Sitting of 28 November 1882

QUESTIONS.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— THE INVESTIGATORS.
  MR. LEA (for Mr. T. A. DICKSON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the names, residences, and qualifications of the Investigators appointed under the Arrears Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Return asked for by the hon. Member shall be presented immediately.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE— THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the attendance of both the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Police at their offices is very irregular; whether the office is sometimes left empty for hours and sometimes not visited at ail in the course of the day; and, whether applicants for licences for arms and other matters are not thus seriously inconvenienced?
  MR. TREVELYAN: During the past five years the Chief Commissioner of Metroplitan Police has not been absent on any day from his office with the exception of a few weeks' leave. He is seldom able to leave it before six o'clock in the evening—often later. Many times he has been on duty day and night. During the last three years especially he has found it very difficult to avail himself of leave, and during his occasional absence he has no reason to believe that there was any irregularity in the attendance of the Assistant Commissioner. With regard to alleged inconveniences to applicants for arms licences, I beg to say that all applications for such licences must be made in writing, and some delay must arise through the necessity of making inquiries with regard to the character of the applicant. Recent deplorable occurrences in Dublin show the
  202
  absolute necessity for the exercise of the greatest caution in this respect. Personally, when I have forwarded applications from individuals whose character and position did not require examination I have found the request for the licence responded to at once. The other day I got a letter from a friend of the hon. Member thanking me for so promptly procuring him a licence for introducing three scimitars for the illustrating a lecture on the East. I may add that the Chief Commissioner assures me that it is not the case that his office is left empty for hours, and sometimes not visited at all by him and the Assistant Commissioner in the course of the day.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORstated that he did not complain of the authorities exercising due precaution in the granting of licences; but he complained of the Commissioner not being in his place. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the readiness with which his friend, Mr. O'Donovan, obtained a licence for arms.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— RETIREMENT.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have had to retire under the new Act on the ground of being upwards of sixty years of age; how many officers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police are over sixty years of age; and, whether it is intended to apply the same rule to them as to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Seventeen officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have had to retire on the 1st of October, under the Constabulary (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1882, being 60 of age and upwards. There are two officers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police who are over 60. Under the existing law the same rule cannot be applied to them as to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  STATE OF IRELAND—HOLYCROSS AND BALLYCAHILL, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the announcement in the Dublin Gazette that the parishes of Holycross and Ballycahill, county Tip-

  203
  perary, are to have an extra force of police, Whether it is true that the parishes are perfectly tranquil, and that the only outrage committed there within the past twelve months was by an emergency man, who smashed with a hatchet the furniture of an evicted tenant, until deprived of his weapon by the Sheriff; and, whether, if extra police are to be quartered in the parishes of Holycross and Ballycahill, the cost of them is to be charged on the peaceful occupiers of that district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No outrages of importance have lately occurred in the parishes mentioned in this Question; but, owing to the intimidation prevailing, it has been necessary for the last 12 months to keep a protection party with caretakers on a property in the parish of Holycross. This duty has been performed by soldiers, who are now being relieved by the police. In the other parish mentioned—the parish of Ballycahill—there is no special protection given at present; but there are protection posts in the three surrounding parishes—namely, Holycross, Thurles, and Inch—and it has been considered right to include Ballycahill in the proclaimed district. The proportion of the cost of the extra Constabulary to be borne by the district will be a matter for the consideration of the Government.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— CORONERS' SALARIES.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that all county officers except coroners are paid when their salaries are due; that the coroners' salaries are always six months in arrear; if this is because all salaries except the coroners' are presented for in advance; and, whether he is aware that the Act of last year, by abolishing fees and substituting a fixed salary, did away with the necessity of the Grand Jury waiting to see the amount to which the coroner is entitled halfyearly; and, if he will, therefore, give instructions that the coroners be put on the same footing in regard to the payment of salaries as the other county officers, by a presentment in advance?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The salaries of county officers in the several counties in Ireland are presented for in advance,
  204
  and, therefore, can be paid when they become due. In the county of Dublin, I understand, the Coroner's salary is presented for in this way, and there seems no reason why the same course should not be adopted in other counties. It is open to the Coroners to bring the matter under the notice of the several Grand Juries, who have power to deal with it.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE HAMILTON COLLECTION OF MANUSCRIPTS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Hamilton MSS. were offered for sale to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether there is any correspondence or other documents which can be laid upon the Table of the House showing what occurred; whether the German Government have offered to resell any portion of the MSS. to the Government of this Country; and, if so, whether the offer has been or is being considered; and, whether it is true that two MSS. in the collection, viz., an Illustrated Dante and an Illuminated Bible have been valued by experts at a sum representing a large proportion of the purchase-money paid by Germany for the whole Collection?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, neither the whole nor any portion of the Hamilton Collection of Manuscripts was offered for sale to the Trustees of the British Museum. The German Government has not made any offer to resell to the Trustees any portion of the Manuscripts, nor has any communication passed between it and. the Trustees. With reference to the rumours referred to in the last part of the Question, I learn that the Trustees have no information of the price at which the two Manuscripts referred to have been valued.

  SCOTLAND—CRIMINAL LAW—ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN FORFAR.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a recent case where two boys charged with a petty offence of malicious mischief were taken a distance of over twenty miles for trial at Forfar, and, being there convicted and sentenced to six stripes with a birchen rod, were sent

  205
  to Perth, a further distance of twenty-five miles, for infliction of the punishment; and, whether simpler arrangements might not be made for the administration of justice?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this Question had only been put down last night, and he had asked the Lord Advocate to inquire into it.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The punishment of whipping is subject to strict regulations issued in 1862, under which it must be inflicted in prison in presence of the surgeon of the prison and of the keeper or Governor. The prison at Forfar was discontinued on the 15th of August last, under the Act of 1877; and the prison at Perth is now the prison for convicted Forfarshire prisoners, so that it was necessary to send the boys there. If the local authorities at Forfar had cells legalized for prisoners it would be proper that the punishment of whipping should be carried out there, and I would consider whether any alteration would be required upon the terms of the existing Rules in order to authorize this.

  THE SASINE OFFICE FRAUDS (EDINBURGH).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the trial and conviction, on the 9th instant, of two clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, for fraud; whether the clerks so convicted were, along with the clerk, Bryce, whose name occurs repeatedly in the Report of the trial, the only clerks in the office implicated in the frauds; whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken for the apprehension of Bryce; and, whether the loss arising from the fraud will fall upon the Exchequer, or who is responsible for it?
  MR. COURTNEY: This painful matter has been for some time under my notice; and I consider it so serious that I have directed a special inquiry to be made into it on the spot. Pending the result of that inquiry, it would not be for the public advantage that I should express any opinion on the conduct of anyone besides the two persons convicted, and the man Bryce who has absconded. A warrant has been more than two months out for the arrest of Bryce. I am afraid that the burden of the sums
  206
  improperly paid will fall upon the Exchequer.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT, 1866—CASE OF MR. BELAM.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that, in the case of Mr. Belam, late Assistant Paymaster of Her Majesty's Ship "Blanche," who was sentenced by Court Martial to be dismissed his ship on 22nd December 1881, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have increased the punishment awarded by the Court Martial to that of dismissal from Her Majesty's Service, by ordering his name to be removed from the Navy List; whether such increase of sentence is contrary to Section 53, Sub-section 1, of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866; whether it was declared illegal in the case of Captain Coffin, R.N. v. Reg.; and, whether officers of the civilian branch of the Navy ranking with Lieutenants, although not entitled to half pay, are, for this reason, liable to removal from Her Majesty's Service, when, in the case of a Lieutenant, such removal would be inapplicable?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not the case, as implied in my hon. Friend's Question, that the Board of Admiralty increased the punishment awarded by court martial to Mr. Belam, late Assistant Paymaster of the Blanche, for the offence for which he was tried. The Court sentenced him for that offence to be dismissed his ship. The Board of Admiralty found that this was only the last of a series of occasions, extending over some years, on which this officer's conduct had been the subject either of Courts of Inquiry or of complaints from his commanding officer; and, on a review of all the circumstances, they resolved that he could not be employed in Her Majesty's Service again. This decision was arrived at and put in force under the general powers of the Admiralty to remove the name of any officer from the list of Her Majesty's Navy. The case of Captain Coffin, alluded to by my hon. Friend, was altogether different. In that case, which occurred in 1878, the court martial imposed a punishment which it had no legal right to impose; the Admiralty interfered to correct the error; and the Judges, on appeal, reported against the whole proceeding.

  NAVY—IRON-CLAD SHIPS— REPAIRING.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state whether any change has been made in the programme for ironclad ship-building and repair since the last Return; if so, if he will state it, and also the names of the ironclad ships to be repaired at the Home Dockyards and at Malta respectively, with the dates at which they are likely to be out of hand?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, it would not be convenient to the House, nor would it be possible, without a very serious inroad on its time and practice, for me to give, in answer to this Question, full particulars of the prospect of the iron-clad shipbuilding programme of the year; and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to wait until the Navy Estimates are moved, when there will be the usual opportunity of reviewing the matter. I may say, however, generally, that, although the Egyptian operations have necessarily' caused some disturbance of our arrangements, the programme both for the building and the repair of ironclad ships will, I believe, be fairly fulfilled, although there are a few instances of delay, chiefly on account of armament fittings. The ships belonging to the Mediterranean Squadron which require repair will have the work done in the Dockyard at Malta.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE CONGO.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can give any assurance that territorial changes which are said to be contemplated on the Congo river will leave unimpaired the freedom of Commercial intercourse which has hitherto existed between this Country and that part of Africa?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government are most desirous that there should be complete liberty of navigation and commerce on all the great rivers of Africa, and the matter is having their most careful consideration at the present time.

  FRANCE AND PORTUGAL—COOLIES.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  208
  Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting an agreement between the Governments of France and Portugal for procuring and conveying (so called) free labourers, to be shipped from the Portuguese Territory in East Africa to some of the French Islands; and, whether any communication has been made to the Governments of France or Portugal in regard to a traffic differing only in name from a revival of the slave trade?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and those of France and Portugal respecting the recruitment of labour from Ibo, on the East Coast of Africa, to Mayotte, Nossi Bé, and Réunion; it being pointed out that such recruiting threatens a revival of the Slave Trade. The Portuguese Government have rejected a scheme for extending the emigration to Réunion; and with regard to Mayotte, and Nossi Bé, Her Majesty's Government are informed that instructions will be sent to the Mozambique authorities to give the scheme their most careful consideration, and not to put it into execution if they have reason to believe that it will give fresh impetus to the Slave Trade.

  VACCINATION—ALLEGED DEATH OF CHILDREN AT NORWICH FROM EFFECTS OF OPERATION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the inspectors, in the inquiry into the case of eight children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination at Norwich, as to four of the cases which terminated fatally—
  "We cannot divest our minds of the strong impression that the lymph used in vaccinating those children must have carried with it the elements of the disease which they subsequently developed;"
  whether the public vaccinator had been recommended for award from the Parliamentary grant; whether Dr. Buchanan, the medical officer of the Local Government Board, in his memorandum charges the same vaccinator with using dirty or improperly cleansed instruments in the processes of vaccination during the years 1876 to 1880, and later; and, whether it is any excuse by law, in answer to fresh summonses to vaccinate,

  209
  for the parents of any of the children so attacked to urge their fear of similar risk to the survivors; if not, whether he proposes by legislation to relieve such parents from the compulsion at present existing?
  MR. DODSON: My hon. and learned Friend asks me four Questions. As to the first Question, I must point out that the quoted words have reference, not to four of the cases, which terminated fatally as the Question implies, but to four cases vaccinated from one child, and of which two did not get erysipelas. As to the second Question, the public vaccinator was recommended for award from the Parliamentary grant in 1874, but not in 1876 or 1878, and he was again recommended in 1880; but the objectionable practice previously discovered by the Inspector appeared to have been then discontinued. As to the third Question, my answer is that, although Dr. Buchanan does charge Dr. Guy with using dirty instruments in 1876, he does not affirm that Dr. Guy did so at a later time. My answer to the fourth Question is that it is no legal defence to a summons under the Vaccination Acts for parents of children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination, to urge their fear of similar risk to their other children; and I am not prepared to assent to the view that, because one child may have happened to suffer, owing to mala praxis or some accidental circumstance, all the other children should be deprived of the protection which vaccination affords. At the same time, I may add that it is open to the Justices in any such case to impose a nominal fine, or decline to make an order for the vaccination of the child; and I should hope that whenever any such case occurs it will be considerately and tenderly dealt with.

