the Arrears Act with respect to the hanging gale and the subject of distress in Ireland. As the hon. Member for the City of Cork had pointed out, the majority of the people who suffered either by the time of payment expiring, or by the construction of the clause respecting the hanging gale, came from the very poorest districts of Ireland, and were those who were in a state of the greatest poverty, there was every reason to fear that in the coming winter they would be, or they should be, recipients of relief. If a similar thing happened in any district of England, and it was likely
  1944
  that some hundreds of people would be devoid of food and employment, how would the case stand? The Local Government Board in England had the power, by an Order dated, he believed, 1852, entitled an "Order for Regulating Outdoor Relief," to authorize outdoor relief to be given to the able-bodied in any given Union. More than that, it had the power to require that labour should be given in return for such relief; and it had also the power to discontinue the relief when it thought fit. How did the case stand in Ireland? He had in the last few days vainly endeavoured to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the absolute inoperativeness of the Irish Local Government Board to deal with anything but the ordinary normal distress. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had a great many other more important matters to attend to; but he believed he had entirely failed to grasp the difference that existed between the Poor Law in the two countries. There was this further difference—that the Local Government Board in Ireland had absolutely no power whatever to give one penny in relief to able-bodied men unless the workhouse be full or infected. His right hon. Friend, in answer to his Question that night, said that the Local Government Board was satisfied with the provision of indoor relief in the workhouse, and until that was exhausted there was no danger of exceptional distress. He appealed to the experience of the years 1879–80, and he did not believe that, with the exception of the South Dublin Union, there was a single workhouse in Ireland, that was full; and yet they knew large numbers of people were receiving outdoor relief under the provisions of the Relief of Distress Act. He endeavoured to obtain the making of that power permanent, but it was not possible to do so, perhaps, at the time; and he did not know now what the Government could do, except boldly to confer upon the Local Government Board the power of issuing and regulating outdoor relief, trusting to Parliament for an indemnity. Whatever question there might be as to the Arrears Act, he did not believe there would be the slightest hesitation on the part of Parliament when it met again in February next to endorse any action that the Government might take. The

  1945
  illiberal provisions of the Irish Poor Law had an effect on the Local Government Board itself. It had an effect upon the Inspectors, gentlemen of the greatest humanity and intelligence, many of whom he personally knew, for when they went to a place like Tory Island, or to the poorest parts of Sligo, they only estimated the distress in its bearings upon the Poor Law which they administered. They did not look to the actual and narrow limits of the Poor Law, nor to the provision that until the workhouse was full, or infected, could able-bodied men get one penny in relief. He would, therefore, quite irrespective of the suggestions that had been made by other hon. Friends as to amending the Arrears Act, urge upon the Government, before it was too late, that they should take some steps to place the Local Government Board in Ireland in a position to deal effectively with distress should such distress ensue. He would second the Motion for Adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not blame the hon. Member for the City of Cork for this interruption to the Business of the House; but, as an English county Member, it was his duty to urge that English Business should be proceeded with. But the present irregularity was incidental to the very nature of the Arrears Act. By it they had reverted to the feudal system, and the State had become the landlord-in-chief over all Ireland. The House could not escape from these interruptions unless it appointed a Standing Committee, whose exclusive duty should be to attend to the operation of the Arrears Act.
  MR. SEXTONventured to say that the sole irregularity on this occasion had been that committed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate.) For the first occasion, perhaps, in the history of the House, a Motion for the Adjournment of the House was a regular and legal Motion. It had been supported by the requisite quorum under the New Rules, by twice the requisite quorum of hon. Members; and therefore it did not lie in the power of any hon. Member to rise and question the regularity of the proceeding. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Not for a moment.] This question
  1946
  of the administration of the Arrears Act was closely, was inextricably, connected with the question of distress, with the question of eviction, and with the question of crime; and he pitied the intelligence of the Gentlemen who put the claims of every-day English business before such an urgent question as that. He would like to consider the question by the light of two telegrams he had received, one of which he had already read to the House, from the parish priest of Columbkille, County Donegal, stating that widespread distress prevailed, that the Government had taken no action, and urging him (Mr. Sexton), for humanity's sake, to press the Government to save the people. The second telegram was from the Rev. Father Cosgrove, who said there was no Indian meal to be had in Sligo at any price, and asked what would the Government do while the people starved? He might be asked what was the connection between this widespread and threatening state of distress, and the question which was now before the House. He said it was quite plain that the persons who were unable to buy this Indian meal, the persons who were threatened with starvation, were in many cases, especially in the West of Ireland, the very persons who were suffering by the operation of the Arrears Act. In seven days more the time would have expired within which any tenant might satisfy his landlord in respect to the Act. The Prime Minister told them that he did not agree with The Freeman's Journal and other Irish papers that the Arrears Act had proved a total failure, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the time had not yet come when they were enabled to judge of the extent of the failure of the Act. He asked them to wait until December. He (Mr. Sexton) maintained with confidence that the moment had arrived when they could with perfect accuracy say that the Arrears Act had failed. How long was it since the Act was passed? It was passed some two or three months ago; and although the people of Ireland had for three years been passing through a critical period—a period of distress, a period of hunger, a period in which the earth did not bring forth the amount of rent due to the landlord; although they had this Arrears Act which the Prime Minister described as an act of policy, which being an act of policy should have

  1947
  been administered in a liberal spirit, they found that the total time allowed to the tenants to satisfy one of the essential conditions of the Act was only two or three months. He asked the House to remember that in the course of the debates on the Arrears Bill in that House the Prime Minister estimated the amount to be paid under the Act out of the public funds at over £2,000,000—he estimated that the Consolidated Fund would be charged that amount. ["No!"] At any rate, the charge upon the Church Fund and the Consolidated Fund together would be £2,000,000.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not intend to be inaccurate; but the case was this. I never gave that as my opinion, nor as the opinion of the Government, as the probable payment that would have to be made under the Act. In a case of the kind where the charge was one of great uncertainty the Government were obliged to take an outside estimate. It was the only course they could pursue in fulfilment of their duty; but I never expected the charge to reach that amount.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the estimate given from the Government side of the House was for that amount, and on the Opposition of the House right hon. Gentlemen whom he now saw present contended that the charge would be considerably in excess of that amount. The next point to consider was as to how many tenants ought the Government to give relief to; and he quoted a speech which he very well remembered—a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—who said that the average payment by the State in respect to each tenant would be £7. If they divided that amount into the total of"£2,000,000, which the Government estimated it would be necessary to spend, they would find that the Government estimated that 300,000 tenants, or one-half the total number in Ireland, would need assistance under the Act. When he called attention to the fact that the Government expected to be in a position to pay money to the landlords in respect to one-half of the total number of tenants, he said he was in a position to tell the House whether or not the Arrears Act had been a failure. Unless every tenant in Ireland who went in for the benefit of the Act satisfied his landlord in respect of the rent for the
  1948
  year 1881, he would be shut out finally and for ever from any benefit under the Act. Let the House bear that in mind, and follow him in a figure or two he proposed to state. He asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant a very few days ago how many tenants had made application for the benefits of the Arrears Act, and in how many of these cases had a favourable report been made, The total number of applications up to within a few days ago was 16,000—the population of one barony—16,000 out of 300,0C0 whom the Government hoped to help; and of the 16,000 in how many cases had favourable reports been made? In 1,200 cases. Upon the very verge of the practical expiration of the Arrears Act they were told that out of the 300,000 tenants whom the Government hoped to help by the Act, 1,200 cases, or one in 25,000, had been favourably reported upon. If that was not a deplorable failure, the meaning of the word "failure" was beyond his estimation. Why had the Act failed? He compared it with another Act which was passed by this House—the Prevention of Crime Act, under which, for the murder of relatives and for malicious injury to themselves, persons were entitled to present applications for compensation. That Act was administered in a very different spirit to the Arrears Act. They had their 3,000 police barracks all over Ireland, and the police in every district went to persons who had claims and informed them of their power to send in claims; and the consequence was that these ubiquitous police had not left a single person entitled to claim without having him well posted as to the nature of his claim and the mode to proceed. Did the Government follow any similar course under the Arrears Act? Did the police or Post Office officials of the Government, did any of the other State servants busy themselves, or were they directed to busy themselves, to inform the tenants in the wild districts of Ireland to take advantage of the Act? Not a single step was taken, and the poor tenants had no information, and were left to the fitful and desultory teaching of the Press. If they considered the state of the people as regarded education in the wild, remote mountainous districts of the West of Ireland, they could easily imagine that it was perfectly absurd to imagine that the great

  1949
  mass of the people—poor, ignorant, in many cases not knowing even the English tongue—could learn in the space of two or three months what benefit they might have and what course they ought to take to secure benefits under a complicated Statute such as this. Was it to be expected that an Act such as the Arrears Act could operate effectually in two or three months? Such a hope was from the very moment of its conception doomed to failure. What was one of the rules of the Land Commission under this Act? That a tenant who hoped to derive any benefit from this Act was obliged to serve a notice personally upon his landlord or his agent. There were thousands and tens of thousands of tenants in Ireland whose landlords lived within the sound of Big Ben, and who never went to Ireland. And the proposition coolly laid down by the Land Commissioners, and maintained until within 10 days ago, was that the poor tenant who wore straw about his legs instead of an ordinary garment, and brogues on his feet, should go and serve a notice personally on his landlord, a fashionable swell in London, or his agent in Dublin, that he intended to apply for benefit under the Arrears Act. That provision by which the tenant was obliged to serve notice was inserted by the magnates in "another place," and accepted by the Government. Not only had the tenants to serve this notice of intention; but after that, at the end of 10 days, they were pledged to serve a further notice personally upon the landlord or agent. Why, it came to this—that in order to obtain from the State a possible grant amounting to £7, according to the hon. and learned Solicitor General, a tenant might possibly have to make, or have made for him, two journeys from the wilds of Donegal to the heart of London. ["Oh!"] Well, it was quite possible. ["Oh!"] He recognized the groan of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He might be mistaken. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, that he had not groaned.] He (Mr. Sexton) apologized to the right hon. Gentleman—it was, perhaps, the hon. Member who sat next to him. To enable a tenant in a remote part of Ireland to personally serve the notices that he intended to apply for the benefits of the Arrears Act, it would be necessary for him, in the usual course,
  1950
  to make two personal journeys from this remote part to the heart of London or Dublin. The probable cost of these two journeys would be as much as the utmost grant he could obtain from the State. It was a sad thing that remedial measures—devised, he believed, honestly in the hour of a people's distress and hunger, and devised at times when the impulses of human nature were turned by want and desperation to crime—should, by the mode of its administration, be turned into a mockery and a farce. It was only 10 days ago that that rule which absolutely prohibited tenants taking advantage of the Act was relaxed. He wanted to ask the Prime Minister to reconsider his view that the period in which the tenant might satisfy the landlord in respect of the rent should be' extended, considering it had been shown that regulations had been enforced which shut out the great body of the tenants from the Act. The demands of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were as reasonable as could possibly be made to any Government. The first was that the period within which the tenants might satisfy the landlord in respect of the rent for 1881 should be extended until such time as the Court of the Land Commission should decide how much rent should be paid for that year. His hon. Friend simply asked that the time for payment of the rent for that year should be extended until the tenant knew, by a regular judicial decision, what was the amount of the rent he had to pay. The poor tenants of Ireland, if they managed to scrape together the amount, had a natural obstinate inclination to lodge that rent in one of the legal Courts. The regulation should be vested in the Land Commission itself, and it should be extended until the Land Commission said how much the poor man had to pay for the year. He should like to read extracts from one or two letters, to show the result the present course of uncertainty had produced. It was a marvellous thing that the Land Commission should have allowed two or three months to stand over, although the difficulty about the hanging gale clause was foreseen. All the Members of that Party, and all the strength and energy in them, opposed the introduction of that clause last Session. They knew perfectly well that rent was not