  STATE OF IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of recent occurrences in Dublin, and the character of speeches delivered by ex-suspects and others in different parts of Ireland, he will vigilantly watch and use efficient means and safeguards against the further tendency to and development of incitement to sedition and violence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Executive Government in Ireland will continue to do its best to discharge its duty in the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— CLOONE, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that persons living in the parish of Cloone, in the county of Leitrim, who desired to take the benefit of the Arrears Act, have to appear before the Investigator at Mohill, five miles from the village of Cloone, and eight or nine miles from the homes of many of the Cloone tenants; whether he is aware that there are several hundred applications from the parish of Cloone, nearly all from persons in a very poor condition in life; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will take steps to have these applications dealt with in the village of Cloone?
  MR. TREYELYAN: The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The Commissioners hold sittings in as many places as possible, and, in the ordinary course of business, it is probable that the cases referred to would have been listed for investigation at Cloone; but in their anxiety to inquire into as many cases as possible before the end of this month—and I am glad to be able to say that they believe they will be able to inquire into all contested cases, with the exception of an extremely small and minute percentage—they have been obliged for the time to extend the area of the district where the inquiry is held. In the present case, the Land Commissioners do not think it a hardship that tenants should, under the circumstances, be obliged to travel five miles further than if the sitting had been fixed at Cloone.

  EGYPT—ARABI PASHA.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House when the trial of Arabi Pasha will commence; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, having handed him over for trial to that of the Khedive, and interfered in the procedure of the Court, has incurred any pecuniary responsibility for his defence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We are not aware when the trial will commence, although we have received a good deal of information lately from Lord Dufferin regarding the trial itself. With regard to the second part of the Question, the answer is in the negative.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—PETTY SESSIONAL COURTS.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the suggestions of the Justices Clerks Society for the revision of the form of proceedings in Petty Sessional Courts under the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and, whether he can undertake to give effect to the same at an early date.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: A regrettable delay has arisen in this matter, owing to the departure for India of the gentlemen who originally drew up these injunctions. The Lord Chancellor has now issued instructions for the forms to be settled as soon as possible.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—FAIR RENTS (APPLICATIONS).
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that thirty-four applications to fix fair rents on the estate of Julius Casement, recorded previous to 12th November 1881, eleven on the estate of William C. Mann, twenty-two on the estate of John McMeekin, five on the estate of Robert William Newton, five on the estate of William Hutchison, five on the estate of Reverend Hall Stewart, seven on the estate of Jane Smith, making altogether ninety-six cases in county Derry, none of which have been yet listed for hearing, and that the tenants are still paying the old rents; if any and what steps are being taken to get these and other tenants the benefit of the Land Act; is he aware that in some instances cases have been heard and disposed of which were listed long after the 12th of November 1881, leaving other tenants whose applications were recorded previous thereto still unheard; and, if he will direct these cases to be at once listed for hearing?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The first paragraph of the Question gives the number of applications with tolerable accuracy.
  212
  There were 400 applications lodged before the date mentioned, and all are sent for trial in the order of their receipt in the Land Commission Office. None lodged after have been tried, with the exception of two cases in which evictions had taken place, and which, according to the Commissioner's practice, were listed for hearing out of their regular course, so that the tenants might not, by being evicted, lose the benefit of the Land Law Act. A special Sub-Commission has been appointed for Londonderry, with a view of disposing, as rapidly as possible, of the large number of cases awaiting trial in that county.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS, VALUATORS, &c.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Land Commission proposes to dispense with the services of the Court Valuators at the expiry of the three months period for which they were engaged?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In answer to my hon. Friend, I will state with brevity the course the Government propose to adopt, and their reasons for it. Towards the end of last summer a conviction, which began quite early in the year, that there was a block in the business of the Land Courts, had become quite universal, and all parties were agreed that a remedy for that block would have to be found—I think that is not a controverted statement—and that it was desirable such a remedy should be found. The Government, after taking the advice of the Land Commissioners, sanctioned the appointment of valuers, with a view to increasing despatch of business and diminishing the number of appeals. One valuer was attached to each Sub-Commission. To the best of the judgment which the Government can form, the Courts so re-constituted have, taking Ireland as a whole, given judgments of very much the same character as before the re-constitution of the Courts. ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Benches.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not hold that opinion; but I am obliged to state the views of the Government. But the hopes of the Government as to the increase in the despatch of business, and the decrease in the number of appeals, have been disappointed. The number of decisions

  213
  has hardly shown any increase at all. The number of appeals, if anything, has shown the reverse of a decrease. Other means will, therefore, have to be sought to grapple with the great task that is still before the Commission. It has been determined to attach to each Court four lay Sub-Commissioners instead of two, so that one pair of Sub-Commissioners may be inspecting the farms, while the other pair is occupied in Court, and so on, turn and turn about. By this means the Government hope that the time of the legal Sub-Commissioner will be fully occupied, which was not the case before the recent appointment of valuers, and has not been the case since that appointment. They anticipate a very great acceleration in the number of cases decided; while the certainty that the lay Sub-Commissioners will have abundant time to spend on the inspection of the farms will give a confidence to both landlord and tenant, which they hope will largely diminish the number of appeals, though the Government think that that confidence had every reason to be given in the past. The Government believe that, in order to increase the rapidity of the working of the Land Act, public money cannot, than in this way, be more effectually and economically spent.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he passes from this subject, whether it is the intention of the Commission to employ many of the present valuers as new Sub-Commissioners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The appointment of the valuers I may explain, as the House may be ignorant of the matter, lies entirely with the Land Commissioners. The appointment of Sub-Commissioners lies entirely with the Government, and it is for the Government to make appointments to the best of their judgment.
  MR. GIBSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether that is the statement he promised yesterday as to the decision of the Government, to be announced to-day, with regard to the continuance of the employment of the Court valuers; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to how far the Land Commissioners have presented their views in any official form whatever which can be laid before Parliament?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is extremely difficult to answer some of the Questions the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me; but I boldly say that I was anxious to present the Papers which the Commissioners, with their greater experience, and for reasons with which I sympathize, did not feel inclined to have presented. The Land Commissioners have objected hitherto—and I suppose will continue to object—to laying their reasons for recommending the appointment of valuers before the House. With regard to the change which the Government now propose, I may say this—that the Commissioners, though, perhaps, divided among themselves in their predilection for what they considered the best course, are unanimous in thinking that if the alteration is made the constitution of the Courts I have just mentioned to the House is a well-advised constitution.
  MR. GIBSON: I again ask, is the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the "full and complete" statement we were told would be made to the House on this subject; and I desire to know have the Land Commissioners unanimously approved of the termination of the employment of Court official valuers next month; or is this the idea of the four lay Commissioners and the idea of the Irish Executive?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The statement I have laid before the House contains the sum and substance of the reasons that have influenced the Government in making this change, and also the essential part of the change itself. If there is any particular point on which information is desired, I shall be glad to explain it. I have to state again that I will not assert that all the Land Commissioners prefer these Courts constituted as I have described; but what I do say is, that if this change is made it is a change which they all approve.
  MR. GIBSON: One more Question, because this matter requires explanation. My Question was plain, and requires a categorical answer. Have the Land Commissioners approved of the change now proposed by the Irish Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have answered two or three times, and my intention is quite clear. I will not vouch for some of the Commissioners not preferring the present constitution of the Courts. I

  215
  have always endeavoured to be frank; and I thought that the House, when I made my statement, would gather that there are on the Land Commission gentlemen who prefer the present constitution.
  MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, by the appointment of these lay Commissioners they are merely to value, and not to sit in Court and hear evidence? I wish to ask whether the fact of a person being a valuer of experience, and much employed in valuing land, should be considered a disqualification for employment as Sub-Commissioners?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think the hon. Member is under a slight mistake as to the statement which I have made. Each pair of Sub-Commissioners will be alternately in Court, and engaged inspecting the fields. And the Government will endeavour to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in attempting to obtain the services of gentlemen who are thoroughly acquainted with the value of land.
  MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask, as this is a matter of importance, whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman in believing that all the Commissioners will hear evidence? The Question I wish to ask is, whether two Commissioners will remain in Court hearing cases, and the two other Commissioners, who do not hear, will go to value?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The business, I take it, will be apportioned between the two pairs of lay Commissioners, and the same pair of lay Commissioners will inspect the farms and hear the evidence, just as was done before when there was only one pair of Sub-Commissioners. "We hope this will enable the Sub-Commissioners to give a very much larger amount of time to valuing the land.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to letters which have appeared in the "Daily News" of Saturday last from electors of the School Board Division of Lambeth, complaining that they were refused admission to the polling station at 7.30 p.m. on the day of election; and, whether such exclu-
  216
  sion of electors from the polling station before 8 p.m. is legal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the letters in question stated that the poll at the election in Lambeth was closed before 8 o'clock, and, of course, it ought to have been open till that time. The Deputy Presiding Officer had communicated with the proper authorities, and stated that the poll was taken up to the statutory hour. It was reasonable to suppose that the conflict of statements arose from the fact that the door of the polling station was closed earlier than 8 o'clock. Very likely, if the polling station was full of persons wishing to vote, there would be a pressure of persons coming in, and it would be necessary to shut the door. If that was the case, and votes were received till 8, there would, in his (the Attorney General's) opinion, be no breach of the law.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—TAJODRA BAY.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of his statement that Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt that Tajoura Bay is part of Egypt, under the Rule of the Khedive and the Suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey, Her Majest3''s Government are prepared to oppose any cession of Tajoura Bay to France by the Sultan of Laita?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question put by the hon. Member is a hypothetical one. Should the case arise, the matter will be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government; but we are not aware that it has arisen.

  EGYPT—SULTAN PASHA.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as publicly stated, that one of the first acts of the Khedive's Government, on their return to Cairo, was to pay Sultan Pasha £10,000 out of the public chest; whether Her Majesty's Government know for what services this sum was paid; whether this is the same Sultan Pasha who has been accused publicly of having caused the Mudir of Miniek to receive eight hundred blows of the courbash on account of a private grudge; and, whe-

  217
  ther this is the same Sultan Pasha who has recently been made a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: By a decree of the Khedive, dated the 4th of October, the sum of £10,000 was granted to Sultan Pasha. This sum is stated to have been in part an indemnity for losses. We know nothing of the matter referred to in the third part of the hon. Baronet's Question. The conduct of Sultan Pasha, as President of the Chamber of Notables, in standing out with courage against military violence, has been much admired in this country, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by the hon. Baronet himself. He was of great service to Her Majesty's Forces during the military operations, and after their conclusion was made an Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the hon. Baronet whether the Egyptian Assembly of Notables would be asked to confirm this grant of £10,000 out of the Egyptian taxes?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The grant was not made at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, and we were not consulted in the matter.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE SPECIAL GRANT.
  MR. M'COANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be communicated to the House; and, whether the whole of the grant recently voted for distribution amongst the Force has been so applied?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Report of the Commission referred to in this Question has not yet been received by the Government. I cannot say whether it will be presented to Parliament. The gratuity, roughly estimated at £180,000, has been distributed among the Force on the terms approved by the Irish Government and the Treasury, with the exception of a few outstanding claims. As the known expenditure amounts to little over £160,000, the amount necessary to meet the claims would appear to have been over-estimated.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  LORD BURGHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement of the Earl of Morley, at the dinner to the Medical Staff upon the 21st November, is well founded, that the Committee now sitting upon the medical arrangements of the Army is not appointed to inquire into the alleged defective condition of the Department during the Egyptian War?
  SIR AETHUR HAYTER (for Mr. CHILDERS): The observations of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War must, I think, have been misinterpreted; and it would be more satisfactory to the House to have the exact terms of the Reference to the Committee now sitting. At the War Office the following are the instructions from the Secretary of State:—
  "It will be advisable that the Committee appointed to inquire into the organizations of Army Hospital Corps should extend the scope of its inquiry into the question of hospital management and nursing in the field, as well as the sea transport of sick and wounded. The recent experience in the Egyptian campaign will be most valuable in such an inquiry. The Committee should ascertain what deficiencies, if any, existed in the field, or other hospitals, or hospital ships in that campaign with a view to future remedy?"
  LORD BURGHLEYasked when it was likely that the Report would be laid before the House?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERreplied that the Report was not yet completed; but that great efforts would be made to complete it by next Session.