  1951
  paid in Ireland on any estate on the day on which it was due; and they knew that the landlords of Ireland, with that ingenuity, that unscrupulous disposition which they had always manifested in regard to every act for benefiting the tenants, would claim that whereas the rent was never paid upon the day on which it was actually due, that there was always some day of payment after, and that there was a hanging gale—they knew this claim would be put forward by the landlords. They knew that bewildering uncertainty preventing the tenant from taking any step, or doing anything which would arise in the people's minds all over Ireland; and they foresaw the moment this clause was introduced the wide and universal failure of the Act. Why did the Land Commissioners not give an authoritative decision? Why had they sent men all over Ireland—gentlemen selected by what secret extraordinary course he knew not—from various sections of society and different parts of the Kingdom? He had endeavoured to arrive at some understanding of the principle by which these investigators had been selected. He should have expected that they had had either some training in law, or that they had some knowledge of the relations between landlord and tenant. But what did he find from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? That officers in the Army and Navy were deemed to be persons peculiarly fitted to inquire into this question of rent between landlord and tenant in Ireland. He was not aware that either the quarter-deck or the barrack-square gave a man any extraordinary ability for the purpose of inquiring into the questions raised under the Arrears Act. The Government sent General Tisdal, an ex-General in Her Majesty's Army, as he was presumed to be extraordinarily qualified to decipher the Chinese puzzle of the Hanging Gale Clause. He went down to Sligo, and a tenant proved that the rent for 1881 was paid, and he produced two receipts. According to common sense one would have expected that the poor fellow had a right to claim that he had satisfied the demands of the landlord for the rent of 1881. The agent stated that on that property it was not the custom to pay the rent for May till the 1st of September; that was five months after it was due. It might be supposed by a reason-
  1952
  able person that there would not be a hanging gale upon that property, inasmuch as one full gale did not intervene between the gale in respect of which payment was made and the other was due. In other words, suppose a gale fell due in May the tenant did not pay the gale till September. What did the gallant General decide? He decided that there was a five months' hanging gale, a proposition which in itself was a manifest absurdity, because the second gale did not intervene, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly understood constituted the hanging gale. This General Tisdal was one of the corps, the battalion of 90 investigators, who had produced a perfectly paralyzed condition of chaos in the minds of the tenants of Ireland. They had no decision from the Land Court as to what the tenants had to pay, and they were within seven days of the last day on which a tenant could satisfy his landlord in respect of the rent of 1881. They found the Land Commission still declining to give a decision on the question, and they found 90 investigators drawn from the Army and the Navy giving all sorts of decisions. The tenants were left at sixes and sevens, and yet they were told the time could not be extended. He submitted the proposition to reason, and he asked the House was it not reasonable to ask that the Land Commission should first give a decision, and make it clear how much the tenant had to pay for 1881? After that decision had been given, a reasonable time should be allowed to elapse for the tenant to satisfy the demand. The second demand of his hon. Friend was that some provision should be made from the Church Fund for the payment of costs incurred to recover arrears of rent from people unable to pay. A number of tenants all over Ireland, might be able to satisfy the landlord in respect to the rent of 1881; but they could not pay the costs that had been heaped upon them by legal proceedings in the course of the last three years. Why had these costs been heaped upon them? For two reasons. First, because the landlords saw the Government intended to propose a measure of reform, and they proceeded to worry their tenants by law and to evict. The costs had been piled up. The Court of the Land Commission had proved itself hitherto quite unable to meet the demands made upon it. The

  1953
  total applications made up to the present moment was 90,000; but the Court of the Land Commission had not yet had before it more than one-sixth or one-seventh, of that number. Tenants who had applied to have their rents fixed had waited a full year, and their cases had not been heard, and they were still under the old rack rents. In the past year he was personally aware that many landlords in Ireland had availed themselves of the Land Court, and of its incapacity to meet the cases coming upon it, and had served notices of ejectment upon those poor tenants. The weakness, the incapability of the Land Court to deal with the business daily cast upon it was the reason why, if they had allowed the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to pursue his policy of test cases, and the Land Court to indicate generally to the landlords and tenants of Ireland what would be the average level of the reduction to be made, they would have had the landlords and the tenants asenting to the moral weight of those decisions; and he was able to say they would have had the process of pacification in Ireland advanced in one year to quite a remarkable extent. But they took their own course. They chose to imagine that all the statesmanship as well as all the knowledge of Ireland in the world existed on the Treasury Bench. They took their own course, and the result had been the stagnation of business in the Land Court. Landlords had said to their tenants if they dared to go into the Land Court they would pursue them for the arrears, and in many cases they had pursued them in the hope of receiving them before any law of reform could be passed. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had pointed out that there was a moral claim upon them to satisfy these costs as well as the rent of 1881. There was another aspect from which the matter might be viewed. The second quarter's rent had become due as well as the rent for 1881. Poor tenants in Ireland now found themselves in this position. They had satisfied the quarter's rent for 1881, and would satisfy it for 1882; but they must satisfy the law costs, which in many thousands of cases had been incurred. The Prime Minister's experience of human nature and knowledge of Ireland though secured at second-hand, were very considerable; and a moment's reflection must teach him that to present a
  1954
  proposition like that to the mass of the tenants of the West Coast of Ireland was to drive them from their homes. The Prime Minister opened his brief remarks that evening by felicitating the House prematurely, he thought, upon the decline of the number of evictions. Evictions had declined while the landlords were uncertain as to the course the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were to take. While the landlords thought it likely that they might be enabled to extract by reason of the juggling Hanging Gale Clause an additional half-year's rent from the tenants they held their hands; while the landlords thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might find the law costs for them, and might enable them to arrive at a reasonable method of settlement with the tenancy, they were afraid to exercise the legal powers vested in them. But the right hon. Gentleman had spoken that night in no unmistakable tones—the tenants had nothing more to expect—the Government would not alter the conditions—they would not extend the time. Although the Land Commissioners had refrained from giving the tenants the necessary information in order to let them know their powers and rights, the Government would not make any allowance. They must settle with the landlords on the 30th November, or they could not settle at all. That was what the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman had amounted to; and his words had, he feared, set once more in motion that storm of notices to quit which, in his own words, once before fell like snow flakes on the plains of Ireland. He looked with fear—he looked with horror—on the record. It was not 300, but 3.000 families that they would have evicted before this year ran out, and they might exercise their Prevention of Crime Act—they might sweep the highways of strangers—they might break into the houses of the peasants in the middle of the night—they might flood the docks with criminals, and have them tried by their magistrates and Judges; but he told them no exercise of such statutes, no matter how drastic they might be, no recourse to these powers would restore peace and order to Ireland until they considered the necessities and the claims of the humblest and most abject classes in the land.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, upon the subject of distress in Ireland, he was very hopeful that the distress would not be so great as had been anticipated; but he was very glad to find that his right hon. Friend and Successor had determined to err on the safe side, and had investigated for himself what was likely to be the extent of the distress and the best mode of meeting it. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst) had taken the opportunity of doing what he had done before—namely, to call the attention of the Government to the difference between the Irish Poor Law and the English Poor Law; and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should like to state to the House his own experience with regard to that question. In Ireland, the Boards of Guardians could not, without breaking the law—whatever might be their opinion as to the impossibility of otherwise relieving distress—grant outdoor relief. This could only be done by order of the Poor Law Board. During the former distress in Ireland the late Government, under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, passed an Act giving power to the Guardians to grant outdoor relief, and the present Government had found it necessary to continue that power. But the House should remember that in the Act passed by the late Government there was a clause indemnifying the Boards of Guardians if they were forced to break the law and grant outdoor relief. He understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) to state that, if necessary, the House would, no doubt, allow a Bill of Indemnity to be passed again, and no doubt it would. He merely made these remarks as he thought they had come to a time when it did not tend to give respect to the law in Ireland that they should have to break the law in order to give outdoor relief. He hoped that there would be such an alteration in the law as, while it would not encourage a system of outdoor relief, still would make it possible that it should be given upon the responsibility of the Government, at their instigation, and with their sanction. He could not leave this subject without stating he understood his right hon. Friend to say that if necessary he would venture to give the order for outdoor relief, although it would be technically breaking the law. At the same time he hoped and believed that the dis-
  1956
  tress would not be so severe as it had been supposed it would be by some hon. Members. With regard to the other portion of the Amendment, he must leave his right hon. Friend to state the details as to the action of the Commissioners; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) wished to say that he thought that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had rather misconceived the statistics supplied at the time the Arrears Act was introduced. The calculations were not made with a view to giving the number of tenants, but in order that the House might be informed of the maximum amount required. When the hon. Member for Sligo said he thought the right hon. Gentleman meant to provide for 300,000 tenants, he must have been under a misapprehension.
  MR. SEXTON: The sum required was stated to be £2,000,000, and each tenant was to be allowed on an average £7.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he certainly never expected that 300,000 tenants would come under the Act, and that the amount was very much exaggerated. He was very much in favour of the Arrears Bill being passed, and he never believed it would apply to the larger number of oases. He had found that the payment of the actual amount of arrears was more general than was supposed. Rents were paid in numerous instances in March and April of last year. Then the limitation of £30 brought down the number of applications under the Act very considerably. Then the limitation introduced by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), that one year's rent should be paid, tended still further to diminish the number. As he had already stated on a former occasion, there were a great number of cases in which applications would not be made at all, because the tenants were too poor; and he was satisfied that nothing the House could do in the way of extension of time or in payment of costs would enable these poor tenants to pay that one year's rent. He knew that there were cases in the West of Ireland in which nothing would enable the people to go on with their tenancies but paying them money to help them in their miserable and hopeless position. There were some under £10 and some under £5; they could not make a living out of their small hold-

  1957
  ings; and it was impossible that their I cases could be met by the Arrears Act or by any amendment of it. Detailed answers to detailed objections would, of course, be given by the right hon. Gentleman; but he confessed he was rather slow to believe that the tenants in Ireland who could take advantage and who wished to take advantage of that Act did not know of it. He did not think that was in accordance with the general interest in those matters that was taken by the tenantry. Although the matter of the hanging gale was a very complicated business, he did not imagine that any tenants who could pay the year's rent, and wished to do it, would be prevented by any difficulty of that kind, or, at least, they would be exceedingly few in number.
  MR. PARNELL,interposing, said, that what he had wished to show was that a great many tenants who paid their rent last winter were not aware that it could be credited to the rent of 1881.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that they really had paid a year's rent.
  MR. PARNELL: Some part of it.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not mean to say that every case could be met; no Bill could be made to meet every case. But he doubted whether there was any sufficient ground for a continuance of exceptional legislation; and unless there was a strong necessity for passing another Arrears Act, he believed it would be no true kindness to the tenants themselves to continue the course of exceptional legislation. Nothing was more for their real interest than to find that there was some finality on the Land Question, and that those who lived by agriculture could go on and get a fair return for their industry. Therefore he could not but think that the Government had done right in declining to make any fresh changes in regard to those Acts.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was astonished that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had supported the Arrears Bill by vote and by speech, should now, when it was found that the Bill had failed to answer its objects, come down to the House and say—"Let the Bill remain as it is." The Prime Minister had calculated that
  1958
  the number of tenants who were liable I for arrears and who could not pay them without the aid of the Arrears Act would be little short of 200,000, and that the maximum sum that would be required to meet the demands made under the Act would be £2,000,000. What, however, were the real facts? Out of the 200,000 anticipated applicants, only about 16,000 had actually demanded relief within a week of the time when their demands would become no longer possible; while, up to the present moment, only £500,000 sterling, at the outside, would be required to meet the applications of tenants who had already made demands. [An hon. MEMBER: £250,000.] Well, if it was only £250,000 his argument became all the stronger; for he maintained that these figures proved that the Arrears Act was as complete and disastrous a failure as the history of legislation by the House could show. If the Act had thus failed, ought there not to be some attempt immediately made to remedy the failure? In reference to some of the points which had been urged by his hon. Friends, it would not be necessary for him to say much. He would not say anything about the Hanging Gale Clause, nor would he say anything with regard to the question of costs; but there was a point he wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. There never was a case which the right hon. Gentleman did not say was an exaggerated one, if it was put forward by the Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman got up in his place and, taking a rose-coloured view of the situation, said, in vague general language, that the hon. Member's fears were not well founded—vagueness and generalities were all very fine; but they were standing face to face with the shadow of famine, and such language was the most unstatesmanlike and the most cruel that could be used in that House. The facts of the case should be faced, and at the very first moment that a statesman became aware of them. What he wanted to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that there was an almost unparalleled failure of the staple produce of the people in some parts of the country, and a very considerable failure in other parts; and that, on the other side, there was the fact that the food by which the people