  NAVY—THE DEPOT SHIP AT PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Depot Ship at Portsmouth will, in three years, be unfit for service; and, whether, meanwhile, provision will be made by the erection of Naval Barracks; and, if not, if he can state the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government have relinquished the intention of erecting the Naval Barracks, of which the foundations had been begun?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is hard to say when the Depot Ship at Portsmouth will become unfit for service, and I should be sorry to accept the time named by the hon. Member. As to the erection of barracks, it is not in-

  219
  tended to proceed with it until we have seen whether the Naval Barracks now under construction at Devonport succeed. There is also some doubt as to the suitableness of the site on which the commencement of a building had been made at Portsmouth.

  ARMY—H.S.H. THE DUKE OF TECK.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any emolument is attached to the rank of Colonel, which Her Majesty has granted to His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck?
  SIR ARTHUR HATTER: No pay is provided by the Regulations for a Colonel in the Army who holds no other commission. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany are, like His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck, Colonels in the Army, but do not receive pay. There is, in fact, no pay attached to the rank of Colonel as such.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INDIA) ACT—COURTS OF JUSTICE (MADRAS).
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the fact that when the Native assessors at the trial of the Hindu prisoners accused of complicity in the Salem riots refused to find the prisoners guilty on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, they were denounced in open Court by the European Judge, Mr. Wigram, as having given "a perverse verdict," which "convinced him that they cannot have conscientiously considered the evidence;" whether the Native assessors to courts of justice in India, who are appointed under the Criminal Procedure Act to give their opinion to the court upon such evidence as may be produced at a trial before them, are liable under any law to have opinions thus given in the discharge of their official functions controverted by the presiding judge; and, what stops the Government intend to take to protect Native assessors in the discharge of their legal functions; and also, whether the attention of the noble Marquess has been called to the fact that the presiding judge, Mr. Wigram, before proceeding, on his sole responsibility, and without any jury, to sentence a number of Hindu prisoners in the foregoing case to various
  220
  terms of penal servitude for life, and for long terms of years, made the following explanatory statement of his reasons for passing such severe sentences:—
  "The sentences I am about to pass may appear severe, but I shall append to my judgment a recommendation that, should the feud between the Hindus and Mohammedans be buried for ever, and should Salem again assume its prosperous and peaceful condition, the Government should, after two years, revise the sentences as to them may seem fit;"
  under what Law was Mr. Justice Wigram empowered to make the subsequent conduct of persons out of doors a ground for diminishing or increasing the punishment of sentenced prisoners; and, if such a Law exists, whether he will undertake to propose its repeal?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to these two Questions I think that I have already said that I have no information except from newspaper reports. I find that the prisoners referred to have appealed to the High Court at Madras, where their appeal is now pending; and, under these circumstances, I think it would be undesirable to enter into any discussion on the points raised.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was only Indian prisoners who could be sentenced to penal servitude for life without the intervention of a jury; and whether it was the fact that in the case of European prisoners no such power was vested in a single Judge; and, whether, if such were the case, the noble Marquess would propose to repeal a law which inflicted such gross inequality of treatment between different subjects of the Crown?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not answer the Question without Notice.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— COURT VALUERS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the memorandum of the Irish Land Commission, dated 28th August, recommending the appointment of Court Official Valuers was communicated officially to the Irish Executive, and contained the well considered views of all the Commissioners in favour of the proposal; whether he received a deputation in Dublin which publicly gave some views opposed to these appointments, and the First Lord of the Treasury lately

  221
  laid upon the Table a memorial of the same purport; and, whether, under these circumstances, it is desirable to keep secret the memorandum which caused and justified the appointments?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The recommendation of the Land Commissioners referred to in this Question is an official communication from one Government Department to another, and quite fulfils the conditions referred to by the right hon. and learned Member. As I have already explained, the Land Commissioners unanimously object to its being presented. I have recognized the truth of the facts stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I cannot see any point in this Question which should induce me to depart from the answer on the matter which I have already communicated to the House.
  MR. GIBSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman considered the Irish Court of Land Commission to be a Government Department?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Inasmuch as it makes recommendations by letter on questions which we may call administrative, it may be called a Government Department. But inasmuch as it gives judgment, I have always endeavoured, though under great difficulty, considering the nature of the Questions to which I am subjected in this Blouse, to protest against its having any connection with the Government whatsoever.

  ARMY—THE 2ND BATTALION STAFFORDSHIRE RANGERS.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If an application from the Commanding Officer 2nd Battalion Staffordshire Rangers, for an Officer of Royal Marines to succeed to the vacant Adjutancy caused by the death of the late Captain and Adjutant Luxmoore, R.M.L.I., has been refused: and, if so, the reason for such refusal?
  SIR ARTHITR HAYTER: No application was received from the officer commanding the 2nd Battalion Staffordshire Rangers for an Adjutant from the Royal Marines. An officer from the territorial regiment has been selected for the appointment.

  MALTA.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If
  222
  any reply has been sent to a letter, dated 26th ult., written by the Honourable Salvatore Cachia Zammit (an elected Member of the Malta Council of Government) concerning some pending questions; whether he is aware that tomorrow is the day fixed for the opening of the Malta Session, and that the proceedings of the Council are not unlikely to be largely influenced by the view taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to these questions; if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists; whether any steps can be taken to restore to the Maltese people some control over their own local affairs; and, if there is any objection to lay a Copy of the Correspondence with Mr. Cachia Zammit upon the Table of the House?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There is no objection to lay on the Table Mr. Zammit's letter with the Secretary of State's reply. I do not think it probable that the Malta Council will meet as soon as the hon. Member seems to think, as five of the unofficial Members have just resigned their seats on account of the election of a pauper by the inhabitants of Gozo to a seat at the Council Board. There has been considerable dissatisfaction expressed by two opposite parties—namely, by those who think the Government have done too much, and also by those who think they have done too little in the way of improvement and reform. There has been every desire to regard the wishes of the Maltese people in respect of local affairs; and it is only in cases where it has been thought that Imperial interests were involved that the votes of the elected Members have been overruled by the official majority.
  MR. MAC IVERinquired whether the dissatisfaction had found expression in the Correspondence to which reference had been made?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYreplied that, upon that point, the hon. Member must draw his own deductions.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Vice President of the Council, How many outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease have taken place since the Return published in the "Gazette" of Tuesday 22nd instant, and in what counties they have occurred?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There was no Gazette Return of foot-and-mouth disease on the 22nd of November; but since the Return of the 24th instant, which included all outbreaks up to the 18th, there have been 103 fresh outbreaks, including to-day's Return. Fifty-six of these have been in the county of Norfolk, nine in Essex, and seven in Suffolk. The remaining 31 have been spread over 15 counties, of which Surrey is one with two outbreaks. We have passed an Order restricting the sales of store stock in the counties of Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, from the 10th of December, and we purpose to add to the list from time to time any districts that may become seriously affected. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the Veterinary Department is exercising the greatest vigilance and vigour in dealing with the recent outbreak of disease.

  SCOTLAND—THE GENERAL POLICE BILL.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will remove some uncertainty which exists respecting the scope of the General Police Bill for Scotland, proposed to be introduced next Session, by stating whether the legislation contemplated is intended to apply to large towns as well as police burghs?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The legislation contemplated is intended to apply to large towns as well as police burghs.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the evidence given before the Royal Commission for the Advance of Technical Education, with a view to utilizing the information gained on the Continent for the amelioration of the condition of the population of the West and the North West of Ireland, by providing technical instruction in industries suited to the condition of the people?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the Question. The evidence before the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction is not yet
  224
  complete, and none has yet been presented. The Chairman, Mr. Samuelson, and Mr. Magnus visited Ireland last September for the purpose of placing the Commission in communication with persons in a position to give information on the best means of introducing domestic industries into the West of Ireland; and they have issued a series of questions which are now in circulation, and to which some replies containing valuable information have already been received. Mr. Woodall and the Secretary, Mr. Redgrave, undertook a journey through the Black Forest and Thuringia in order to inspect the home industries carried on there. A Report on their visit is now being prepared by them for the information of the Commission. The Commissioners are now in Belgium, and some of them will proceed to Holland. They are including domestic industries in their inquiry in those countries. I understand it is probable that they may make a special Report on this part of the subject, apart from their general Report.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— THE COST OF THE WAR.
  COLONEL STANLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can inform the House of the probable cost of the recent Naval and Military operations in Egypt; and, whether it will be necessary to submit Supplementary Estimates for Army and Navy Services during the current financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-OUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I will answer the first and second parts of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question before coming to the figures. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to ask the House for Votes on Account of the Army and Navy; but whether, and how far, they will be Supplementary Estimates, or whether they will be in the shape of a further Vote of Credit, is a question which for the present we shall reserve. The figures are simply these. The House will remember that the original Estimates were—For the War Office, £900,000; and for the Admiralty, £1,400,000; making a total of £2,300,000. The Supplementary Estimate up to the 1st of October—the epoch at which the War charge, properly so-called, accrued to the Exchequer of this country, apart from the question

  225
  of contribution from Egypt—will be £750,000 for the War Office, and £310,000 for the Admiralty, making together £1,060,000. Putting together these two sums, already authorized and estimated to be required down to the 1st of October the total charge borne, and to be borne, by the British Exchequer, is £3,360,000. Then there is the Indian Contingent, which was originally estimated in India at £1,880,000. The expenses of that Contingent have been very considerably less—namely, £1,140,000. But I ought to state that the original Estimate included a sum of which we are not precisely informed, but it would not be very large—not more than a fraction of the whole—for the difference in the ordinary pay of the men sent from India. The actual charge borne out of the Indian Revenues in the first instance is £1,140,000, making a total charge for the operations of the war, including the transport of the men, of £4,500,000. I have only two other points to mention. One is that the extra charge from the 1st of October is one which we have reason to expect will be borne entirely, or almost so, by the Egyptian Revenues. It will not be a large charge for the current financial year. It may have to be voted by this House in the first instance; but, if so, when the Vote is asked for, a full statement will be made as to the arrangements for repayment. The other point is, that I have spoken of these payments without any reference to the final repartition of the charge between England and India, which is a matter that is under the consideration of the Government; and, when they have had the proper communication, they will make known their views and their proposals to the House.
  Subsequently,
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made included the ordinary pay of the troops only, or the extra pay and allowances also? He also wished to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India whether, as four months had passed since the subject first came before the House, he could not, before the end of the Session, present a statement to the House of the whole details connected with that transaction? He asked the noble Marquess whether he
  226
  could give Papers as to the first communications between the Home Government and India on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That part of the Question which belongs to the province of my noble Friend I must leave to him. With respect to the sum which I mentioned in answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. Member asked me whether it includes the ordinary pay only, or likewise the extra pay and allowances? The ordinary pay, I thought I stated before, is not included either in the case of India or this country. All that is included and has been sent to us at the Treasury are the special allowances in connection with the war, and the whole extra charge connected with, the war.

  EGYPT (ARABI PASHA)—MR. WILFRID BLUNT.
  LORD ELCHOasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's recent letter to the "Times" newspaper, and, whether, having regard to the replies given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to questions relating to the trial of Arabi Pacha and the employment of counsel in his defence, he intends to allow the costs of such trial to be defrayed by a private individual; or, whether, seeing that the Government have stated that they had "secured" for the prisoners, who surrendered to our troops, "the benefit of counsel and publicity of trial," he will undertake to defray, out of public funds, the costs already paid by Mr. Blunt from his private purse, and such further expenditure as may be necessary to insure a full and fair trial of the accused?
  MR. GLADSTONE: On this subject I have to make a very brief reply. Her Majesty's Government have not in any way entered into or been responsible for, nor do they intend to make themselves responsible for, any of the proceedings of Mr. Blunt in regard to Egyptian affairs and the operations in Egypt, and they have no intention to defray any part of the expenses of the proceedings taken for the defence of Arabi, and those who, in common with him, are arraigned in Egypt, either for an act of rebellion, or otherwise.

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS—A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the causes which have led to disturbances in Skye, and serious agitation in Caithness and other parts of Scotland; and, whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government having decided against the appointment of a Commission, he will, before the House rises, give a day for the discussion of the question? The hon. Member further asked whether the attention of the Prime Minister had been called to the reports in the newspapers of a very serious state of affairs existing between the tenant farmers in Caithness and the proprietors? The right hon. Gentleman might not, he added, be aware from the newspapers that there was likely to be a very serious difficulty. In asking the Question he apologized for any appearance of importunity on the ground of the extreme urgency of the case.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the state of affairs in Caithness, I, like the hon. Member, have seen a statement in the newspapers which indicates differences between a Caithness proprietor and his tenants; but I am in no condition to give any official information, nor is it likely we should have under the circumstances; nor am I in a condition to give an opinion on the subject, except this—that I think both in Caithness and Skye, from whence we hear reports of a different kind tending towards popular commotion, that matters are in such a state as to render it peculiarly incumbent on the Government to consider very carefully what course it may be proper to take, in order to avoid any steps which might possibly lead to inconvenient consequences. The hon. Member will recollect that the difficulty in Skye at the present moment occurs under these circumstances—that there are legal rights in contest between one and more proprietors and a number of tenants, that the natural course would be that these rights should be ascertained; but that at present there is an appearance of resistance to the first step towards ascertaining—namely, the service of writs, or whatever the proper
  228
  name may be for that step in Scotland. With regard to the appointment of a Commission, the hon. Member will recollect that there was an opportunity for full discussion of this matter in the summer, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate stated, on the part of the Government, the reasons which led them to believe that it would not be wise to issue a Royal Commission on the subject. On the facts placed before them, Her Majesty's Government cannot see in anything any reason for departing from that determination. Of course, if we are in that state of mind, it almost follows that I must answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question in the negative, and say that we are not prepared before the House rises to give a day for the discussion of this subject. With regard to any apparent importunity on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I beg him to believe that nothing could be further from my intention than to make any charge against him on that subject. I am sure he does it from an earnest and philanthropic interest in the matter.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Prime Minister, if he could not give a day, whether he would use his influence with a distinguished Member who sat behind the Government to remove the block on the subject from the Paper, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) would do the rest himself?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not undertake to interfere with the course any hon. Member proposed to take. It would be setting an awkward precedent.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate whether he had received any confirmation of the statement that the dispute in the Braes district had been settled?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have not received any information of a definite settlement; but I received information last night that there was a probability of its being settled—that negotiations were in progress which, it was thought, would result in a settlement.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. EDMOND DWYER GRAY, M.P.).
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will afford facilities, before the Session ends, for the discussion of a Motion standing on the Order Book in the name of the

  229
  honourable Member for Sligo, arising out of the Report and Proceedings of the Select Committee on Privilege in the case of Mr. E. D. Gray?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he saw no call upon them to make any special arrangements, and no special advantage in raising this question at the present moment. He did not recognize in it any character of urgency which would make it necessary to be discussed at the present time, as compared with a period at the commencement of the next Session, when hon. Gentlemen would have their own opportunities in the regular course of Business. He did not wish to appear discourteous to the hon. Members opposite; but he would say that it was a very difficult matter for him to interfere with this proceeding of individual Members; and if he was asked in one instance to use influence to induce a particular Member to take a particular course, he felt it would be introducing an awkward precedent, because he did not feel that he was entitled to interfere in that way. He was by no means sure that discussion of this subject was desirable; because, what he wished to signify was that it was the duty of the Government to see to the proper execution of the law, and he did not at all feel that their taking this step at the present time would tend to promote that object.

  EGYPT—MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER AND PARTY.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to redeem a pledge I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the subject of the inquests, so called, on the murderers of Professor Palmer and his coadjutors. We have a telegram to-day, from which we are led to expect that on or before Christmas the whole of those concerned—no doubt a considerable number, between 20 and 30—will be brought to Suez, and together with them another number of persons who are competent to give evidence in the case.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is no reason to doubt that the guilty persons will be fully and properly punished?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no reason to doubt it. The expectation held out to us is a confident expectation. There is no reason whatever to doubt it.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Is there any information as to the servant of Captain
  230
  Gill? He had a servant, who has been missing and not accounted for.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: According to the best information we have, the Native servant of Captain Gill was included among those who were killed.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— ROYAL MARINES AND MARINE ARTILLERY.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a battalion of 900 Royal Marines and Marine Artillery, under the command of a Lieutenant Colonel of Marines, was landed in July last at Alexandria from Her Majesty's Troopship "Tamar," but was not placed under the Army Regulation Act for some days; whether during this period the Naval officer commanding the "Tamar" had to go ashore daily to dispose of defaulters and prisoners in the battalion, although he was of standing junior to the Marine officer commanding the battalion; and, whether such change will be made in the status of the officers of Royal Marines as will prevent such an occurrence for the future?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Marines who were landed from the Tamar were not placed under the Army Act owing to express orders to that effect from the Board of Admiralty, the reason being that it was not at that time probable that they would permanently form part of the military force at Alexandria. As soon as they became incorporated in the military force, they were made subject to the Army Act for purposes of discipline. Until this was done, they were, no doubt, while on shore at Alexandria, in a somewhat anomalous position, though I cannot without inquiry say whether the facts were precisely as stated in the hon. and learned. Member's Question. The anomalies which arise in such circumstances, and in certain other cases, have for some time been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and we will see whether any modification of existing arrangements is necessary.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—THE RECENT MURDERS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  231
  of Ireland whether he could give the House any additional information with respect to the deplorable occurrences in Dublin yesterday; whether any further arrests have been made; and, whether the Government would consider it necessary to take measures for the protection of jurymen in the exercise of their functions? I am sure it would interest the House to know whether any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrences that have taken place.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask whether the attention of the Government has been called to the language used by Michael Davitt in his speech at Navan, which language is of a most inflammatory character? At the meeting there were two Members of Parliament present—the hon. Members for Westmeath and for Meath; and I should like to know what steps the Government intend to take in this matter?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether the hon. and gallant Baronet has a right to use argumentative phrases, such as that "language was of a most inflammatory character," in place of submitting to the judgment of the House the exact words of which he complains?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Baronet appears to me to have applied an epithet that is open to controversy.
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the speech of Mr. Davitt, the questions of the action of the Irish Government with reference to speeches and articles are questions which involve very careful and long consideration, and afterwards communications, sometimes protracted, between Members of the Government. I answered the hon. and gallant Baronet yesterday that a speech, which had been made some time before that, was under consideration, and he was satisfied with the answer. I need not say with regard to Michael Davitt's speech, that it is yet under consideration, because Business has been so pressing during the last few days in the Irish Office in London, and in the Irish Office in Dublin, that nothing official has passed yet on the subject of that speech. With regard to the question whether any arrests have been made, I imagine that none have been
  232
  made, because I telegraphed early in the day to have any information on that point sent to me, and because I have spent a considerable time with Mr. Jen-kinson—a very active officer—and he had not, up to that time, heard of any arrests. With regard to the Question of my right hon. Friend, that matter has certainly occupied the attention of the Government, and has occupied it very promptly; and communications of great importance with regard to the means of preserving the peace in Dublin have been passing to-day, and will probably bear some fruit. The only telegram of interest I have to communicate to the House is with relation to the condition of Mr. Field. Dr. Kaye, Assistant Secretary, says—
  "I have seen the two medical men in attendance on Mr. Field, who was so badly wounded, and they both say he has had a more favourable night than could be expected; but his state is most critical."
  Then he goes on to give details as to the most dreadful wounds he received, and to make some remarks as to the nature of the attack upon him. I am not quite certain whether those details have got into the newspapers; and, if not, I am not quite certain whether I should be acting in the interests of protection from crime by communicating them to the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Are the Government in a position to state how far they have reason to believe that the speech attributed to Mr. Davitt in this morning's papers has been correctly reported?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is a Question on that subject upon the Paper for to-morrow.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Were any Government reporters present?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I shall be ready to answer that Question to-morrow. I can hardly be blamed for not having the information now.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— OFFICIAL VALUERS.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. GIBSON: Sir, I respectfully ask the permission of the House to move its adjournment for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the conduct of the Government in reference to the appointment of official valuers in Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that Mr. Gibson be now heard?
    And there being many voices for and against—
    MR. SPEAKER: Is the right hon. Member supported by 40 Members?
    Whereupon, a large number of Members—not less than 40—rising in their places—
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin to proceed.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that he made no apology for pursuing the course which he had adopted in asking the attention of the House to a matter of grave and urgent public importance. He could not take so hopeful a view of the application of the New Rule as was taken by the Government, judging by the reception which he had received from Members opposite, when he was bringing forward, a matter of urgent public importance. Many Members would have heard with surprise that evening—for no Notice had been given—the decision arrived at by the Government on the subject which he was bringing before the House. As the Government had occupied all the time of the House for the consideration of those Rules, unless he had adopted his present course he would have had no opportunity of bringing forward a discussion in which the Government would doubtless be glad to afford an explanation of the course which they had taken, and from which doubtless they would not shrink. The change announced that evening by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was one of great importance. But grave as it was, the reasons announced for the change were even more grave. The Government had resolved that the system of appointing Court valuers, who were to assist the Sub-Commissioners in the exercise of their judicial functions, should be superseded by a perfectly new system, not sanctioned or recommended by the Court which had to administer justice and which was largely influenced, or liable to be influenced, by political considerations. What were the facts of the case? On the 28th of August last, in what the Chief Secretary for Ireland described as a well-considered Memorandum, the Land Commissioners presented, as their deliberate opinion, that
    234
    it was desirable for the administration of justice that a system of efficient Court valuers should be established. Why was this done? They had been left strangely in the dark. He would like to know why the House, and those interested in this question, could not have the opportunity of reading the official documents of the Irish Land Commissioners, which revealed their views. Were the Government ashamed of those views, or were their reasons for not disclosing them so plain and strong that if the documents were laid upon the Table of the House they would convince the House that no change was desirable? They had a well-considered Report in which the Land Commissioners presented their views, and in which, so lately as October 3, the Irish Government and Her Majesty's Government expressed their views as to these appointments. The Lord Lieutenant had expressed his opinion of the change by stating that the Government had deliberately come to the conclusion that the present system would gain the confidence of both parties more effectually than the system which had previously existed. That was the opinion of the Government in October; but now the Government, keeping back from the House the well-considered opinion of the Irish Land Commission, came down to the House and cast to the winds, as totally unfounded, their own "deliberate opinion" as to the best mode of administering the Irish Land Act. What was the reason suggested for this change? On the 28th of August the Irish Land Commissioners recommended the appointment of official land valuers. That was assented to by the Government in the hope of lessening appeals, of advancing progress, and of obviating the complaints which were made of the decisions of the Land Commissioners, many of whom were accused of scampering over farms almost without looking at them, and not being capable of deciding on the matters submitted to them. One would think, considering the matter from an ordinary standpoint, that official Court valuers, appointed by the central authority, possessing the necessary technical knowledge and experience, would primâ facie insure justice being effectually administered. The conclusion of the Government was arrived at after a twelvemonths' experience of no Court valuers,