  1959
  supplied the want of the potato was dearer than it, perhaps, had ever been at this time of the year. Was it not a fact that the high price of Indian corn was almost unparalleled for this season of the year? If the right hon. Gentleman would study the figures of the importations into Ireland, he would find that the imports of Indian meal always showed by their dearness when a famine was approaching. In 1877 about 10,000 tons of maize were imported into Galway; in 1878, when the distress was beginning to appear, the quantity rose to 17,000 tons; and in 1879, when the distress was most severe, it further rose to 19,000 tons. Last year's price of Indian corn was £6 6s. per ton. This year it was £10 10 s. per ton—in other words, the tenant's shilling of last year was now only worth 8d., so far as the substitution for their staple food was concerned. Under those circumstances, instead of breaking the law in regard to outdoor relief and then applying to Parliament for an indemnity, the Government ought to adopt the more straightforward course of at once asking the House for the legislation which the occasion demanded. A short Bill of three clauses would settle the whole question of arrears, and would meet the impending distress. He would undertake to say that such a Bill could be passed in three nights, and that even the Conservative Party, if they attended to the advice of their Irish Friends, would not oppose it. Let Her Majesty's Government, then, bring in such a Bill, and if it was rejected in "another place," let the responsibility rest with that "other place," and on those who, in the face of impending famine, did not hesitate to prevent the Irish tenants from reaping the advantage of beneficent legislation.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that the connection of the Arrears Act with the distress in Ireland was rather remote, because there was a large class of small tenants who were not in a position, and would not be in a position, to pay a year's rent, and whose condition would not be permanently benefited by any improvement of the Arrears Act. But he still thought that there was also a large class of tenants not so poor and impoverished, who, if a reason-
  1960
  able extension of time were granted for the payment of arrears, would be able, with advantage, to avail themselves of the benefit of the Act. It was to the case of such tenants he wished to direct the attention of the House. He quite agreed that exceptional legislation could only be justified by stern necessity; but inasmuch as Parliament had already declared exceptional legislation to be necessary, the question was—howoughtthey to frame that legislation in order to meet the necessities of the case? Parliament had already passed a measure; but had that measure answered the purposes for which it was intended, or had it failed? If it had failed, was it possible to amend it so as to adapt it to present necessities? With that question in view, he would remind the House of the grounds for passing the Arrears Act. These grounds were not merely the interests of the landlord or the tenant class as such; but the interests of the peace of the country, by stopping evictions, and assisting the operation of the Land Act just passed by Parliament. Because, so long as the question of arrears was not dealt with, large classes of tenants would be debarred from using that Act. No class of tenants could apply to the Court while they were saddled with arrears; and they were, practically, at the mercy of their landlords. These being the grounds on which Parliament justified the passing of the Arrears Act—the general good, the interests of peace, and the operation of the Land Act—the question was, had it served its purpose? Unless Parliament saw some reason to alter its view of the situation, no statesman would be justified in refraining from coming to Parliament to effect any necessary alterations if it were shown that such alterations were required to make the Act work. The amount of arrears supposed to exist in Ireland at the passing of the Bill was estimated from £2,000,000 to as high as £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. He would not stop to consider what was meant by those figures being the maximum amount, but would inquire how much had, in fact, been advanced. That sum was only £215,000. The Chief Secretary had informed them that out of 16,845 applications, 1,243 had been favourably reported on, making a total money expenditure of £5,062 3s. 1d.; 42 cases had been unfavourably reported on, and 3,119 were under investigation,

  1961
  while 6,535 still remained to be dealt with. Now, could any candid person say that that represented anything like a dealing with the enormous question of arrears in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated that in the opinion of the Land Commissioners it was impossible to speak with any accuracy until the month of December; but was there any reasonable expectation that the figures he had mentioned would then be more than slightly increased? If the House were asked to render the Act more efficacious by enlarging the time of its operation, they would rightly expect to be furnished with some reason for the request; and he could give some reasons furnished to him by a gentleman of experience—one of the investigators in the county Mayo. They were contained in a letter, dated the 17th of November last, in which he said—
  "It was mentioned by a solicitor in court today that numbers of tenants would be unable to take advantage of the Arrears Act unless the time was extended. Many do not understand it yet, and some here in the remote parts of Mayo have not even heard of it. Lord Sligo's agent told me that it was only lately that their tenants had made up their minds to try to avail themselves of it, and here they must pay their rent by the sale of cattle, and the fairs at which they sell are many of them held in December. We have had some hard cases to-day. After service of notice to apply for payment of arrears, a landlord renewed execution under an old judgment for rent, and the wretched tenants borrowed a lot of money and paid it. There was only a small balance due to clear the rent of 1881, and the rest of the money which remains in the Sheriff's hands will, of course, go against last year's arrears. Of course, they (the tenants) might have applied to the Court to stay proceedings; but some of these people are very simple."
  Now, he begged it to be remembered that the Arrears Bill was only passed last year, and that during its passage through that House the Prime Minister had been warned that the time fixed for its operations was too limited, and that he (Mr. C. Russell) and others had made attempts to get the time extended. They knew the difficulties the Prime Minister had to contend with were not confined to that House, nor were they greatest in that House; but they were entitled to point to the fact that the views they were expressing as to the insufficiency of the time allowed were not being expressed for the first time. The grounds upon which this application for an extension of time for the working of the
  1962
  Act was based were—first, that the tenants had not yet had sufficient time to gather up money for the payment of their rent; and, secondly, that the Arrears Bill had provided a most cumbrous and expensive machinery for carrying out the intentions of the Legislature—a provision which, in his judgment, was a high defect in the Bill. What was that machinery which the tenant had to avail himself of for the purpose of getting the benefit of the Act? There were two questions connected with that point—the first, that of joint application; and the second, that referring to the application of the tenant without the consent of his landlord. There were some landlords to be found who were fair enough to meet their tenants; but there were others who acted to the contrary under this Act, as under the Land Act, and would not come forward to assist their tenants. What was the machinery to be used by a tenant making an application without the consent of his landlord? He had, in the first instance, to give 10 days' notice that he was entitled to apply, and then he had to serve notice of his application on the landlord. Next, the Commissioners sent down notice to both landlord and tenant that the investigator would attend for the purpose of making an investigation. That, however, was only the initial step of the matter, because all the investigator had to do was to see that the preliminary conditions of the Act had been complied with. All these steps, however, meant, more or less, expense. The matter then came before the Land Commission, who made the order for payment; and subsequently, after other action, there was the power of appeal. Could more cumbersome machinery than this have been devised for dealing with the matter in which a great number of persons were interested, most of whom had neither the position, the education, or the means to go through all the necessary technical procedure? But in addition to all these difficulties there was that arising out of the hanging gale, which had been very properly likened to a Chinese puzzle by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. He tried to understand it some months ago, but he had failed, and he did not understand it now. He had, he might say, very honestly tried to master it, but had failed. It might, he thought, fairly be said that the investigators were in the same con-

  1963
  dition. Mark the result. The investigator might come to the conclusion that the tenant had paid the rent for 1881; but on appeal from the investigator the Land Commission might say—"That is not the right construction;" and so the tenant, having the ruling of the investigator in his favour, was told by the Land Commissioners that that view was wrong. In that manner the poor tenants had the door shut against them. Was it, therefore, unreasonable that when a difficulty of that kind had arisen, as to what was the amount the tenant had to pay for 1881, the time should be extended, so that he might have an opportunity given him for paying the money after a judicial decision had determined what was the amount to be paid? These were some of the obstacles in the way of the tenants enjoying the benefits of the Arrears Act. The resolution and the ability of the Prime Minister were fully able to remove them. Although he had stated that he could do nothing, he (Mr. Russell) hoped if it should turn out that the sanguine anticipations of the Land Commissioners should not be realized, he hoped not in the interest of the landlord or tenant, but in the interest of the general peace of the community, that the Act might be altered so as to enable it to effect its purpose.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that there was a great difficulty among the tenants in being able to tell whether they were entitled to the benefits of the Land Act, and a large number of applicatioas were daily received by the Mansion House Committees making inquiries to that effect. He charged the Commissioners with having created a great deal of this difficulty with regard to the hanging gale. There was nothing in the Arrears Act which, in his opinion, raised the question at all. The only question raised was whether the rent due upon a certain gale day, the 1st of May or the 1st of November, had been usually paid on some other day? The tenants were quite unable to say whether they had paid sufficient rent under the Arrears Act or not, and would have to wait three weeks until the decision was made. What was to be done in the meantime? The tenant said the landlord demanded the half-year's rent, and if he did not pay he might lose the benefits of the Act, and if he did pay it, it might be thought that ho ought not to have done so. With
  1964
  regard to the 10 days' notice, that was a simple thing to an intelligent man, but to the poor countrymen in the villages in Ireland it was a greater difficulty. They were told they must send their notices to the office of the landlords' solicitors, and they had the greatest difficulty in finding out where their offices were. Sometimes they got letters from Dublin, sometimes from Paris or elsewhere, telling them to lodge their rents at a certain bank, and that was all many of them knew about their landlords. He believed that if the tenants were allowed but one month extra in which to pay their 1881 rent, a large number would avail themselves of it and pay the rent. Surely no one could object to that. He did not believe the landlords would strongly object to it. Moreover, in the case of harsh landlords, tenants who wished to go into the Arrears Court were threatened with an ejectment notice. That had happened in many cases, and the matter should be considered. If the Government would bring in a Bill containing all the provisions which the hon. Member for the City of Cork suggested, they might extend the time in which the money was to be paid. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that night that when the workhouses were full then outdoor relief would be given—he meant to fill the workhouses first. A more bitter message than that had not been sent over to Ireland. There was nothing that the Irishman dreaded more than going into the workhouse. He would starve on a ditch-side first. They were receiving communications from all parts of Ireland, and from reliable sources; and he told the Government that the distress would be as bad this winter as it was in 1877, and yet there were no preparations being made for it. Did the Chief Secretary for Ireland mean to break the law and assist the people? The distress was great, and they knew more about it than the Government did. Why, then, did not the Government, during the present Session, ask Parliament for some powers? As the lives of a large number of people were at stake, surely a Bill might be brought in.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he had meant to be a listener to the debate; and having in view the fact that the debate was more or less irregular, though legal, he should make his remarks short. His experience of the working of the

  1965
  Arrears Act was different to that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appeared to him that there was very little interest taken in his county on the question of arrears, for he had not received more than two letters from his constituents upon the matter, while he had received many upon the subject of Court valuers. He believed that that was due either to the fact that the rent was better paid than was expected, or to the fact that the tenants hesitated to take the oath as to inability, knowing that they could pay if they would. He heard with great surprise that the applications under the Arrears Act only amounted to something like £250,000; and he could not account for that fact, except for the reasons given by hon. Gentlemen opposite, by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and by the fact that there were tenants who demurred to taking the oath. He would have no objection, if Parliament saw its way, to lengthen the time and give another month. He would offer no objection to the proposition, but would vote in its favour; but still, even after another month, from the absence of promptitude which had existed, he could believe there would still be a vein of inertia which would prevent tenants from applying in time. At all events, it was a most important matter for the benefit of those poor people that, before the debate terminated, they should know exactly where they stood, and to know whether any extension of time was going to be made or not. From the Prime Minister's words he gathered there was not; but it was a matter of importance that the tenants' minds should be set at rest. Apparently, expectations had been raised which were not to be realized. He heard with pain and regret a remark fall from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to the effect that the Irish people would look in vain to this House or to the Prime Minister for justice to Ireland.
  MR. PARNELL: I asked the Prime Minister not to allow that to be said.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, if that was so, he would not make the remark he was about to make. On the contrary, he had always endeavoured to show that it was to that House and to the Prime Minister that Ireland should look for justice; and he thought the instance of the long Session of 1881, and the arduous labours of the Prime Minis-
  1966
  ter in that Session for Ireland, was a proof of the truth of that statement.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he could not share the view expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, because, unfortunately, he represented constituents in Roscommon who had need of the Arrears Act, many of them being sadly in need of its provisions; and it was his duty to urge upon the Government that they should give the people in that county more time, that they might have an opportunity of using the Act which was intended for their benefit. This Act was one of the few measures which Ireland had reason to thank the House for. The people were well disposed towards the Act. They desired to avail themselves of its benefits; and, certainly, in his own county (Roscommon) the poorer people were making very great sacrifices in order to bring themselves within its provisions. They were, unfortunately, suffering from distress owing to the many bad seasons which had afflicted the West of Ireland. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), had undertaken to say that there was not so much danger of distress as had been represented from the Benches on which the Irish Members sat. So far from there being little danger of distress, the information which he (Mr. O'Kelly) now brought fresh from Roscommon was to the effect that there never had been, since 1846, a worse outlook for a large mass of poor people in Ireland than there was now. The common opinion of most respectable men in his county, not belonging to any one Party or class, but Conservative landlords, land agents, and business people, was that the failure of the potato crop in Roscommon had not been so bad in any year since 1846 as it was in the present year. This distress was further increased by the fact that many of the poor people were even selling out their little stock of oats in order to make the payment of rent that would bring them the benefits of the Arrears Act. This was increased by the fact that the poor tenants had no stock left. Dear bread and dear potatoes instituted the present famine. The really important point as to whether this Act ought or ought not to be extended as to time turned upon the question—had the poor people of Ireland had a fair chance