    235
    which showed that independent valuers could not be obtained inasmuch as the ordinary valuers were in the habit of giving evidence for the landlord and the tenant in turn. All the valuers were so open to the charge of prejudice and bias that it was thought better to have independent valuers appointed by the authorities—that was, valuers who would be independent of both parties, so that the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, when assisted by their evidence, would be in a better position to give judgment in favour of the one party or the other. But there was this vice, or, as he preferred to call it, infirmity, underlying the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners—the want of independent judgment; for it was impossible to expect an independent judgment from officials who were only appointed for one year. The superior Judges now held their offices during good behaviour, for the very purpose of giving them an independent position, and yet in the present instance the Government appointed persons to these judicial offices only for a period of 12 months, with all the risks and uncertainties of such a position, and without any sure prospect of re-appointment. In fact, the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated with unmistakable vehemence that if the Sub-Commissioners did not give satisfaction they would not be reappointed. Such a position would make it impossible for them to act with independence. They should possess something like stability of office. If they decided cases in a particular way, and that way did not suit the Government, they would not be re-appointed. And now they found that quasi-judicial appointments were cut down to three months, for the official Court valuers were appointed for three months only with this pernicious result—that they were bound to conform to the wishes of the Government if they expected reappointment; and yet those who were intrusted with the administration of the law had deliberately stated that that was the best way of administering justice. He had nothing to say against these men personally, and he would assume that they were men of character and position; but he maintained that the mere fact of their tenure of office not being fixed was a warning to them to please the powers that
    236
    were. He thought that a speech that was made upon the subject by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was one of the most unfortunate ever delivered by a man in his high position. He himself never arraigned anyone's speeches without being prepared to support his statements. He commented on the Chief Secretary's statements in a speech delivered by him in Manchester shortly afterwards, which was fully reported in the Irish newspapers. As the right hon. Gentleman had not endeavoured to displace what he (Mr. Gibson) stated on that occasion, he was glad to take the present opportunity of criticizing the right hon. Gentleman's speech. On the 3rd of October last, in the Chief Secretary's room at Dublin Castle, the right hon. Gentleman received a large deputation from the North of Ireland, which, as he himself pointed out, was a one-sided deputation, and contained no representatives of the Conservative or National Parties, or indeed of any other than the Party—the Liberal Party—from whom the Government expected to receive some practical assistance in Ireland. The speakers, all of whom were introduced to the right hon. Gentleman either as the actual pillars of the Liberal cause in Ireland, or as persons who had tried to be such pillars, had expressed the dissatisfaction of their constituents with the working of the system of Court valuers. What was the language of the right hon. Gentleman's reply? He said in effect that if there was any dissatisfaction felt as to the appointment of Court valuers for three months, the Government "would undo the mistake;" those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman; and he gave two illustrations—and only two—to show that the official Court valuers had valued lower than the Assistant Commissioners, and that therefore the alarm of the deputation was not well founded. The moaning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was abundantly plain—that it was fair that the reduction should be on the same scale as that of the Assistant Commissioners, and that the Government would recognize the mistake they had made in the mode of appointing the Court valuers, and would undo that mistake. Such language as that held by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his political partizans had never before been used by the responsible Executive

    237
    Government in relation to the action of a Judicial Court. His exact words were—
    "If the tenants feel that they have lost very decidedly by the change, the Government have quite sympathy enough with the tenants to feel that it has taken a step which is injurious to them."
    Was not the meaning of that language that the official Court valuers were appointed to do justice to one side only? If the official Court valuers were appointed to do impartial justice between all suitors, what did the language of the right hon. Gentleman mean? In plain English it meant that if the valuers dared to value higher than the Assistant Commissioners, even rightly, then, if the tenants were dissatisfied, the Government would sympathize with the tenants and get rid of the valuers. He ventured to think that never was more dangerous or insidious language employed. How could the valuers be expected, after that language, to act fairly when they thus received from those who employed them and paid them, and could dismiss them, notice to quit? Would the Executive Government in Ireland dare to communicate or use that language in any of the Queen's Courts in that country, or would the right hon. Gentleman dare to speak like that in the Court of Queen's Bench or the Court of Exchequer? Did not Parliament intend that the Courts of the Land Commission should be as independent as any of the other Courts in the land? Yet here was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant taking upon himself to say that the Irish Executive would do all those things without the slightest reference to the Court which was bound in its conscience to be satisfied that justice was done. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the accuracy of all the reports made of that speech, and of the astounding statement which he would just read to the House. The Chief Secretary, on the same occasion, said—
    "For the essence—the cardinal point—of the Land Act is the personal inspection of the farms by a part of the tribunal."
    He (Mr. Gibson) had asserted before, and he would say again, that there was not a single syllable in the Land Act which justified such an assertion. In all the exhaustive speeches of the Prime Minister during the passage of the Land Act there was nothing to indicate any
    238
    intention that part of the tribunal should view the land, In face of the silence of the Prime Minister on that point and the absence of any such provision in the Land Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary took upon himself to say that personal examination of the land by the tribunal was the essence, the vital point of the Act. The Land Commission was intended by Parliament to be independent of all other Courts, of the Government, and of parties; it was to be a Court of Justice for all suitors. He asked no preference for landlords; he sought no prejudice against tenants; but he did ask that fair and impartial justice that was intended by Parliament and insisted upon by the Prime Minister as the one justification of the Act. Yet now the independent Court of the Irish Land Commission was degraded into a Department of the Government. The Commission was not allowed to mould its own administration as it should think justice required, for they had heard from the Chief Secretary that its views were overborne by those of the Executive Government. The interview of the 3rd of October was one of the most remarkable incidents that had ever happened in the public life of Ireland—a deputation going to an Executive Minister of the Government to suggest how an Act of Parliament should be administered. The Minister accepted the position, and promised to vary that administration if it did not suit the views of his political friends. He (Mr. Gibson) challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say whether from the beginning to the end of his speech there was any suggestion that the Irish Land Commission would have even a consultative voice in the administration. That speech, supplemented by the statement made that day, placed the Irish Land Commission in a position equivocal, to say the least, if not absolutely contemptible. Although the Irish Land Act had vested the administration in them, the right hon. Gentleman had treated them as a mere branch of the Executive Government. He could not but think that some, at all events, of the Land Commissioners might have had the spirit and independence to protest against being treated as Government lackeys. The language of the Chief Secretary on that occasion was to the last degree unfortunate and to be deplored. He was quite confident if the

    239
    right hon. Gentleman had to deliver that speech again he would make a very different one, for it was open to great danger and criticism. If the right hon. Gentleman had the power to promise that the administration of the Land Act would be varied until it satisfied his political friends, might not this be used as a vast engine of gigantic political corruption? All through this Session Questions had been put to the Chief Secretary on this subject. He would show from his answers the halting and slow but resolute way by which the Government had been advancing to the startling decision by which they had that day surprised the House. On November 2nd the Chief Secretary was questioned in reference to this matter, and he (Mr. Gibson) in reading some quotations would show the House the deliberate, slow, and resolute way by which the Government advanced to the singular procedure by which to-day they surprised the whole House. On the 2nd of November the right hon. Gentleman said that the more he examined into the appointment of the valuators the more he was satisfied with them. He also said that he thought the Sub-Commissioners and the valuers were, as a class, men in whom landlord and tenant might repose confidence, and the examination of farms was being made with much more care than was formerly the case—one of the objects for which the official Court valuers were appointed, and one of the primary objects the Land Commission and the Government itself had in view. Therefore, at that time, they had it in the right hon. Gentleman's own words that the Court's functions were satisfactorily discharged by those whom he now sought to get rid of. On the 13th of November the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by an hon. Member from the North of Ireland as to whether, in consequence of the appointment of Judicial Court valuers, there had been any substantial number of withdrawals of tenants from the Land Court, indicating a want of confidence in them? The Chief Secretary for Ireland replied that the Land Commissioners stated that they were not aware of any withdrawals in consequence of the appointment of the valuers, except at Balbriggan. Up to that time there was no suggestion that these appointments had failed to satisfy the purpose for
    240
    which they were made. On the 2nd of November the right hon. Gentleman said—"I cannot undertake to say what action the Government will take in December;" but at that period the Government had no reason to be dissatisfied. He (Mr. Gibson) would now ask when was the decision to change and vary this mode of administration arrived at? What was the opinion of the Land Commissioners themselves about this change? From whom did the proposal that there should be a change proceed—from the Land Commision or the Government? And was the correspondence on the subject official and written, or not? There should be no secrecy or hesitation about placing all the circumstances before Parliament. There were now four Land Commissioners—Mr. Justice O'Hagan, Mr. Litton, Mr. Vernon, and Viscount Monck—and they knew that the proposal which suggested the appointment of official Court valuers was the unanimous, well-considered decision of the Commissioners.
    MR. TREVELYAN: May I be allowed to say that they agreed to it, and that it was the opinion of the Land Commission—I was not aware every one of the Commissioners considered it advisable.
    MR. GIBSONcontended that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he was entitled to assume that the four Commissioners were in favour of it, and the Prime Minister on the 27th October said just as much. He (Mr. Gibson) asserted that the Government were now proceeding against the opinions of the Commissioners. He insisted that the Commissioners were opposed to the change. What justification was there for the case? The right hon. Gentleman had not said that the Court valuers did not value fairly, and did not give satisfaction to their employers. There was no complaint from any Sub-Commission for whom they had valued, and there was no suggestion that the Land Commission had had any occasion to reprove a single one of these valuers. Therefore, the Government were not getting rid of them for valuing unfairly or for fixing unjust rents. They were getting rid of them to silence the clamour of some of their political friends; and they had not one solitary official sentence to support them in their action,

    241
    nor one Return to justify the change. On the contrary, they had the distinct assurance of the Chief Secretary that the examination of the land had been better conducted after the appointment of the official Court valuers than before. The Chief Secretary said he would not vouch that some of the Land Commissioners were not opposed to the Government plan. The House had a right to a full and frank statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to who were the "some." There should be no secrecy between the Government and Parliament, unless something of which the Government was ashamed would leak out. The Land Commission did not concur in the proposal of the Government, nor desire that the Court valuers should be given up. Did the proposal come from the valuers? Did the proposal come from the Government? If it did, what was the result? That the Executive had deliberately interfered with the administration of justice by what should be an independent Court. The change was not made at the request of the Land Commission, nor at the instance of the Court valuers. Was it made in consequence of clamour and agitation? The House was entitled to a clear explanation on that point. By making this change the Government, he assumed, would very nearly double the expense of the administration of the Land Act. It was now proposed to increase the Sub-Commissioners from three to five. What was to be the salary of the new Sub-Commissioners, and what their tenure of office? Were they also to be appointed to a three months' job, so that, in case of renewed clamour, they might be sent about their business? He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had, before the close of the Session, an opportunity of explaining both his speech in Dublin and still more fully the change which he had announced in the administration of the Land Act. He did not desire that a single benefit conferred upon the tenants by the Act should be recalled, qualified, or lessened, nor did he seek for a single undue advantage to the landlord. He had never sought since the Act became law to interfere with its fair administration, nor had he any other desire than that all parties should get fair play. But in the name of law let not the Act be administered as if it were an Act to set class against class; in the name of fair
    242
    play let it not be administered as a political weapon; but let it be administered as a great Statute ought to be administered, with impartial justice, which, in the words of the Prime Minister, must mean in its highest, best, and; worthiest sense, "justice to all."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had no doubt his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be anxious to answer what he might call the personal part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech; but he thought the House would allow him as early as possible to state what in his experience he happened to know about the Land Commission. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had one very strong objection to the change in policy and another to the speech made by his right hon. Friend. Now, he would like to say a word about that speech. He had read it with a great deal of interest, and in doing so he came to two conclusions. The first was that his right hon. Friend simply meant to give this impression, that if in details the Act worked unjustly it should be remedied. The other conclusion he had come to was that if his right hon. Friend had had as much experience as he himself unfortunately had, if he knew how every word was open to misrepresentation on one side and the other, he would have never uttered words for which he should probably repent. But the really important matter was whether it was desirable to make this change, and whether Government were to be blamed for making it. The question came before Lord Cowper and himself, and he supposed very much upon the ground on which it came before his right hon. Friend and Lord Spencer—namely, that it was desirable to quicken the operations of the Court. At first, he was of opinion that the appointment of official valuers was desirable; but, on further consideration, he came to the conclusion that that change ought not to be made for two or three reasons. In the first place, a very important fact came to their knowledge, which he had overlooked until he was reminded of it, and he very much doubted whether his right hon. Friend bore it in mind until it was recalled to

    243
    his recollection, and that was that in the very long debates on the Land Bill this question was brought forward, and it was unanimously decided by the House that the Act should not be administered in that way. Hon. Members, if they referred to Hansard, would find that on July 15 of last year the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) proposed, when they came to the clause for the appointment of Sub-Commissioners, to add that the Lord Lieutenant might from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, appoint "valuers of knowledge and experience in the value of land," on the ground that it would be impossible to leave to a local valuer the sole adjudication in these matters. The Prime Minister, in reply, said—
    "Undoubtedly a knowledge of the value of land will be one of the qualifications of some portion at least of the Assistant Commissioners; but these words, if added to the Bill, would lead to the conclusion that it was intended to employ a staff of official valuers and nothing else. I very much doubt whether official valuers appointed by Government would attract confidence to themselves. I think it a very doubtful experiment."
    The discussion went on for some time, and at last the Amendment was withdrawn. [Mr. GIBSON: That was as to the appointment by the Lord Lieutenant.] Well, we reconsidered the question, and we thought that was a mere technical point, and that it was quite clear that the question before the House was whether the Sub-Commissions should have the assistance of official valuers. It was quite possible to wriggle out of the decision come to by the House by taking another clause of the Act, which said that the Land Commission might from time to time appoint and remove solicitors, secretaries, and such officers as agents, clerks, managers, as they thought fit. Lord Cowper and himself came, however, to the conclusion that they would not fairly interpret the decision of the House if they did that.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the law enabled them to be appointed.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was willing to admit that; but, at the same time, he did not think that the administrators of the law ought to take advantage of one clause to defeat the evident intention of the House on another matter. He did not know what had led to the change of mind in the present Irish
    244
    Government; but, upon full consideration, he did not think the change would answer. He would not deny that it was open to very considerable debate whether in the original framework and machinery of the Act there might not have been advantages in attaching to the legal Sub-Commissioner a valuer instead of a lay Sub-Commissioner. But he felt that the attaching of an official valuer to every Sub-Commission Court would be likely to lead to no saving of time, and might produce want of harmony. Again, his belief was that the present Sub-Commissioners, generally speaking, by their antecedents, and certainly by the knowledge they had gained during their time of office, were good valuers, and probably better than would otherwise be likely to be obtained. He was glad that the change had not been persevered in, and that the Government had adopted their present course. It would cost more money; but the Treasury were generally very cautious in checking expenditure, and he thought the expenditure would be wise, and that the work would be done quicker. He could not help thinking that there was too much heat introduced into this matter on both sides, for the decisions were very much the same, and neither side had a right to suppose that the valuers would do them much good or much harm. The decisions had been curiously alike, and had proved to him that the facts in those matters were so evident that it was very difficult for reasonable men not to come generally to the same conclusion. Then it did not appear that time would be gained by the plan now adopted, and that, though it might cost more, it would lead to quicker settlements. There would be two Sub-Commissions at work each day, and the fact that the legal Sub-Commissioner would have the whole of his time occupied with giving decisions would necessarily double the number of decisions given. One word as to the yearly term of the Commissioner's office. He did not see how that short term of office could be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman, in common with all who considered the interests of Ireland, desired that the decisions should be given as quickly as possible; but that involved the appointment of a large number of persons to decide, and his experience was that many of those whose services it was most

    245
    desirable to obtain were willing to be appointed for a short, but not for a long period. He hoped that the House would excuse his early intervention in the debate; but he wished to show how the matter presented itself to Lord Cowper and himself during their tenure of Office.
    MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he regretted he could not take the same views as the right hon. Member for Bradford did of the now decision of the Government. For his own part, he regarded that decision as a most humiliating one, and, in regard to the interests of Ireland, most unfortunate. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had said, a system which but a few days ago was deemed a model of justice and fairness was reversed by the administrators of the Act suddenly and without explanation or adequate cause. He believed that the change had been made either in deference to popular clamour, which they must have known was artificial, or was the result of ignorance of the true state of the case, or of interested motives; and, in the former case, where were these concessions to stop? He, for one, saw no end to them, and felt that in Ireland nothing was fixed or certain. Capital would not go there for investment. They did not know what might happen before to-morrow. Men's minds were disturbed and perplexed by a sense of danger, and he saw no hope of improvement in the future unless the Prime Minister changed his method of governing the country. With respect to the discussion in the House at the time of the passing of the Land Act and the consideration of this particular question, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there had been a total change of the principles on which the Act was administered. When the question of the appointment of valuers was first before the Government, they might have taken either of two courses: they might have made a valuation of the entire country, the acceptance of which valuation would have been compulsory; or they might have taken the standard of acknowledged fair rent in each district and have compelled the reduction of excessive rents to that point. The Prime Minister virtually adopted the latter alternative, and, abandoning the attempt to define fair rent universally, left the
    246
    matter to be decided by Commissioners in each district, remarking that there was no district in Ireland where what was a fair rent was not perfectly well known. With that policy he did not quarrel, as it was most difficult to find a definition of fair rent without having reference to the rent actually paid for many years past. If that were the only question to be decided by the Court, the evidence of the landlord would be to the effect that the present rent had existed for the last 40 or 50 years; that it was fixed at a period when the prices of agricultural produce were much lower than they were now; that it was not much above the average of neighbouring estates, and that the tenants' interests had been bought and sold on the basis of the present figure. These were all essential facts in determining what was a fair rent; but when the landlords found that evidence of this kind was not received, they necessarily looked out for valuers to give evidence. There was difficulty in finding them. There were very few in his neighbourhood whose valuations would give confidence, and these few were perpetually engaged; but even when they could be procured and got to attend before the Sub-Commissioners, the latter said they looked with suspicion upon the evidence of paid valuers. The landlords, however, could not be expected to get valuations made for nothing, though it was easy for the tenants to get their neighbours, who were expectant of like services in future, to make valuations without being paid. He must do the Commissioners the justice to say that they did not pay much heed to this interested evidence, founded upon the principle of live and thrive before paying any rent, to which principle the tenants give a very liberal interpretation. The Sub-Commissioners could not adjudicate without becoming valuers themselves, and this was the system to which they were going back after a short period of official valuations. The structure of the Court was altogether inadequate to deal with its work. When valuations were made for a subordinate purpose of taxation, the whole system was laid down in an Act of Parliament; but here the work of fixing the rent of the whole land of Ireland, with a capitalized value of £400,000,000, was assigned to a set of men without any guarantee as to the necessary qualification,

    247
    which notoriously many of thorn did not possess. The House had been told that the decisions were very much the same before and after the appointment of official valuers, and upon that point he could not speak with confidence; but even if their appointment did not influence the decisions, it certainly inspired much more confidence in them, for the landlords knew that these decisions were no longer made at random, but after consultation with skilled professional valuers, and they were, consequently, less likely to appeal. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said the number of appeals had not decreased. All he could say in answer to that was that he had read a case in which the solicitor of a landlord had withdrawn a notice of appeal after he had seen a statement of the principles on which the official valuation was made, and this was said to be a sample of many cases. And, besides the desired diminution of appeals, the employment of these Court valuers was also likely to promote the settlement of cases out of Court, which would greatly accelerate the administration of the Act. There was no point connected with the Land Question more important than this. He felt sure that many more cases would be settled out of Court than was now the case if the work of qualified valuers rendered the decisions of the Courts and the consequent standard of rent more uniform. He believed that to some extent settlements had already been arrived at, and that many landlords were only waiting for an ultimate standard to be arrived at to come in; and that they had not done so already was due to the fact that these valuations had varied so considerably. But uniformity and consistency could only be looked for if the Commissioners had the assistance of qualified and impartial professional men. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the chief merit to be looked for in valuers was that their business was rapidly got over; but, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, they should seek, not so much for rapidity as for fairness in their decisions. Justice should be considered in preference to expedition. He much preferred seeing the appointment of these valuers placed in the hands of a judicial tribunal rather than in those of the Government. The House had already had sufficient expe-
    248
    rience of what the appointments of the Government were. What had induced the Government to throw over the recommendatians of the Chief Commissioners on this subject? He thought that he could give the House some explanation upon this point. The hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had offered unmitigated hostility to the appointment of these valuers. He had addressed various meetings in Ulster on the subject—had told the farmers that these valuers were nothing but rent-raisers, and he even said they "must and shall be dismissed." These would appear to be very peremptory orders, difficult of explanation to anyone not acquainted with the special mission intrusted to the hon. Member for Tyrone. ["Oh! "] He did not say officially intrusted; but it was well understood that the hon. Member had a mission to convert the Ulster farmers to the Liberal ranks. A person who had a duty of that kind before him might well be allowed a little latitude in his mode of performing it. But he believed that if the farmers were properly instructed as to the exact position of the facts, their view would be exceedingly different from that which had been represented to the Government. He hoped the interests of Ireland would not always be subordinate to the interests of Party. She had suffered very much from that already, and he believed never more fatally than by the change now proposed by the Government.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member opposite afforded a very good illustration of the inconvenience of raising a discussion of this character without Notice. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mullholland) had misconceived the views of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) altogether, and it was hard upon that hon. Member that he should be misrepresented in his absence. The hon. Member for Tyrone would, no doubt, have been in his place if he had had Notice that this discussion was coming on, and particularly if he had known that he was himself to be referred to. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had desired to have the subject discussed fully, and those who took strong views on it opposed to his own to be heard, he would have taken a very different course. He (Mr. C. Russell), for one, had come