  1967
  of using the Act? Evidence had already been adduced that there were difficulties in the way of utilizing its provisions. So difficult was the procedure made under the rules by the Courts that it was practically only within the last 10 days that the Courts had been open to the people; and it was, he thought, necessary for them to give 10 days' notice to their landlords before they could be brought under the action of the measure at all. Considering these difficulties, he thought the claim might fairly be put forward on behalf of these poor people that the time should be extended; and he submitted that the demand for its further extension was one that had been completely justified by the evidence brought forward by his Colleagues. While he was in Roscommon he attended one of these Courts, and observed how complicated was the nature of the procedure adopted there. He found Major General Tisdal, who was evidently a very respectable and well-meaning man, but seemingly with no knowledge of law, acting as the legal representative of the landlord, and bullying most of the tenants, who were too poor to employ a lawyer, and were perfectly undefended. This man was completely in the hands of the lawyers, and he had to do what the lawyers told him. Under these circumstances, the difficulties of properly utilizing the Act were, of course, great so far as the poor tenants were concerned; and on their behalf, therefore, it seemed to him that a fair case had been made out for an extension of time. With regard to the present distress, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said it was probably not so severe as it had been represented; and a similar statement had been made by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, based, no doubt, on one of the Reports of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. But it should be remembered that these Inspectors did not come very much in contact with the people; they spent most of their time in the company of the landlords or in the county clubs. They knew very little of what was going on in the country, except when ordered specially to go and inform themselves as to a certain state of facts, and then their examination was very superficial. But, on the other hand, what were the views of the Poor Law Guardians, of the
  1968
  tradesmen, of the agents, and of the people whose daily life brought them into almost hourly contact with these poor tenants. He held in his hand a resolution passed by the Board of Guardians of Boyle, and among them were the representatives of several of the local landlords. This was not a resolution passed by any mere section of the community, or by the followers of any political Party. It was a resolution passed unanimously to the following effect:—
  "That the Guardians of Boyle Union hereby call the attention of the Local Government Board and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the serious and grave condition that the affairs in this Union have assumed, and to the starvation impending over thousands of householders in consequence of the total failure of the potato crop among the small farmers, the destruction of the oats crop to a great extent by the recent storm and had weather, to the depreciation of the hay crop, and to the various householders that are without stock, and unless the Government come to their assistance they must die of want."
  A resolution of that kind was much more valuable than the mere opinion of the right hon. Member for Bradford, who judged simply from a mere general idea. The Government would find that they were making a great mistake unless they faced this difficulty at once, and took measures to meet the danger that now confronted them.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no one who has listened to this discussion can deny that it is an interesting result of a novel but very Constitutional process by which the attention of the House has been called to this subject; and whatever hon. Members' own feelings may be as regards this question, they will, at all events, allow that those who take the gloomy and anxious views of the Mover of the Motion are justified in setting an example which, however, I hope will not be followed except on occasions at least as momentous as the present. The fears which have prompted hon. Gentlemen to take this course are not shared to a very great extent by the Government. I have taken down the words of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) who stated, reproducing in substance what had been stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that the Arrears Act has failed, and he then talks as if all were over. But the hon. Member for Sligo and other hon. Members have not, in my opinion, brought to their minds

  1969
  the fact that the matter is not over, and that so far from there being only seven days in which tenants can take advantage of the Act, and that within a week the failure or success of the measure will be evident, there is still before them a space of more than five weeks. I shall try and show in a single sentence that there is confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) on the subject that does not exist in the mind of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The hon. Member for Roscommon says that the poor people have had no chance given them of taking advantage of the Act, because they have been obliged to give 10 days' notice of their intention. That is quite true; but the notice has not to be given before the payment of the critical year's rent—the rent of 1881—but before application is made to the Court to come within the benefits of the Act, and that application may be made not only until November 30, but any time before the 31st December. Therefore, it was no argument why the Government should extend a date which has no reference whatever to this 10 days' notice. I do not for a moment say that I am capable of enlightening hon. Members who have spoken on this subject, nor have I detected anything in their arguments to show that they have any inaccuracy in their minds. But, in my opinion, they take too gloomy a view of the position. Their view, at all events, is not the view of the Land Commissioners. As long ago as October 21 the Land Commissioners prophesied that what is now happening would happen. They prophesied that the applications for admission to the benefits of the Act would come in at a very late date indeed, and that they would astonish and raise very great apprehension on the part of a Government anxious to see full advantage taken of the Act. The reason they gave for this remarkable prophecy was that the preparation of joint applications on large estates is a tedious operation, requiring that the tenant shall be seen personally by the agent who fills up the forms, and that most of the principal landlords were deferring communications with their tenants on the subject till the usual time for receiving rents after the November fairs; and they go on to say that
  1970
  experience abundantly proves that where a last day is fixed for making applications a large portion of the applications will be deferred till the eleventh hour. They draw that deduction from experience of the Land Law Act in Ireland, in which the making of applications as regarded what are called unfair leases was deferred in a great number of cases till the very last day; and under Section 59, which deals with arrears, more Notices were lodged in the last available week than in all the rest of the time during which they could have been lodged. Therefore, this remarkable, prophetic, and anticipatory statement of the Land Commissioners is in itself a source of comfort. Then comes the question whether the generous appeal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the hon. Member for Roscommon have been answered, and whether the poor people of Ireland have had a full chance of availing themselves of the Act. I cannot imagine that greater publicity could be given to any measure enacted with the honest intention of benefiting Ireland. On August the 22nd, three days after the passing of the Act, the rules and forms were published; and soon after the publication of the rules, which were first sold for 6d., the Land Commissioners caused leaflets, with copies of the rules upon them, to be circulated through the rural post offices at a charge of ½d. Of that edition of the rules more than 100,000 copies were distributed. In addition to all this the Commissioners, through the agency of the Constabulary, distributed among the clergy of all denominations a pamphlet giving advice to landlords and tenants; and as complaints began to be made of the difficulty of procuring forms, the Land Courts took care always to keep a very large stock at their office, and supplied them promptly and in such large numbers that if they were all used the Government might well hope that the Act would have a very extensive application. The opinion of the Commissioners to which have referred is still unshaken, and they report to me this morning that they understand that upon some large estates the landlords and tenants are now engaged in filling up joint applications. That is a matter for congratulation, because they can be presented till December; or, if the Commissioners choose to extend the time, they can be presented till the end of

  1971
  April. The general opinion of the Commissioners has, as far as I have had the opportunity of ascertaining, been borne out by the opinion of private persons who are well qualified to judge. Only this morning I got an unsolicited letter from a gentleman with whom I am not acquainted, but who is agent for a wealthy nobleman and for a considerable number of landed proprietors. He says—
  "There seems to be a general idea that because there has been hut a comparatively small claim upon the Treasury under the Arrears Act up to the present time, therefore the number and amount of the applications will be trifling, hut that it is necessary to bear to mind that the bulk of the claims will he made next month. The landlords of this county (Clare) almost invariably join with their tenants in their applications, and comparatively few of the joint applications are sent in as yet."
  That opinion is likewise shared by the Under Secretary at Dublin Castle, Mr. Hamilton, who, as the result of his conversation with the people of all classes, official and non-official, says he has no doubt that a very large number of applications will be received before the 31st December. He says he does not see the object that tenants would have in applying before the last day fixed, even if they fulfilled the necessary preliminary of having paid a year's rent before the 30th of November. He adds that he has no reason to think the Act will be a failure, and that the cases in which tenants have failed in consequence of a difficulty connected with the gale to fulfil the conditions with which they must comply before obtaining the benefits of the Act are few. He expects, in fact, that the measure will be made use of largely, and that the £250,000 which has been spoken of by some Members will be very greatly exceeded by the amount of money which will eventually have to be paid. I believe the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if he consults the Records of the House, will find that the question of the date for the payment of the year's rent was not very prominently brought forward in the debates in Committee on the Bill. Persons holding Office should not insist too strongly upon their own opinions; and it may be that the amount of money required for carrying out the Arrears Act may fall below the estimate of the Government, though, as has been more than once said to-night, that estimate was
  1972
  a maximum. If the Act fulfilled the purpose for which it has been passed, a lower expenditure than was at one time anticipated will be more an advantage than a disadvantage. The original belief of the Government was that every tenant who could satisfy the conditions of the Act, conditions which any tenant who can hold his head above water ought to be able to satisfy, would be able to place himself in a position to reap the advantages of the Land Act. That was the belief of the Government when they introduced the measure, and up to this time they have seen no reason to alter their belief. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has discussed at some length the question of the hanging gale, and has criticized the decisions of the Commissioners with respect to it. Well, I am not here to criticize the Land Commission, and I am not here to defend them; but I nevertheless think it right to say that they have acted with great energy and promptitude, and with every desire to make the Act succeed. The hon. Member for the City of Cork said that a decision should have been given weeks or months ago. But they have evidently relied upon giving a decision as a Court of Appeal from the investigators upon this important question. That reliance has, however, been defeated, because no tenant or tenant's solicitor will come forward to dispute the decisions of the investigators. In my own opinion, the clause with regard to the hanging gale is as clear as the sun at noonday; and that, as far as I can gather, is the opinion of the Land Commissioners. It appears to be the opinion of the tenants and their solicitors also, otherwise how does the hon. Member for Cork account for the remarkable fact contained in a letter written by one of the Land Commissioners, in which, after stating that he considers Gallagher's case at an end, he says in cases, where the construction of Sub-section 3 appeared to arise, the attention of the solicitors of tenants was called to the advisability of bringing the cases before the Court for judicial decision; but as yet none have done so, though they have been informed that every facility would be given for the purpose, and though the Commissioners even went so far as to indicate that if the question of costs stood in the way they would be prepared to make some arrangement to obviate the

  1973
  objection. The hon. Member for Cork thinks that very definite instructions should be given to the investigators. On that point I do not join issue with the hon. Gentleman or otherwise; but the Land Commissioners take a different view. They consider that they are a judicial body, and that the investigators are so likewise, and that the only way in which they can give instructions to the investigators as a Court of First Instance is by judicial decision on a case of appeal. Whether that is or is not the best way of going to work, it is certainly a most defensible and intelligible method; and the curious fact that not a single appeal has been lodged makes me think that landlords, tenants, investigators, Land Commissioners, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, take exactly the same view of the case. Her Majesty's Government agree thoroughly with the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson) that it is most important that it should be known clearly and thoroughly whether or not the date in the Act is to be kept. The next six or seven days and the next five or six weeks are very critical, and it is most important that the tenants should be assured from what is passing in the House to-night that whatever arrangements the tenants may make to bring them within the scope of the Act should be made within the time. It would be a cruel kindness to offer any hopes which could not be realized. Then the hon. Member for the City of Cork said that large numbers of tenants are excluded from the benefit of the Act—some from inability to pay their rent, and some from inability to pay previous costs. No doubt, with regard to the payment of costs, if it had been originally included in the Act, it would have been very easy to argue in favour of that inclusion. But there is a great difference between the case of arrears and the case of costs, and I think the hon. Member for the City of Cork greatly exaggerates the practical importance of the question. The cases in which costs have been incurred may be divided into four classes. The first was where the landlord has brought an ejectment and evicted the tenant. In such cases the costs incurred are very light, unless they have been increased presumably by the tenant's own act, and, in some cases, by his fault. The actual costs of ejectments in the Civil Bill Court ranged between 10 s.
  1974
  and 30 s. in undefended cases. But only where the tenant defended the case, in some instances from natural litigious-ness, in others owing to bad advice, would the costs be so large as to form a real bar to his taking the benefit of the Act.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman included the sheriff's costs in his statement?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not. Then comes the cases where the landlord has recovered judgment, but has not brought an ejectment. In such a case the costs would be lass, because the costs of ejectments are a large factor in the matter.
  MR. SEXTONremarked that evictions were usually taken in the Superior Courts, where the costs would be greater.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have heard that there is a considerable desire manifested, in the case were a landlord has recovered judgment, to induce the tenant to sell his interest in order to satisfy the judgment. In these cases the tenants are far outside the scope of the Act, and money given by legislation for the purpose of restoring them would be a proceeding not contemplated by the Arrears Act, which is a most exceptional benefit to a particular class of distressed persons; and if Parliament were to extend it they would be making a demand which they have no right to make upon the surplus of the Irish Church Fund, which was intended for the benefit of the whole of the people of Ireland, and perhaps also upon the British taxpayer. The hon. Member spoke of evictions, and quoted figures of a most painful and deplorable kind. The evictions this year down to October are 4,249; last year they were 3,415, and the year before 2,110. These figures are very painful; but no more powerful machinery was ever set up to prevent evictions than has been provided by Parliament in the beginning of this Session, in the shape of the Arrears Act, and last Session in the shape of the Land Act. I think that Parliament has done as much as it is called upon to do in order to prevent this very painful process of eviction; and it may be a question whether those eviction Returns are not greater arguments against the hon. Gentleman's belief, the holding of which proceeds from his anxiety for the welfare of Ireland, that a great number of tenants are being left out in the cold.

  1975
  In August the evictions were 753; in September they had fallen to 349; in October they were 306; and down to the 22nd of this month of November they were only 131—that is to say, hardly more than half the number in any previous month of the year. I cannot help hoping that this is a proof that the Arrears Act has already begun to work in the direction of stopping evictions. I believe I need say no more as to the main contention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but so much has been said of the coming distress that if I were wholly silent on the subject, it might give rise to the very serious apprehension that the Government are not alive to the gravity of the situation. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), arguing in favour of the proposals of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, has said that the Irish people are face to face with famine. Now, I cannot admit that the questions of famine and the Arrears Act are as nearly allied as some hon. Members suppose, nor do I believe that famine could be averted by enabling a very few more poor people to meet the mild, the indulgent, and, as some thought, the lax conditions of that measure. But, though I do not see the bearing of one of these questions on the other, none the less do I regard the distress on the West Coast of Ireland as one of the most trying difficulties that has occurred since my official connection with the country. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has asked what the Government will do while the people starve, and another hon. Member has feared that both the late and the present Chief Secretaries for Ireland take too rose-coloured a view of the situation. But, considering the part played by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) during a former famine, he cannot be expected to underrate the gravity of the recurrence of such a disaster; while, for my own part, I can assure the hon. Member that I am not very likely to take a rose-coloured view of Irish distress, for when I was a lad almost the first recollections I have were of living in a house where two years' work was done in connection with famine, which was generally believed to be the hardest work ever any man did in the records of English officialism. What has the Government done? They have loft no stone unturned to get in-
  1976
  formation. Inspectors have been sent all over the country, and with regard to the districts where there was distress they have been sent again and again, and information other than that from Inspectors has also been obtained. Now that the Government is anxious to be informed by a more minute system of channels of information than the Inspectors constitute, in seven counties in Ireland—namely, in Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo, Leitrim, Kerry, Galway, and West Cork, a Circular has been issued to the Resident Magistrates which is to be distributed all over their districts, so that a most minute account shall be given of the prospects of the people in every separate village and district; and every one of these which I have hitherto seen shows that, at any rate, the examination will be most thorough. These Circulars will be answered without any fear of shocking official ears or delicate susceptibilities. Then comes the question of what the Government propose to do. Resolutions have been passed calling upon the Government to advance money for public works. Now, that is not the policy which the Government intend to adopt. The Government consider that the question of public money is one apart from that of relieving distress. They consider that this should not be made an occasion for giving money for public works which would not otherwise be given. The experience of the great Famine has convinced the Government that that is not the most efficient or satisfactory way of relieving distress, and I cannot say that the experience of the last distress has brought forward any consideration which would induce them to alter that opinion. The truth is, that spending money on public works does not insure the relief of the right people, for the sick and the starving stay at home, and men come to labour who do not want the wages, and would have been better employed on their every day work. In the great Famine of which I spoke just now, people gave up all their ordinary rural occupations and trades, till at last they were withdrawn to a dangerous degree from the work of agriculture. This method is also a most extravagant form of relief, as it makes the people far too eager for their share of the profit, and, while it affords no real test of distress whatever, is only a sort of bounty for work done. What can be more striking than the fact that

  1977
  in the great Famine 3,000,000 of people were supported by public works, and cost in one month more than £1,000,000, and in one week as much as £259,000? The enormous extravagance of that system has induced the Treasury to adopt a plan founded on the principle of the Poor Law, and to give relief in the most direct form of food, to be provided by funds locally raised, and assisted, if necessary, out of the Exchequer. By this kind of relief 3,000,000 of people were fed for six months at a cost of £1,500,000 of public money, a sum which, under the extravagant system of relief by public works, would have fed them for only six weeks.
  MR. PARNELL: Where was that, and when?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That was done all over Ireland in the year 1847.
  MR. O'KELLY: On what diet?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The diet could not have been unsatisfactory, for the physical results of that kind of relief were considered better than those of the other system. The Government now have made preparations to give assistance through the Poor Law. They have issued a Circular on November 18 to the Boards of Guardians, giving them all the necessary warnings and information, and the Circular is so plainly worded that the most unlettered persons cannot make a mistake. They have also in preparation another Circular, which will be issued, if necessary, enabling Boards of Guardians, where the rates absolutely fail, to make, applications to the proper authorities, and encouraging them to do so in case of need. I am happy to think that the Government intend to work this system of relief with a degree of supervision and a strength of public money, which will give the most positive assurance that the apprehensions of the hon. Member will not be realized, and that the people will not be allowed to starve. The hon. Member asks whether the Government will shrink from any step that may be necessary; but I venture to say that that will not be the case, and those who have followed the administration of the Irish Government since the beginning of the Session will be able to judge whether they have displayed timidity in the various difficulties they have encountered. The Government have quite determined to rest all title to respect
  1978
  and toleration on the fact of preserving the people of Ireland from the severest consequences of the threatened distress. The method which they have adopted for that purpose is that which they believe will best effect that object, without at the same time doing anything to demoralize the people or waste the public money.
  MR. GIBSON: Sir, it is only natural that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should desire to indicate that he has carefully and fully considered the importance of the matters to which he has referred, and it is only natural and to be expected, that the Government should desire to explain that the Arrears Bill has not failed in the short period it has been law. Whether it is right to describe it as a failure or not, I think few can deny that it has not achieved the exact purpose which it was expected to accomplish. To say the least, it has fallen, I may say, rather flat. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, however, indicates that he has grounds for the hope that it may yet succeed, and bases that hope upon the fact that the Land Commissioners, in addition to their other important duties, have recently adopted the rôle of prophets, and that in the seven days that have yet to elapse before the end of the month there will be such a rush of applications that it may yet succeed. There are five weeks yet before the earlier operations can be examined into. Now, I do not think it is a very profitable inquiry to examine too closely into why it is that the Act should not have accomplished the results expected from it. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has said that one of the reasons may be found in the existence of that curious clause which contains a provision about the hanging gale. I am bound to say that my conscience is absolutely free on that subject, for I pointed out that Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 was open to a variety of complications. I set myself the task of endeavouring to cut the Gordian knot by suggesting that the whole of that sub-section should be omitted, in order that the tenants might have a clear and precise proposition submitted to them as to which, there should be no doubt. That proposal of mine was, however, rejected. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that, to his mind, its construction is as clear as crystal; but he did not state

  1979
  what his construction was. When the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it would have been reasonable for the Land Commissioners to have informed their investigators what was their own view on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman's only answer was that he would not say whether it was right or wrong for the Laud Commission to give an authoritative instruction on the subject, as it was not his function to defend the Commission. Looking at the matter impartially, however, I think the hon. Member for the City of Cork has somewhat exaggerated this as the ground of the failure of the Act. No doubt, there have been difficulties and confusion as to the interpretation of that section, and it may be that that confusion has led to hesitation and uncertainty, the result of which may have been to exclude people from applying to get the benefit of the Act; but I do not think myself it will be found to prevail to a very large extent. Another reason suggested is the limitation of time that has been put into the Act in its progress through this House, and has had some effect in the matter. Then the hon. Member for the City of Cork said that the House of Lords was to blame for some of the hitches of the Act. Well, if this Act has failed, it has not been owing to a solitary syllable introduced into it in the House of Lords. It has been owing to Amendments suggested in this House, and deliberately adopted without a solitary syllable of objection. I say the House of Lords are not in the slightest degree to blame in the matter. They have not contributed to the extent of half a quarter of a syllable to anything of the kind. Indeed, the hon. Member for the City of Cork, too, when pressed on the subject, withdrew the charge. As to the question of the limitation of time, I am disposed to agree with what has been said on that point by the Chief Secretary for Ireland—namely, that the matter passed through this House as a matter not of first-class importance. The Amendment was moved in a few words, and the attention of hon. Members was not directed to the objection now sought to be attached to it. Another matter I desire to notice is this—that, notwithstanding the fact that the charge is so freely used against the Irish landlords, no one who has a true under-
  1980
  standing of what has occurred in Ireland since the passing of this Act can suggest that the landlords are in the least to blame for the failure—if failure there be—in its administration. It will be found that in the 16,000 applications that have been made up to the last dates, in the vast majority of cases the applications have been joint applications between landlords and tenants. Nay, the right hon. Gentleman himself stated, as a ground for expecting that the Act would not fail, that he had been told that on some of the largest estates in Ireland the landlords were seeking to co-operate with their tenants. So I am entitled to say that the landlords can no more be pointed to as a party to the shortcomings or failure of this Act than the House of Commons itself. In my opinion, the paucity of applications on the part of tenants to get the benefit of the Act will be found, if we want some cause, in the fact that a tenant to get the benefit of the Act has to pay one year's rent down, or show that he has done so. A great many tenants, we know, are heavily in arrear, owing either to poverty or want of method, and are not able to face that great primary condition. If, therefore, there is to be a division of praise and blame, and a calculation of the chances of what has been and what might have been, I should say that the chief grounds of this paucity of applications is to be found in the rejection of the loan plan. The gift plan requires this preliminary paying down of one year's rent, a very difficult condition to comply with in many instances; whereas the loan scheme would have been satisfied by the tenant incurring merely a liability to repay a loan on certain specified easy terms, spread over a number of years. That system a tenant could have understood without the slightest trouble. The evictions, which I am bound to say have not been referred to at any great length in the course of this debate, have been represented, and not unfairly, by the right hon. Gentleman as having been steadily diminishing for months. One thing makes this debate of importance and very great interest to Ireland. In Ireland, on this subject, as upon many others, there are wide, vague, fluctuating, and uncertain hopes; and it is essentially necessary that whatever may be the decision of the Government, it should be expressed in the clearest and most distinct language, and

  1981
  with the most unfaltering purpose. If this debate should do nothing else than indicate to the tenantry of Ireland that a decision has been arrived at distinctly and clear, then I say it will have accomplished a good deal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster') points out, one of the most important factors for the pacification and satisfaction of Ireland is knowing finality. Keeping her in a state of suspense, unrealized hope, constant hot water, and vague uncertainty, is to preach to her a life-long period of wretched agitation. To speak with hesitation of the Land Bill and the Arrears Bill is merely to aid in preventing and retarding that prosperity we all desire so much to see. The right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech spoke in a way which showed that he recognized fully the necessity of observing the symptoms of distress in Ireland. The Arrears Bill was not intended to be a Distress Bill, and no one has put that more clearly before us than the Prime Minister himself. But this does not, in the slightest degree, diminish the responsibilities of the Government. On the contrary, it rather adds to the grave responsibility of watching the progress and bearings of the distress. I was in Ireland myself on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and made all the inquiries I could in reference to the general state of the country and the distress; and, so far as I could gather, there is much real distress in the West of Ireland and Donegal. It may be that the distress will seriously and substantially increase during the winter months; but as yet I do not think we have reason to dread anything that can be designated a famine, and I would fain hope that there is nothing that cannot be satisfactorily grasped by a somewhat liberal and generous administration of the Poor Laws. It must be recognized, and it cannot be too clearly or strongly impressed upon the public mind, that in the extreme West of Ireland and in Donegal, distress is, unfortunately, if I may say it, almost chronic. Every second or third year there is very acute distress. That circumstance, although it ought not in the slightest degree to influence us in slackening vigorous measures, is yet one to be borne largely in mind. I am glad to hear that the Government have issued a Circular desiring information on the subject. Parliament will, I assume, meet
  1982
  about the usual time next year. ["No, no!" "Later."]
  MR. GLADSTONE: Earlier.
  MR. GIBSON: I shall be ready to meet earlier, or later, as may suit the Government; but I wish to point out that meantime the responsibility of taking all those steps with regard to the present position of Ireland that may be necessary rests with the Irish Executive; and I am bound to say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman indicates that he is quite alive to the responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has had his attention specially called to the fact that there is distress in Ireland, and that that distress requires to be closely, anxiously, and vigilantly looked after, and I hope that he may be able to cope with that distress by the existing machinery at his disposal until Parliament again assembles. If the Executive vigorously do their work, Parliament will, I feel confident, when it reassembles, if it should be found necessary to assist in th6 loyal discharge of the painful duties of the Executive, not hesitate to do its share in the work if, unfortunately, it should be found requisite.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, no one had the least doubt of the sympathies of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and if the question of dealing with the distress were left to him, he should feel certain that his own sympathy and his own intelligence would prompt his action in every case. But he would warn the right hon. Gentleman against trusting too much to subordinate officials of all kinds. He perfectly well remembered the Famine of 1847. At the earlier period, when the Famine was growing, the officials were making favourable reports, and it was not until the newspaper correspondents went down to the distressed districts and drew such a picture of the condition of things there that the mind of the country was satisfied of the existence of distress, and that much good might have been done had measures been taken in time. He, therefore, strongly warned the right hon. Gentleman against paying too much attention to the answers to his Circular, and recommended him to made inquiries from persons in the districts where the distress existed. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of relief by means of public works in times of emergency; but in 1847 the system of public works was found to be not of the least use in the