    249
    down entirely unprepared for such a debate, and he had reason to believe that many of his hon. Friends who were absent would have been present had they had any Notice that this discussion, in which they would desire to take part, was likely to arise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had taken a course, not only inconvenient in itself, but which rendered it impossible that those who had objected, and still object, to the employment of these valuers should have their views adequately represented. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had come down with a carefully-prepared and elaborate speech, and, having set the necessary organization behind him at work to make an audience for it certain, he had delivered it with the greatest emphasis and indignation. Why did he not give Notice of a Motion?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLremarked, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had done so, it would have been blocked.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, that the noble Lord was more fully conversant with the subject of blocking than he was. No doubt, under the 45th Section of the Land Act, the Land Commissioners had power to appoint these valuers; but what was the object of these appointments, and what were their limits? Such appointments could not be made without the consent of the Treasury, and the Treasury—which really meant the Executive—had given their consent conditionally that the appointments should only be made for a limited period of time, by way of experiment, in view of the possibility of their not answering their purpose. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was mistaken when he regarded these valuers as forming a part of the judicial element of the Act. They were in no sense judicial officers; they corresponded rather to the valuers who were employed in cases for the particular and definite purpose of informing the mind of the Court, and they were not to sit as Judges themselves. If, therefore, the Treasury had a right to give a conditional consent to the appointments of these persons as an experiment, surely they had a right to say that the experiment should be no longer continued. It was said that the valuers had done their work well, that the landlords and tenants of Ireland ought to be satisfied with them, and that the Government was merely yielding to
    250
    vulgar clamour in the matter. Had he received Notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to bring this subject before the House that evening, he could have brought numbers of letters from well-informed persons who objected to the action of the valuers. In fact, he could recall no instance in Irish politics where there had been so unanimous an opinion in condemnation of these appointments. He could not agree in the opinion attributed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that there was no objection to the personnel of these Court valuers. A large number of the communications which had been addressed to him in reference to this question were based upon the fact that many of the Court valuers were men who had been previously in the employment of landlords as rent-raisers, and who, on that account, must necessarily have a strong bias. Another charge had been that these were in some cases not men of experience at all; and if that were so, it was important the House should understand what was the function they were called upon to discharge. One could understand the Court valuers, assuming that they were really able mea, rendering an important service to the Court by ascertaining what was the full rent, and leaving the Court to make the necessary deductions and fix the fair rent; but what the Court valuers were asked to fix was not the full rent, but the fair rent. They were asked to do that without reviewing in evidence those elements which were absolutely indispensable to enable them to perform the function properly. A man might go down and inspect a farm, and the condition of the buildings upon it, and might say—"This land, as it stands, would only fetch 30 s. or £1 an acre." But how could he, a stranger to the holding, with no power to examine witnesses or means of obtaining information as to the important data which went to determine a fair rent, give an accurate opinion as to what was a fair rent? He could not do it at all; and yet it was said his opinion as to a fair rent, come to without the power of examining the elements on which the calculations were based, should be put before the Court to influence its judgment in fixing a fair rent. But the objections to the system which had been tried did not stop there. There was another objection, the more mention of

    251
    which was sufficient to show hon. Members the justice of it, and that was the practical secrecy of the proceedings of the Court valuers. The valuers were not called before the Court before which the case was determined, except at the wish of the Court itself, and the parties to the case were practically in complete ignorance as to what, in the valuer's opinion, was the fair rent. The valuation so sent in was influencing the mind of the Court in determining the question of a fair rent when neither party knew what it was, or had the opportunity of cross-examining the valuer, so that men's rights were permanently prejudiced upon grounds they had no opportunity of meeting. The mere statement of the facts condemned the appointment of these Court valuers. They had wholly failed to expedite the despatch of business, and to lessen appeals, as anticipated, when appointed. It was said that the Government were yielding to ignoble clamour. It was said that the hon. Member for Tyrone had an ambition to convert the staunch farmers of Ulster from Toryism to Liberalism. He (Mr. C. Russell) did not know whether his hon. Friend had such an ambition; but let the Opposition take warning that such speeches as those of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) would do more to extirpate Conservatism in Ulster than many such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Tyrone. But what was the meaning of yielding to popular clamour? Did it mean yielding to expressed public opinion? Let them test the public opinion in a fair way. Let them give notice to the Representatives from Ireland that they wished to ascertain public opinion on this subject, for, after all, this was a Parliament of representative opinion, and within these walls the opinion of the people of Ireland could be gathered. He could understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite not altogether agreeing with him on the subject of representative government; but how was public opinion to be ascertained unless through the Representatives of the people in this House? The Government had wisely put an end to an experiment which, if persevered in, would have been fraught with the utmost danger to the fair prospects of
    252
    the Land Act. Would hon. Members opposite get up gravely in their places and say that this Act, however it might be criticized on the one side as against the interests of the tenants, and on the other as confiscation of the landlord's rights, should not be administered in a just and proper manner so as to give confidence? Just rights should be recognized on either side, and some attempt should be made to command the confidence and approval of the people of Ireland.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, the hon. and learned Member asked why Notice had not been given to hon. Members for Ireland that such a subject as this was going to be brought up. Why, it was because no one could possibly have anticipated the reply which had been given to the Questions put to the Government that evening. It was said that in Ireland there was a concensus of opinion adverse to these valuers; but his experience led him to a conclusion diametrically opposed to that stated by the last speaker, who said that the valuers were not men of experience, and that they were asked to fix, not the full rent, but a fair rent. It was true they were asked to fix a fair rent, but they were to consider the land as they saw it, and the circumstances urged on the spot by the representatives of the landlord and the tenant; and he did not know in what better way a fair rent could be arrived at. The hon. and learned Member also said that the report sent in by the valuer was likely to prejudice the hearing of a case in the mind of the Court, and he complained that neither of the litigant parties were aware of what that report was. The hon. and learned Member was, apparently, not acquainted with the practice in the Courts of the Sub-Commissioners, as he (Mr. Tottenham) unfortunately was. The practice was, or the recent practice had been, that, after the hearing of the evidence, one of the lay Commissioners went out over the land with the valuer; they then gave in a report made up in the full Court. He did not see how it could be contended that the report, which was to be given in by the valuer previously to the hearing of the case, could in any way prejudice the finding of the Court. The principal reason given by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) for the recent change was that it would expedite the business of the Com-

    253
    missioners generally, and would enable them to dispose of cases that had for many months been blocking the Courts. But he (Mr. Tottenham) did not see how business was to be expedited by having two pairs of Commissioners to do exactly the same work that one pair had done before. It seemed to him to be obvious that a skilled witness or valuer, and one Commissioner, who should go out and inspect the land, were likely to get over as much work as two Commissioners, and to do it more efficiently. The House, he thought, must have listened with great astonishment to what he could only call a further proof of the mala fides with which the Act was being administered, contrary to the repeated expressions and promises of the framers given in 1881. He regretted that a tardy attempt made to do a small modicum of justice had been given up at the instigation of those who, having once got their hands into other people's pockets, were chafed at the check which, in some cases, the presence of these experts had placed upon their greed and dishonesty. He was far from admitting that the present system was perfect, but it was the nearest approach to scant justice which partizan administrators could have adopted. He believed it was adopted by them because they felt that the course that had been pursued, and of which complaints had been made daily, could not be defended on the principles of justice and equity. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did all in his power to neutralize any good effect which might have arisen from the appointment of these valuers by making the speech in which he clearly gave them to understand that, in the event of their proceedings and decisions not being in accordance with the wishes of the Government, as their appointments would be purely temporary, when the time for their renewal came he would know how to deal with them. What was it that the Government eminently wished should take place? Why, that a general reduction in the rental of Ireland should take place. ["Hear, hear! "] He presumed that the hon. and gallant Baronet (General Sir George Balfour) who said "Hear, hear!" was not an owner of property in Ireland. Other Members of the Government had spoken in the same spirit, and it was obvious that the Act was to be partial in its operation, and that the reductions were to be heavy.
    254
    What was the course pursued? The Government let loose a number of men, interested in many cases, in other cases ignorant of the first principles of agriculture—men in whose power it was put to burn, sink, and destroy the interests of the landlord where they came into conflict with those of the tenant, and thus had they well earned the name by which they were known throughout the country of "sub-confiscators," not Sub-Commissioners. Afterwards, public opinion being strongly roused at the action of the Sub-Commissioners, the appointment of skilled valuers was suggested to curb some of the absurdities that were being daily enacted. Those valuers were merely to advise the Court, and not to vote, and in many instances their estimate of value was not taken into consideration by the Commission. The tenants and their mouthpieces, however, finding that the "sub-confiscators" could not play the same pranks, or play them to the same extent as they had before been doing, directly the valuers were appointed, set up a shout of lamentation when they thought they were about to be deprived of some of their expected plunder; and they had ever since been demanding the removal of the only element of justice which had been introduced into that tribunal. To that clamour Her Majesty's Government had given way—not for the first or twentieth time—and now they sought to evade inquiry into that subject on the specious plea that Parliament had been called together only for one purpose. The country would understand that the pledges given by them had been disregarded and were worthless, and that popular clamour was to their minds more irresistible than the dictates of equity and justice.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I prefer to take the views held on the opposite side of the House on this matter from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), rather than from that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and whose statements in this House always represent the arguments and feelings of the Tory Party in Ireland raised to a state of white heat and incandescence, in such a degree that the ordinary mind is hardly able to follow them. Ever since the hon. Gentleman taught his doctrine of "salting the land well with rent"——
    MR. TOTTENHAM: I did not teach that doctrine.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I thought it was contained, and I thought I had read it, in the evidence of the hon. Gentleman before the Commission.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: It was not mine; it was a quotation which I cited.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It was a quotation; but I understood it to be adopted by the hon. Member. If I am wrong in that, I entirely withdraw the expression. The hon. Member does not say I am wrong.
    MR. TOTTENHAM: No, Sir; it is not my opinion. It is a quotation which I cited in the evidence I gave before the Commission. I do not adopt it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Then I do not dwell upon it for a moment; but there are some words in the speech just made that are not quotations, or, if they are quotations, they are very cordially adopted. His account, for instance, of the Sub-Commissioners is that of "sub-confiscators." That is a quotation which is cordially adopted. He improved upon the quotation, because he spoke of these Sub-Commissioners being disappointed when arrangements were made which would deprive them of their expected plunder.
    Mr. TOTTENHAM: Not the Sub-Commissioners.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Then, why were Sub-Commissioners disappointed at not obtaining plunder?
    MR. TOTTENHAM: The tenants were disappointed; not the Sub-Commissioners. The Sub-Commissioners were the mouthpieces of the tenants.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I thought I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Sub-Commissioners had been in a state of apprehension and excitement on the subject of these valuers. The hon. Gentleman now says they are mouthpieces. A mouthpiece is an organ employed by some individual or another to express sentiments which the person himself is not in a condition to express directly. He says they are the mouthpieces of the tenants. Well, Sir, the tenants are an important portion of the population of Ireland, and, according to the hon. Gentleman, he is only responsible to the extent of describing the Sub-Commissioners—that is, to imply that I they have exercised functions that are judicial in a spirit that is not judicial; and if that is so, I do not see why he
    256
    should not apply to them the expressions about plunder which he says he did not apply. But I pass on from these matters. There are two questions raised before the House, and I shall touch briefly on only one of them. The first is in regard to certain expressions used by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in a speech made by him on the subject of the appointment of valuers. I join in most of the complaints of the speech; but the defence of it in detail I shall leave to my right hon. Friend himself, because that is a duty which he can best and most appropriately discharge. I will speak, Sir, upon the question of the appointment of these valuers and the withdrawal of the appointment; and upon that subject I know not whom I may please and whom I may displease, but I shall give what I may call the dry view of the subject. I am aware of no charge to be made against these valuers. I do not admit any charge against them. I am aware of no ground for sustaining it; and as I admit no charge against the valuers, as unequivocally I admit no charge against the Sub-Commissioners. I think the choice of the Sub-Commissioners does the highest credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). It was a very difficult duty to discharge at short notice, and it was admirably performed. The accusations against the Sub-Commissioners have miserably broken down. Why did we appoint valuers? I will give my own account of my own share in the matter as the responsible Head of the Government and of the Treasury. I frankly own it required all my respect for the Land Commission, all my desire to give the weight to their recommendation which I fully grant ought to be given to them in every case where the Executive Government share in the functions, and where it is not under the influence of some imperative call the other way—I say it required the whole of that influence to induce consent to the measure. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred to a report of a speech of mine, given in Hansard, when the valuers were appointed. It is seldom that in the variety of discussions that take place in this House the exact words one uses merge into the record of our proceedings, and I do not think that the report in question contains all that