  1983
  relief of genuine distress, for the various posts on the works were filled by undeserving persons, who were thus pensioned at the public expense. They might, however, be of advantage provided they were adapted to the needs of the various districts. There was one question to which he would like an answer, and that was, whether the Government were determined to allow outdoor relief in Ireland before the distress had become acute, and before the homes were broken up? Were they prepared to relax the restrictions under which relief could now only be given in case of sickness, and grant relief before the sickness arrived? Then, upon the question of the Arrears Act, he greatly regretted the kind of answer the Government had given that evening. No difficulty had arisen which was not predicted at the time the Bill was before the House. What was good in the Bill was due to the Irish Members; what was defective in it came from sources over which the Irish Members had no control. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the costs connected with ejectment which were thrown upon poor tenants as if they were next to nothing; but in many instances they were extremely heavy and even ruinous, preventing the tenant from being able to take advantage of the Arrears Act, and causing him to lose everything. Several striking cases of this kind had come under his own knowledge. The Chief Secretary had reminded them that the Land Court was a Court of Appeal to which those who were embarrassed by the difficulties of the hanging gale might resort; but it should be noticed that in Ireland they had had a tribunal of first instance, composed of military officers and gentlemen who had had no legal training whatever, and who seemed to be put there in order that they might learn something about the Arrears Act and the rudiments of the law. If the Arrears Act was in any sense a failure, the Government certainly could not say they had been forewarned not merely of of what would be the result, but of the precise points of weakness to which its failure might be traced.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that forms of application for the benefit of the Arrears Act could be sent in up to the 31st of December. He knew that
  1984
  to be so. [Mr. SYNAN: They could be sent in even later by consent of the Court.] The important point, however, was whether the tenant would be able to pay the year's rent before the 30th of November; and that vital matter the Chief Secretary had skimmed over very lightly. It should be remembered that the weather had been very wet and injurious to farming operations, so that the tenants had not been able to send their produce to market in time to find the money with which to pay their arrears; and that circumstance, he thought, might supply a reason for extending the period for paying the year's rent to the 31st of December. Again, there were many fairs in December, at which the small tenants habitually sold their cattle; and it would, therefore, be a great point to extend the time for payment of their arrears by another month. He knew that a large number of tenants were making every exertion to take advantage of the Act, and he had no doubt that a large number of applications would come in before the end of November; but he believed that 30 or 40 per cent more, and those, too, the most necessitous cases, would come in if the time were prolonged for another month. The Act expired, so far as payments went, next Wednesday; and they now only had that most unfortunate decision of the Government near the last moment. The Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to see that that decision was telegraphed to the most remote parts of Ireland. With regard to the apprehended distress in that country, he did not think there would be famine; but he believed that there would be very considerable distress, and that it would arise mainly from two causes. In the first place, there would be a great want of employment for the people; and, in the next place, the price of potatoes would be high. As compared with last year, the price was at present more than doubled; and, owing to the partial failure of the crops, he believed that in some localities there would be great distress. They must remember, also, if they relied upon the rates to support the poor, that they could not expect to raise them to any very unusual amount without the fear of swamping the small farmers and precluding them from sowing their land. He would like the Government also to change their system of

  1985
  lending money. By the present method of making advances they could not lend more than £50, and he desired to see that sum very considerably raised, so as to render the expense less in proportion to the amount raised. He was sorry to see that so little hope was held out in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; it was one of the worst speeches he had ever heard—indeed, he might almost call it a dangerous speech. It told them in a word that they were to be left to their own resources, much in the same way as the horse who was locked up in the stable was told to feed himself by his resources. His resources were his teeth and his heels, and he only required his liberty to use them; but so long as that liberty was denied him, it was impossible for him to make his own resources available.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the importance of the subject amply justified the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He felt that the Prime Minister's language was wanting in that sympathy he had often before shown to Irish distress, and he was struck with the fact that no allusion was made to the approaching distress, reports of which must have reached him. The Motion was also founded upon the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and it was a curious fact that while in England, where famines never happened, provision was made in spite of economic laws for the advance of money from the rates; in Ireland, where famines occurred every two or three years, no such power existed. Heshared with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) a strong feeling of dissatisfaction at that speech. That speech was the old familiar echo of the policy and the spirit which had always actuated Irish functionaries in Dublin Castle. Nothing else could have induced him to suppose that Irishmen who crossed the Channel to obtain work, in order to take the proceeds home to their families, could not be trusted to spend money in the same way when they had to go 10 or 12 miles for it. If he desired a refutation of such narrow views, he would refer him to the Report of the Society of Friends of what took place at the time of the great Famine. It was strange, indeed, that in Ireland, where it was so much needed, the law did not permit them to efficiently relieve distress. The
  1986
  right hon. Gentleman said that if necessary they would violate the law; but surely that was a most extraordinary doctrine for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to advocate in that House. Then the right hon. Gentleman admitted that public bodies in various parts of Ireland had already felt it to be their duty to call attention to the distress which was impending. He would refer to a resolution passed by the Swinford Board of Guardians expressing the desire of the people of that district to obtain a loan of public money for the purpose of permanently improving their holdings and farms. That was a desire which ought to receive the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government; and he complained that after Parliament had enabled the Irish Government to assist in the development of Irish resources, there was always some piece of red tape tied round the provisions of the Act of Parliament which prevented them from coming into active operation. He need only refer to the Rule framed by the Treasury in regard to loans for the improvement of farms under the Land Act. That Rule declared that £100 should be the minimum sum lent to tenant farmers, and that it should be lent only to tenants of £20 valuation and upwards. How long did it take the hon. Member for the County of Cork to "peg away" at the Irish Government before he induced them to reduce the amount to £50 and the valuation to £10? The Treasury was therefore responsible for having defeated the intention of Parliament by framing that rule in the first instance. He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Galway that the limit of £50 was far too high, as the great bulk of the tenant farmers wanted only a little capital to permanently improve their holdings. With respect to the impending distress, he trusted the Chief Secretary would not be content with sending out official Circulars, which was just what his Predecessors had done on former occasions. Resident Magistrates and others to whom these official Circulars were sent had no sympathy with the masses of the people. They would sneer at Irish distress, and it was not till famine was strewing their course with those who had been starved to death that they would recognize the distress. Benevolent emigration would not cure the evil since the wretched

  1987
  patches of land vacated in this way were at once occupied by others in quite as large numbers. It was by a system of migration and not one of emigration that they could meet the difficulty, and until the Government had grappled with the difficulty, the story of Irish discontent would continue to arise to the shame and humiliation of the Irish people. In reply to the Chief Secretary, he told the right hon. Gentleman that they were ready to fall back upon their own resources if they would give them the control of their own resources. The present Irish Government was a mockery of Irish hopes and aspirations. Various causes had been assigned to explain the fact that only some 16,000 tenant farmers had availed themselves of the Arrears Act. He had received a communication in which there was a statement to the effect that, although only a year's rent was required to be paid before obtaining the benefits of the Act, the agents exacted a half-year's rent in addition before the cases were put into the Court. That occurred in districts where there was no hanging gale; and, of course, the effect of such proceedings was to prevent tenants from getting the benefit which they would otherwise enjoy from the Act. Although they had then the most Liberal Executive the Irish people had seen this century, they were as powerless as ever to control the administration of Irish affairs. He strongly commended the action of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork in bringing that matter before the House; and he hoped that he would persist in doing so until ample justice had been done to the impoverished people whose cause they were sent there to represent.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken was quite accurate when he spoke of the unanimity of Irish Members on the question. It was said that the Arrears Act and the Land Act were both humbugs before they were passed. He had ventured to say that that was not the case, and he held that opinion still; but he joined with those who had that night called on the Government to give the Act a further chance. He did so, not because he thought it was a humbug, but that he believed it was in the interests of the Irish tenants and landlords. He thought they had a right to ask the Government to give that extension—he did not care
  1988
  what time it was, so long as it was sufficient for the purpose. He remembered the terrible scenes in 1847, which were caused by the unfortunate position of the people in Donegal, Sligo, Mayo, &c. He asked the earnest attention of the Government to the present distress, and he hoped no miserable consideration about money would stand in the way, considering we spent millions in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Zululand. He was convinced that the hon. Member for Cork was fully justified in bringing that matter under the notice of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Prime Minister had observed in this debate a studied silence, which was more creditable to his prudence than his humanity. He supposed that, under the laurels of Tel-el-Kebir, the Government could now afford to treat with disdain the demands of the Irish people. He hoped the result of that obduracy would be to convince the people of Ireland that conciliation at any rate was played out, and they now knew that the moderate Whig was what O'Connell described him. He maintained that the Government had been misinformed by the Local Government Board Inspectors as to the distress that was likely to occur in Ireland. That was notably the case with regard to Tory Island, Donegal. The Rev. Father O'Donnell, the curate in charge, had written to him to say that the Inspector, Mr. Macfarlane, had not made a single inquiry of him, or, indeed, of any person of weight or authority on the Island, nor had he entered the huts of those among whom the distress was existing. Yet on the day of the inspection the heads of two families came to Father O'Donnell requesting to be sent out of the Island to save themselves and families from starvation, and the next day seven more came with a like request. With regard to the Arrears Act, he thought that enough had been said to show that the measure was already a practical failure, and the poorest of the Irish people were exposed to all the horrors of famine, aggravated by the horrors of eviction during the coming winter months, because the Government declined to give it a fair chance to come into operation.
  MR. LEAsaid, he thought that the Reports of the Local Government Inspector were often, and perhaps necessarily, very cursory, and suggested that further steps should be taken to ascer-

  1989
  tain whether any distress was likely to occur. He was sorry that the Government had not seen their way to extending the time for applications under the Arrears Act two or three months, because lie considered it desirable that legislation like that relating to arrears, when once in force, should be effective; but if they had decided not to do so it was best at once to let the tenants know that there was no chance of a prolongation of the period.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he concurred with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that some of the labour works in Ireland had been of a useless character; but there were others of a reproductive nature, and he would suggest that the best and most useful means for relieving distress in Ireland was by expending money on harbour works. The Fishery Inspectors had recommended that works should be undertaken at 40 harbours; and if that were done the fishermen on those coasts would be able to exercise their vocations to a much greater extent than at present. Tory Island, to which so much allusion had been made that night, was a very good example of the places which would be benefited by the formation of harbours. The position of the inhabitants, whose chief characteristics were their primitiveness and their virtue, would be greatly improved if new harbours were erected, the one which already existed in the Island being quite inadequate for fishery purposes. He regretted greatly that the annual grant of £5,000 formerly made in aid of local efforts in connection with the erection of harbours had been withdrawn since the sum of £45,000 had been advanced for that purpose; and he had been much surprised at the hesitation of the Secretary to the Treasury to receive a deputation of Irish Members, who had intended waiting upon him in the hope of obtaining a renewal of the annual grant. The renewal of the small grant would lead to a considerably larger amount being contributed by local effort, and much good would be given by the employment thus afforded.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion. He did not think anything could be added to the great usefulness of the discussion, or to the impression which he hoped had been made upon the Government, by putting the House
  1990
  to the trouble of dividing. He trusted that the Government would reconsider the question of the relief of the distress, and that they would be able to see their way clear to ask Parliament to vote the power to enable them to give out poor relief in Ireland extensively. They had evidence in the progress of this debate of the existence of serious distress in Ireland; and he trusted that the people would not be left until they were half-starved and enfeebled before relief was granted.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that this Act was the last of a series of measures which had distinguished the Liberal Party, and especially the Prime Minister, and which had proved a complete fiasco. He would refer to the Church Act of 1861, to the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, and other measures of the Government, which he pronounced a miserable failure.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the Question before the House was the Motion for the adjournment of the House, which the hon. Member for Cork asked leave to withdraw. The hon. Member was bound to confine himself to that subject.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished merely to observe that the position of affairs in Ireland proved that the remedial measures of the Government had turned out a complete failure.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  [The following is the Entry in the Votes.]
  Mr. Parnell, Member for the City of Cork, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported that Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty-Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn:"—(Mr. Parnell:)—Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MR. PARNELL, M. P., &c. (RELEASE FROM KILMAINHAM).
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Prime Minister, whether, considering the late-

  1991
  ness of the hour at which the Irish debate had closed—11.15—he would postpone the resumption of the discussion on Procedure, in order to afford an opportunity for a decision on his Motion with reference to the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his fellow Members from Kilmainham?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had nothing to add to what he had stated before. It was now only a quarter-past 11, and they would do well to proceed with the Resolutions.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give any facilities for his hon. Friend's Motion?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had nothing to add to what he had already stated.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—TENTH RULE(DEBATES ON MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT).

    TWENTY-EIGHTH NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had now to propose the 10th Resolution. It had no connection with the length nor the interruption of debate, nor would it prevent any Gentleman from making any speech on the subject of reporting Progress or moving the Chairman out of the Chair in Committee which he could otherwise regularly make. But it enabled the Presiding Officer to save the House trouble if he chose to take upon himself the responsibility of determining that the Question should be put, which he would only do if strongly convinced that the Motion was made with the view of obstructing the Business of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That if Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall he of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is made for the purpose of obstruction, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that they had been told upon an Amendment moved by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), on the 1st Resolution, that it was not possible, or at all events desirable, to cast upon the Speaker or Chairman the duty of diving into the motives of hon. Gentlemen. That was exactly what it was now proposed to do, and they were entitled to ask from the Government some explanation of the inconsistency.
    MR. GLADSTONEremarked that he was not in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question unless he proposed an Amendment.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not propose to move the first Amendment which stood in the name of his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill), because he understood that the Government intended to propose some change in the status of the Chairman of Committees. But he wished to move in line 2, after the word "opinion," the following words, "that it is the evident sense of the House at large." The effect of the Amendment would be to make the action of the Speaker or Chairman depend not upon his own view, but upon the evident sense of the House at large. This was one of the most severe Resolutions the Government had proposed. Every Motion for reporting Progress or for Adjournment was in a certain sense obstructive; but it would occur to every hon. Member that such Motions were often not only justified, but also even demanded, by the circumstances of the case. He begged to move the Amendment on the Paper.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, after the word "opinion," to insert the words "that it is the evident sense of the House at large."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. The power which it would confer on the Presiding Officer was not, in his opinion, excessive; and, according to several of the earlier Resolutions, the Presiding Officer already possessed summary powers without reference to the evident sense of the House. In the present case, if the Speaker or Chairman put the Question to the House immediately, the House would have an opportunity of dealing with the ques-

    1993
    tion by the vote it would give. If the House thought the Motion was reasonable, it would vote accordingly.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought that this was one of the most objectionable of all the Resolutions. Nothing was more likely to bring into disrepute the Offices of the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means than the arbitrary power which the Presiding Officer would possess under this Rule of deciding on his mere ipse dixit whether or not a Member was guilty of Obstruction. He should, therefore, oppose the Resolution.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,in supporting the Amendment, urged that the Speaker or the Chairman could hardly be justified in enforcing this Rule in the small hours of the morning, or against a small knot of Members who desired to prevent the passing of a Bill like the Cornwall Sunday Closing Bill at an unreasonable hour, and at the fag end of the Session. There was no proper definition of Obstruction, and the Presiding Officer was left to exercise an arbitrary power in the dark. He, therefore, thought that some such instruction as that proposed in the Amendment should be given for his guidance.
    MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, it seemed to him that not only was there a great objection to this Resolution, but it was also quite unnecessary; because all that was aimed at was already provided for by Resolution 4, which provided that a Motion for Adjournment might be met by the Speaker calling upon hon. Members to stand up in their places. When, not long ago, he had proposed to place some limitation upon this power, by providing that it should be put in force when Obstruction was evident, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister objected to such a course, because he said it would be offensive to require the Chair to say that a Motion submitted by an hon. Member was obstructive. Now, it seemed to him still more objectionable in this case, because there was no definition at all in regard to what was to happen when the Speaker ex cathedra put the Resolution into force. When was the Speaker to put the Question? That was left entirely undecided by the language of the Resolution. The general objection he had to it was that it was proposed, by a second process, to give the Speaker two lines of action in
    1994
    precisely similar circumstances. He hoped the Government would see fit to withdraw the Resolution. In the meanwhile, he would be disposed to vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, because he thought it was unfair to cast the responsibility on the Chair of saying that a Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction. His chief objection to the Resolution was that it proposed an alternative line of action and would lead to confusion.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was scarcely convenient to discuss the whole matter of the Resolution upon a single Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not, until his concluding sentence, said one word about the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst). He did not propose to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman; but he wished to point out that Resolution 3, to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred—
    MR. WARTON: It was the 4th Resolution, not the 3rd.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Well, then, Resolution 4 did not apply to this matter, because Resolution 4 provided that after the House had entered into the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion, and the House had been cleared for a division, when a Motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House should have been made, the Speaker might call upon the Members challenging his decision to rise in their places. The Resolution they were now discussing enabled the Speaker, if he was of opinion that a Motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House during any debate, or that the Chairman should report Progress or leave the Chair, was made for the purpose of Obstruction, he might forthwith put the Question from the Chair. The Speaker in such a case could put a stop to the debate and insist upon a division being taken at once. He failed to see what relevancy the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had to the Resolution at all. The Speaker or Chairman, in the exercise of his powers, could only put to the House at once the Question whether the debate was to be adjourned or not, or whether the Chairman should report Progress; and if a majority of the House did not support

    1995
    him, it would be evident to the Speaker or the Chairman that he had misinterpreted the opinion of the House. That was a penalty which would not be lightly incurred. It was said that the Resolution was an insult to the House; but hon. Members who made that assertion seemed to forget that the Resolution was one of those which were framed by the Speaker for Urgency; and he thought that when hon. Members recalled that fact, they would hardly be of opinion that it was intended by the Government as an insult to the House. When they came to discuss the Resolution as a whole, ample reason could be given why it should be adopted. In the meantime, no substantial reason had been given for the insertion of these words, and it was undesirable at that stage that they should discuss the whole of the Resolution. It would be far better to confine themselves to the Amendment before the House.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the House was now getting familiar with the argument which had just been used by the noble Marquess. On the first occasion when the principle of a Resolution was challenged, they were told to wait until all the Amendments were disposed of, when it would be regular to discuss the Resolution as a whole. But, on the other hand, when all the Amendments to a Resolution were disposed of, they were told that the time was past for discussing the Resolution as a whole, and that they were altogether too late. Therefore, the Government must excuse hon. Members on that side of the House if they took the present opportunity of moving and discussing such Amendments as they found necessary. [Ironical Liberal cheers.] Hon. Members cheered that. He was glad to hear that they assented to the proposal. The fault which had been found with this Resolution was, that it appeared to hon. Members on that side of the House to be in conflict with the Resolution which had already been passed—namely, the 4th Resolution, to which the noble Marquess had just referred. The noble Marquess, in the slight reference he made to it, said that it concerned a matter of Procedure. That was quite true; but this Resolution dealt with a question of adjournment also, and having defined upon the question of Procedure in the 4th Resolution what they were to do, it ap-
    1996
    peared to him that this Resolution conflicted in a great measure with the Procedure which was laid down in Resolution number 4. As regarded the immediate Amendment before the House, which imported into the Resolution "the evident sense of the House at large," it appeared to him, whether these precise words were chosen or not—and there was good reason why they should be—that it was most desirable that the opinion of the House should be clearly and distinctly ascertained in reference to the question. The Speaker or Chairman had placed in his hands—granting always that there was the appeal, of which the noble Marquess had spoken—a very arbitrary power, and the remedy which the noble Marquess suggested was one which he took leave to remind the House was extremely deprecated by the Government in the early part of their discussions. The noble Marquess said that if, after all, the Speaker or the Chairman found that the opinion of the House differed from his own, then there would be an end of the matter. But the House was told in the early part of the debates that no Speaker or Chairman could bear having his decision challenged, and that it would be fatal to him to find that his view of the "evident sense of the House" was not sustained on a division. He hoped before the discussion on the Amendment closed that the House would have some further explanation from the Government than they had yet received. There was another thing which he should hardly have thought it necessary to call attention to, except for the purpose of elucidation. He thought that the "Question" referred to in the last line of the Resolution should be made perfectly clear. He trusted that the House would accept some Amendment in the sense of that which had been moved by his hon. and learned Friend.
    MR. SYNANsaid, it appeared to him that the Amendment was altogether inconsistent, not with the 4th, but with the 2nd Resolution. The Amendment; as he understood it, required that the Speaker or Chairman should be of opinion that it was "the evident sense of the House" the Motion for Adjournment was made for the purpose of Obstruction; but, by the 2nd Resolution, 40 Members rising in their places to support a Motion for Adjournment would

    1997
    be sufficient to warrant such a Motion being proceeded with. Now, 40 Members rising in their places might not represent the "evident sense of the House;" and the Amendment, therefore, was inconsistent with, the 2nd Resolution. Then the question arose upon the Resolution itself whether the Speaker or Chairman should have power to put a stop to debate or to discussion, and order the House to divide at once, although there should be 40 Members prepared to support the Motion for Adjournment, and although a decision should be called on the 4th Rule. The Amendment would make the Resolution substantially an exception from the 2nd and 4th Rules, and the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether at variance with what had been decided by the 2nd Resolution.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not see how any hon. Member could argue that this Resolution was in conflict with the 4th Resolution. The 4th Resolution said that after the House had been cleared for a division such and such, a course should be taken. How was it possible that this Resolution, which referred to the putting of the Question, could be in conflict with the Resolution, which applied only to the exercise of power when the House was cleared for a division. It appeared to him that that objection must fall to the ground, and that it could not be urged for a moment. This was a Resolution which was to be put in force, not when the House had been cleared for a division, but at a different stage of the proceedings. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. Synan), it did not seem to him that the Resolution was in conflict with Resolution No. 2, and for this reason—Resolution No. 2 spoke of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and leave for the Motion to be proceeded with was only to be given on 40 Members rising in their places to support the Motion. Was it conceivable that in such a case the Speaker would, under the present Rule, declare that the Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction? It appeared to him to be a totally different case, and this Resolution was not in any way in conflict with Resolution No. 2. In regard to the ob-
    1998
    jection that the House would be overruled by the Speaker in the matter, the observations of the Prime Minister showed that all the Speaker would do would be to refer the matter to the judgment of the House. All that was to take place was this. There was to be no debate until the House itself had voted whether the Motion was made for the purposes of Obstruction or not.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had thrown much light upon the matter. There was one particular point upon which the House was anxious to hear some explanation from the Government. The Resolution proposed—
    "That if Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whale House, shall he of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is made for the purpose of obstruction, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair."
    Now, the words that were proposed to be inserted in the Resolution were to the effect that Mr. Speaker should come to the conclusion that it was the "evident sense of the House at large" that the Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction. The question he wanted to put to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was this. Was the Speaker to put the Question unless he was convinced that it was the "evident sense of the House at large" that the Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction, or was he not? Was the Speaker, before he put the Question forthwith, to be of opinion that the House at large had come to the conclusion that the Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction. He concluded that Mr. Speaker, in acting upon these Rules, only represented the feeling of the House, and that his whole action was to be guided by the feeling of the House. The Amendment proposed exactly what he thought ought to guide the Speaker in his action—namely, that when he had come to the conclusion that it was the "evident sense of the House" that the Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction, he would then act upon the Resolution, but not otherwise. If that were so, and the Speaker was really only to put the Rule in force when the

    1999
    House had come to a conclusion, and he was expressing the "evident sense of the House at large" that it was a Motion intended for purposes of Obstruction, what harm could be done by the insertion of these words? They could not expect the Speaker, if he was convinced that the Motion was not made for purposes of Obstruction, as the organ of the House, would ever put the Rule in force. He would only act because he was convinced that the House itself was of opinion that the Motion was made for purposes of Obstruction; and, therefore, he would never act under the Rule unless he thought that he was giving effect to the "evident sense of the House at large." He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) hoped that he had made himself clear upon that point. If he were correct, and that was the only case in which the Speaker could act, what possible harm could arise from adopting the Amendment? He would ask this plain question of the House—Did they believe that the Speaker would ever act on the Rule unless it was the "evident sense of the House at large?" The Speaker was the organ of the House. He only acted in this way as the Minister of the House, and unless he had arrived at a clear conclusion that it was the opinion of the House, he would never attempt to put the Resolution in force. Then, what objection could there be against putting these words into the Rule? The Question was to be decided without debate, and that made it all the more reasonable that the Speaker should only act when he thought it was the sense of the House that he should act; and if he could only act when it was the sense of the House that he ought to act, and the sense of the House meant that the Motion was made for the purposes of Obstruction, he could not imagine what harm the insertion of these words in the Resolution could do. If the House rejected these words, they must mean something by which the Rules were to be put in force without consulting the House in any form or shape, and without any kind of debate. If the "evident sense of the House" could only be shown by a vote, and if that vote was against the Speaker, it would be a great pity that the Speaker should have been drawn into a position in which he was liable to make a mistake.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had asked what harm could be done by putting in these words. He (Mr. Bryce) would ask, on the other hand, what good would their insertion do? He could only conceive one object that could be gained, and that was that as soon as these words were inserted in the Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman, or the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), would be able to rise and say that if the Speaker were the exponent of the "evident sense of the House," there ought to be an appeal to the House to express its evident sense. The result of that would be another Motion. That would be the natural corollary of adopting the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He, therefore, submitted that there were good reasons why the House should not adopt the Amendment. The reason why, in the 1st Resolution, it was provided that the Speaker or Chairman should act only when he believed it was the "evident sense of the House" was because they ascribed to the Speaker or Chairman, and to the House at large, the possession of the same common sense, and it was believed that naturally and necessarily the opinion of the House would coincide with that of the Speaker and Chairman. In regard to the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), having reference to the 2nd Resolution, this Resolution applied only to what took place during a debate; whereas the 2nd Resolution referred to what took place immediately after the Questions on the Notice Paper had been disposed of, and before the Orders of the Day were reached, so that there was no possibility of a collision between the two.
    MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that Amendments moved by right hon. Gentlemen opposite were seldom moved without having some elements of harm in them; and he thought it was very clear that there was something more than met the eye in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst). He (Mr. Labouchere) disliked very much the words "at large." They had already had an explanation of what they meant from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck).

    2001
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman explained to them that if there 40 Members in the House, and 33 were against a Motion for Adjournment and seven in its favour, by this Amendment the Speaker would not be able to say that the Motion, although supported only by seven Members, was intended for purposes of Obstruction. That was to say that the "evident sense of the House at large" did not mean 33Members against seven. That was the outcome of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, and according to the "evident sense of the House at large" the seven were to set aside the wishes of the 33. Now, as he understood the Resolution, it was the majority who were to decide whether a small minority were to go on moving adjournments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to complain that the "evident sense of the House" did not mean the sense of the majority of the House, but of a very small minority. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would distinctly say that they did not intend to consent to the insertion of these pernicious Amendments.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Prime Minister had criticized the language of the Amendment and wished to excise there-from the words "at large." No doubt those words were very disagreeable to the Prime Minister, because when a declaration was made by the Speaker the other day as to the light in which he regarded them, that declaration came like a thunderclap upon the Liberal Party opposite, who had put a far more illiberal construction upon the term "evident sense of the House." The Speaker, however, had ruled upon the 1st Resolution that, in his opinion, the "evident sense of the House" meant the "evident sense of the House at large," and he regretted very much that those words had not been incorporated in the 1st Resolution. But taking it upon the ruling of the Speaker that the "evident sense of the House" was the "evident sense of the House at large," there could be no objection to including in the Resolution the words in the Amendment. Let them consider what the actual position of the House was now according to the Resolutions they had already passed. There were two Rules before the present one which contained words exactly similar—namely, the Rule in regard to Mo-
    2002
    tions on adjournment of debate and upon divisions. By putting those two Resolutions together the House might get some kind of notion as to how completely the liberties of the House were to be abridged by these Resolutions. He would give an instance. Suppose a minority of that House had a very good case indeed—suppose that they had a case about which they felt as conscientious as the Prime Minister felt when he opposed the Divorce Bill—and that they were anxious to bring their views before the House, what could they do? First of all, if they moved the adjournment of the debate, they could say little or nothing upon it; because their mouths were almost shut by the language of the 3rd Resolution, and they had had an example before them only a few days ago, when the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) ventured to sit upon the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying, as well as he could, within the terms of the Resolution, to give a reason why the debate should be adjourned. Upon that occasion the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt himself completely suppressed by the Rule, and he found himself unable to give adequate reasons in support of the proposal on account of the stringency of that Rule and the tightness with which it was tied round his neck. Therefore, in future, an hon. Member would not be allowed to say what his reasons were, and the Government now refused to accept even the moderate Amendment to the Resolution proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The Prime Minister clearly laid it down that in future nothing should be said in support of Motions for Adjournment. Then, what was the next step? The next step was supplied by the present Resolution, which declared that if the Speaker or Chairman was of opinion that a Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction, not wilful or persistent Obstruction, but simple Obstruction, then he was authorized to put the Question at once. Now, he (Mr. Warton) thought there was not much chance of the Speaker coming to this conclusion; but, on the other hand, he thought there was a very great chance of the Chairman of Committees doing so—a very great chance indeed. ["Oh!"]

    2003
    He (Mr. Warton) intended to speak the truth, and to speak his mind while he could; and he firmly believed that the Chairman of Committees was not a fit and proper person to determine the question of Obstruction. He did not think it would be well to leave to the Chairman of Committees the determination whether a Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction or not. That was the second point. In the next place, when the Question was put the 4th Resolution would come in, and they were not to have a division upon it unless 20 Members of a House of 40 Members or upwards happened to rise in support of it. Those three steps were established. The Prime Minister said it would depend upon the vote of the majority, and that the House would know whether a Motion was made for the purpose of Obstruction or not. Let them see how that would act. The House would pardon him if he referred to an important incident which occurred during the present Parliament. He should never forget, and he thought the Tory Party would never forget, what happened on that very Bill which they had been discussing that evening—the Arrears of Rent Bill. It was read for the first time on a Friday, and only distributed amongst Members on the Saturday morning. It was then hurried on to a second reading on the Monday, and they were told that the matter had been adequately discussed, and that they ought to come to a decision upon it; and when they repeated one Motion for Adjournment after another they were characterized as Obstructives. One Member no less respectable than the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit-bread) said it was their duty to yield to the overwhelming majority of about 200 against 140. He was perfectly certain that with such a precedent the Chairman of Committees would put the Rule in force against any minority, if its action was calculated in the slightest degree to interfere with the views of the Government. It appeared perfectly clear to him that the Government, having already obtained the 3rd and 4th Resolutions—for the 2nd had really nothing to do with the question—they had obtained power enough, and it was not necessary that they should obtain more. Already they had placed hon. Members in this position—that they were unable to give any reason at all for moving a Motion for Adjournment; and
    2004
    it was now proposed to give additional powers to the Chairman of Committees to put the Question at once from the Chair, without even requiring him to ascertain if it was the "evident sense of the House" that a Motion was made for purposes of Obstruction.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had no wish to follow up the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken (Mr. Warton). He only wished to say that as the Speaker had declared that he would only act upon the opinion of the House at large, the right hon. Gentleman's reading of his duty should be recorded for the guidance of future occupants of the Chair. The Prime Minister was present at the time the Speaker gave that memorable assurance to the House as to his interpretation of the Rule, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take some steps to have it duly recorded. It must be remembered that they were not legislating for the present Speaker only. They had perfect confidence in his discretion and in the manner in which he had ever conducted the Business of the House; but they were legislating for others, and, by urging the introduction of the Speaker's declarations into the Records of the House, they hoped to secure in his Successors the equity which he had always manifested. What they had most to avoid in these matters was the abuse of Party feeling. The First Lord of the Treasury had expressed a wish that these Resolutions might be considered apart from Party feeling. He (Mr. Newdegate) had from the first be considered them; and he said that the great security for the just and sound action of the House lay in this—that its Procedure should not be determined by the will of one Party, but by the decision of both Parties—by men on both sides of the House expressing the determination of that House of Parliament.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to point out that there must evidently be an alteration of the Amendment proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because it would not apply as it stood at present to the Chairman of Committees. Probably it had been framed with a view to the Chairman of Committees being omitted from the Resolution altogether. It said, "the evident sense of the House at large," and it would not,

    2005
    therefore, apply to Committees; and it would be necessary to amend the Amendment by inserting after the word "House," "or of the Committee, as the case may be." He thought it would be better to omit the words "at large" altogether, and to say, "the evident sense of the House or of the Committee, as the case may be." He thought the House should have a voice in the matter, and the only question was, how that voice should be ascertained. It was considered, on the other hand, that, on a Question being put from the Chair, there would be an occasion for expressing the sense of the House. He confessed that he thought there ought to be some indication of the sense of the House before the Question was put from the Chair; but, personally, he should prefer an Amendment to be proposed subsequently by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which contemplated that the sense of the House should be taken by a division before the Question was put for stopping the Motion for Adjournment. That would be a more proper way of proceeding than leaving the decision of the Question to the opinion of the Speaker or Chairman, as the case might be. In his view that would not carry the matter very much further than the Resolution itself. The point to decide was, whether the Motion was made for purposes of Obstruction, or whether, in the "evident sense of the House," it was made for purposes of Obstruction; and, by taking a division as to whether it was obstructive or not, they would practically ascertain the feeling of the House. That would be the proper way of meeting the question. As regarded the Amendment itself, he would venture to move the omission of the words "at large," and the insertion of the words "or of the Committee, as the case may be."
    MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand that the hon. Member moves that as an Amendment to the Amendment?
    MR. GREGORY: Yes; I will move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out the words "at large," and insert the words "or of the Committee, as the case may be,"—(Mr. Gregory,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'at large' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was an improvement on the original Amendment. It supplied an obvious omission. That the Amendment which stood in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not refer to the Chairman of Committees was attributable, he assumed, to the fact that the noble Lord proposed to eliminate that official altogether from the operation of the Rule; but he presumed that, as the House had decided otherwise, there would be no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member. Although he quite sympathized with the J object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) in inserting in his Amendment the words "at large," yet, having regard to the fact that the House, at the invitation of the Government, omitted them in the 1st Rule, it would, to some extent, militate against the Rule they on that side of the House took with regard to that far more important Rule to insert them now. He thought the decision of the Speaker, which carried with it, he thought he might venture to say, the feeling of the great mass of the House of Commons, would be, to a great extent, undermined if words were put into the present Amendment which ran counter to the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman had already made.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he should be happy to accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). The Amendment he (Mr. Gorst) had moved was based on the idea that the Chairman of Committees would be eliminated from the Resolution, and it had not been included in the Amendment from mere inadvertence.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'that it is the evident sense of the House and the Committee, as the case may be,' be there inserted."
    MR. WARTONobjected to the words "as the case may be." They were not

    2007
    inserted anywhere else, and did not agree with the 1st Resolution, which said, "the evident sense of the House or of the Committee." He would therefore suggest that the Amendment to the Amendment should be amended by omitting the words "as the case may be."
    MR. DODSONsaid, he only wished to explain to the House that the Government still remained of opinion that it would be better to keep the Rule in the form in which it stood, and which was the form in which it was framed by Mr. Speaker himself as part of the Urgency Procedure.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the remark which had been made by the President of the Local Government Board was an additional reason why they ought to accept the Amendment. Were the House to understand that they were to be permanently under the Rules of Urgency? He did not think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment should be rejected because it was not to be found in the Rules of Urgency was entitled to much weight.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would allow him to explain. When he spoke of leaving the Rule in the form of words as it stood in the Urgency Procedure, he was speaking strictly to the Amendment before the House, and not to the Resolution as a whole.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 103: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 394.)
    MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to some modification of the words "for the purpose of obstruction;" and with the object of effecting this he would move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff).
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 4, to leave out the words "made for the purpose of obstruction," and insert the words "an abuse of the Rules of the House."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment he was about to move had been, to a
    2008
    great extent, discussed in connection with former Amendments. The proposal was, although the House had decided that the Presiding Officer should take the initiative, that he should not put the Question without having first obtained the sanction of the House or of the Committee. This was quite in accordance with the 1st Resolution, under which, although the Speaker or Chairman might come to the conclusion that the debate ought to terminate, he did not put an end to it before getting the sanction of the Committee or of the House to the conclusion at which he had arrived. It seemed an entirely new principle to introduce into the Procedure of the House that the Presiding Officer should interfere with the proceedings of the House on his own mere motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had referred, in the course of a discussion which took place some time ago, to the power given to the Presiding Officer under Rule 5, where action was taken without the concurrence or support of the House. But it must be remembered that, under the Resolution referred to, the Presiding Officer only silenced a Member—he did not take the proceedings of the House out of the hands of the House itself—whereas in the present Resolution it was proposed that the Presiding Officer should have the strange power of controlling the Business of the House or the Committee, without obtaining the sanction of either. The right hon. Gentleman's argument with reference to Resolution 5 was, therefore, inapplicable to the present proposal; and for the reasons given he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, with the object of providing that when the Speaker or the Chairman had come to the conclusion that a Motion was made in abuse of the Rules of the House he should then ask for the sanction of the House or Committee before taking upon himself to stop the debate.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "he may so inform the House, and if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,' he shall forthwith put such Question, and if the same be decided in the affirmative."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the House had already decided against the principle of the Amendment as applicable to that part of the Resolution which had been passed; the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, held with tenacity to the remainder. He had truly said, referring to Resolution 5, that there the interference of the Speaker or Chairman was for the purpose of silencing an individual Member without asking the sanction of the House or the Committee; but here the contention of the Government was that the intervention of the Presiding Officers of the House would be finally decided upon by the division which followed. Again, the adoption of the Amendment now proposed would have the effect of exposing the House to the delay of two divisions instead of one. For these reasons Her Majesty's Government could not adopt the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was about to move that the Rule should not apply to any Motion for Adjournment made after half-past 12 o'clock. His proposal would only take effect when a considerable number of Members deemed themselves entitled to avail themselves of the Forms of the House to prevent any Motions or Bills being passed at an hour when the House was not in a position to discuss them properly. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the principle of the Amendment, even if he substituted another hour for that specified.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided, That this Rule shall not apply to any Motion of Adjournment which may he made after half-past Twelve at night."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he rose to move the rejection of the Resolution, which he regarded as the most unsatisfactory of all the Government proposals in connection with the Procedure of the House, inasmuch as it placed the character of every Member of the House, so to speak, in the hands of the occupant of the Chair. He considered it
    2010
    very objectionable that the Gentleman who happened to be presiding in Committee of the Whole House, for instance, should, on his own Motion, decide that an hon. Member was an Obstructionist, and that without hearing an explanation of the views or motives of the Member in question. In the other Resolutions it was laid down that the Speaker or the Chairman should do no more than Name a Member, and call the attention of the House to the question as to whether he had been guilty or not of obstructing the Business of the House; but here the Presiding Officer, who after all was but a Member of the House, was to decide at once, in so many words, that a Member was abusing the Rules; and this, he contended, was too large a power to place in his hands. As long as he was a Member of that House he should strongly object to any other Member being placed in a position to rule him an Obstructionist against his knowledge to the contrary. Yet that was what the Resolution meant, and he was sure that if the same attention were given to it as had been bestowed upon the previous Resolutions, hon. Members would agree that this view was correct.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was rather surprised that hon. Members did not perceive what was the real force of this Resolution. After having been discussing the question of clôture for two or three weeks—clôture by the "evident sense of the House"—they were now passing a clôture of the worst description—a elôture without the "evident sense of the House."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, at the risk of incurring the censure of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), he must repeat his opinion that the Government, in this Resolution, seemed to be adopting an unnecessary second process for arriving at the result already achieved by Resolution 4. Anyone who had witnessed the scenes which had occurred when alternative Motions for the adjournment of the House and of the debate had been made knew that they would have been stopped absolutely by the power now given to the Speaker of calling upon Members to rise in their places. The Government having adopted that mode of procedure, there was no need for this much more

    2011
    offensive process. It seemed to him to be entirely inconsistent with what had taken place in former debates; but he should say no more than that if his hon. and gallant Friend went to a division he should vote with him.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 26: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 395.)
    (10.) Resolved, That if Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House,
    2012
    shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair.
    Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure deferred till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met this day at Eleven of the clock for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
House adjourned at a quarter past Two o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.