    257
    I said on the subject. I may say that at first I was deliberately opposed to this method of proceeding. I looked upon it as a cumbrous method—as a method tending to diminish the responsibility of the Sub-Commissioners. I looked upon it as a method not likely to attract public confidence, and that without the smallest respect to the question whether it was likely to err in the direction of the landlords or in the direction of the tenants. I now come to this important part. The Land Commissioners made a recommendation which has not been presented to the House, and it is a matter of concern to my right hon. Friend that he has not felt himself at liberty to present the Paper to the House. It has been referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), who had some knowledge of its contents. I know not whether he has that knowledge from the declarations of the Government or from any other quarter.
    MR. GIBSON: Entirely from the declarations of the Government.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am bound to say that I have refreshed my memory upon it, and I find that the only motives urged by the Land Commissioners were not in the slightest degree what has been represented by the hon. Member who has just sat down—namely, that they acted with the view of curbing, to some extent, glaring absurdities that were of daily occurrence. There is not the slightest reference to anything of the kind, nor the slightest expression of dissatisfaction of the system of the Sub-Commissioners acting on their own responsibility. The Land Commissioners, as far as I am cognizant of it, urged two reasons, and two only; and these reasons were, that they believed that by the appointment of valuers they would greatly increase the expedition of the proceedings, and that it would bring about a diminution in the number of appeals. These were the motives that appealed to us most strongly. We were most anxious to expedite the proceedings. We had allowed no considerations of public expense to stand between us and anything that promised to promote that end; and these considerations, urged by the Commissioners, certainly operated upon me to do that about which I had great doubts whether it was agreeable to the House of Commons,
    258
    recollecting the debate that had taken place about the best method, and the most straightforward and just method, of carrying on these investigations. The experiment accordingly was made, and what is the result? It is this—that we have entirely failed in bringing about the expedition, which was the capital object we had in view. It is impossible to say that they have been expedited in any degree; but it is clear, if they have been expedited at all, they have been expedited in a degree which might be called infinitesimal. With respect to appeals, we have not the same perfect exactitude of figures before us to enable us to judge; but we have much evidence before us, and that evidence entirely tends to the conclusion that the appeals have not been diminished. If this is so, the two reasons given by the Land Commissioners have both of them fallen away, and not been fulfilled, and it is not a question of clamour; it is not a question of satisfying friends.
    MR. GIBSON: There was a third reason given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to give that reason, if he thought fit; but I am speaking of the recommendation of the Land Commissioners. My right hon. Friend hoped, no doubt, it would have that effect; but I do not see that it has had that effect. It has produced quite as much objection, only from a different quarter; and I observe that what is meant by clamour is that part of public opinion of which you disapprove—and what is meant by public opinion, in the mouth of any gentleman, is the sentiment of the class to which you are allied in sympathy. But the Land Commissioners proceeded simply on the grounds that I have described, and those grounds have been cut away from under our feet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I own, makes a plausible objection when he says that short tenure is a great reason for questioning the proceedings of these Assistant Commissioners, or of the valuers, for their tenure was shorter still. But the answer to the objection is that not only was great care taken, as experience, I think, proves to be the case, in the selection of the men, but in the appeals themselves, and in the fair and reason-

    259
    able and satisfactory degree in which those original judgments have been sustained upon appeal by the superior tribunal, whose competency no man doubts; and that, I think, is a conclusive answer to the objection drawn from the argument of short tenure. Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman complains of the cost of the new arrangement. How does the matter stand? My right hon. Friend has, I believe, stated—I was out of the House at the commencement of his statement—that be hopes to secure the services of those valuers, or of some of those valuers. [Mr. TREVELEYAM: No, no; I did not say so.] At any rate, it is unnecessary. I thought some of those valuers would have been persons very proper for appointment. They will be considered, I believe, to be candidates for these offices; but at any rate they disappear as valuers, and the cost of them as valuers disappears. What is the practical state of the question as regards costs? We are going to undergo, to give our sanction to another increase of expenditure, but entirely with a view to that great and paramount object, expedition, the hope of which misled us, I believe, a couple of months ago, and the reality of which we hope now to attain. How does that matter stand? Overlooking the difference between the salary of a legal Commissioner and the salary of a lay Commissioner, we have at present Courts of four members, as far as expense is concerned—a legal member and three lay members—and these Courts of four members are doing work which was done by Courts of three. How do we propose to stand as to expenses? We propose to have Courts of five members—one legal Commissioner and four lay Commissioners. We shall have, therefore, a further expense. But with the Court of five members we hope, and expect, and calculate that we shall do the work of two Courts of four members. Therefore, although there is an increase of charge, with rapidly going through this important business, there is in reality a great economy, because there is a great shortening of the process of meeting with this mass of applications. It is just like this, if I may express it by the old symbols of algebra. Four men cost what we will call "X," and effect work which we will call "Y;" and now, by adding to "X" a quarter of "X," we are going to
    260
    get in work "Y" twice over. That is exactly the state of the case, as represents the matter of economy, and I hope it will be admitted on all hands that the landlord is as much interested as the tenant in expediting these proceedings. About that I think there can be no doubt whatever. The settlement of the country, the full establishment and consolidation of confidence, and the making it known to the world that Ireland is a land where industrial relations are upon a stable footing, that arrangements between land-lord and tenant have the character of permanence, and are placed, humanly speaking, beyond the reach of disturbance—these are questions of the greatest importance, and they are questions which cannot be carried to their maturity except by expediting the proceedings under the Land Act. I hope, as far as I am concerned, there can be no great difficulty in answering why I am a willing partner in the measure of my right hon. Friend and the Irish Government. I never loved in principle this method of proceeding by valuers, never anticipated it would be an improvement, and acceded to it for the sake of two great reasons which were propounded, and justifiably propounded, I have no doubt, by great authority. I have found these two reasons fail. I have found a large, heavy charge imposed on the Exchequer without any corresponding benefit whatever, and certainly not with the benefit of giving satisfaction, because dissatisfaction has been more loud and wider—if that were the consideration to which we look; but the point I take is that the two reasons have entirely failed, and consequently we propose to substitute for the present system, alike costly, cumbrous, and slow, a system under which, with a limited increase of the present cost, we shall realize a great future and permanent economy; and by means of which, having labour applied in a manner more economical and effective, we shall do greater greater justice to the Land Act by causing its provisions to find effect with far greater speed and efficacy over the whole surface of Ireland.

  MR. SPEAKER'S UNAVOIDABLE ABSENCE.
  The Clerk at the Table regretted to have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, who, having been compelled by indisposition

  261
  to leave the House, had found himself unable to resume the Chair.
  Whereupon Mr. Playfair, the Chairman of Ways and Means, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— OFFICIAL VALUERS. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was sure the whole House deeply sympathized with the regret expressed by Sir Erskine May, and the cause which had necessitated Mr. Lyon Playfair taking the Chair; but, before the unfortunate circumstance occurred, which they all sincerely trusted might not be of any serious moment, the Prime Minister had just addressed the House, and he (Mr. Plunket) would make a brief commentary upon that speech. He did not think it necessary to speak at much length, because the various Members who had addressed the House since his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) opened the debate had really not touched the main grounds upon which he rested his case. The two main grounds were that by the action of the Government, as declared by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, a precedent had been set for the interference by the Executive Government in Ireland with the action of the Land Commissioners in a matter which was essentially theirs, and in which they ought not to be interfered with. No answer had been made to that charge at all. The other complaint, and the main ground of his right hon. and learned Friend, was the language—as he thought the most unfortunate language—which had been used by the Chief Secretary in dealing with this subject when receiving a deputation of Ulster Liberals. The Prime Minister commenced by criticizing some practical observations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), and had reproached him because he spoke of Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act as sub-confiscators. He thought the Prime Minister might have remembered that the hon. Member had had a considerable portion of his rent, though not so large as some landlords, taken away through no fault or act of his own, and through some principle
  262
  entirely new to the law of this country. If he did speak warmly it should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister had encouraged the acceptance of the Act, and he" did not doubt secured it by holding out that reductions would only occur in certain exceptional cases, that they would not be the general rule, and that good landlords would get off scot free. His hon. Friend had not found that to be the case, although one of the best landlords in the country, and if he spoke warmly there was some excuse for his language. Why, there had been a general, reduction of rents all round of more than 20 per cent. Into that question, however, he did not wish to enter. The immediate subject before the House was the question raised by his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague, and upon that he felt bound to say that the ground taken up by the Government was radically and fundamentally bad. Power had not been given to the Government to appoint valuers, because it was feared that their appointments would be open to suspicion. The same danger existed now. The original idea was to leave the appointment of the valuers to the Land Commission; and the only control given to the Government was that of assenting, through the Treasury, to the appointments. He was greatly struck by a curious expression used by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who said that the Treasury ought to have the appointment of these officials, and that the Commissioners ought only to arrange what salaries they were to receive. Of course, the direct reverse of this was the case. The Prime Minister gave two reasons why the Land Commissioners did generally advocate the appointment of valuers. He said it was for the purpose of increasing the expedition and the action of the Land Commissioners in valuing fair rents; and, secondly, for the purpose of diminishing appeals. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the experiment was tried and had failed, and he said that if it had succeeded at all it had only infinitesimally succeeded—of course, they had not the figures before them, so they could not judge for themselves. The Land Act had been in operation but a short time, and the plan under which the valuers were appointed had been at work a still shorter time. But, as to the hope expressed that it

  263
  would have the effect of diminishing appeals, the Prime Minister said that that had also failed—at least, he said that there was not much evidence of any improvement being made. Again, it was impossible for the House to judge of that matter, because the Government would not give up the document in which the Commissioners had recorded their opinion. It was not possible for him to approach the Prime Minister upon that matter; but he would remark that it was not the right hon. Gentleman nor the Irish Executive who ought to be the umpire as to what should be the plan, whether the plan was a success or not, but it was the Land Commissioners. Although it was the main ground of the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague who introduced this Motion, the Prime Minister had not informed the House what it was that the Land Commissioners had not changed their opinion as to the propriety of appointing these valuers, and why they continued their opposition to the abolition of the valuers, until the Government interfered with the power which the Treasury gave them, and took away from the Commissioners that assistance which they thought was politic, and which had been conceded to them only a short time previously. The Prime Minister had stated that the ground upon which the valuers had been appointed had been cut away. That was not, he contended, a sufficient reason to give; and what they wanted to know was, whether the ground was cut away from under the feet of the Land Commissioners when they appointed the valuers? The Prime Minister made a calculation to show in what way time and money were to be economized by the abolition of these valuers. It appeared to him, however, that the expenses would be indefinitely increased, while time would not be saved under the new system. The valuers would now be called Sub-Commissioners, with, he supposed, an addition to their salary, and a larger number of men to do the work. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to say what were the advantages which he expected to derive from the new system. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk found fault with his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) for bringing this matter suddenly before the House;
  264
  but how else was the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get the information he wished for? All their opportunities had been taken away, and in this Autumn Session they were not able to obtain what they wanted except by the course now adopted. If the answer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland earlier in the day had been satisfactory, no Motion for Adjournment would have been made. Moreover, the time was slipping away. Those appointments would soon be gone, and what would be the use of protesting after they had been abolished? It would come like a pardon after an execution. He did not propose to argue at all whether the action of the valuers had been to the advantage of the landlords. That was just the very view of the case which he deprecated, and which he was entitled to denounce. The ground on which he objected to the action which the Government were now entering upon was this—that they were interfering by means of the Irish Executive, and through the control the Treasury gave them were endeavouring to disappoint the intentions, to thwart the policy, and to overthrow the discretion of the Land Commissioners, who ought to know what was best on this subject, who alone had practical experience, and whoso action in this matter ought, for every reason, to be as free as possible from the influence of the Executive of the day. He objected altogether to the Executive dealing with this question. Suppose another Government were to succeed to power, why there would be an utter want of confidence in the action of these Commissioners if it were thought that they could be overborne by the Government of the day. Then, too, he had to complain seriously of the speech which was delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to a deputation which waited upon him in October last. If ever there was an occasion upon which a Minister ought to be careful what expressions he used, surely that was such an occasion. His right hon. and learned Friend had made one quotation from that speech, and he (Mr. Plunket) would make another. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We shall have a statement from all the (Sub-Commissioners in the same manner, and if the general conclusion to be drawn is that the tenants have not at all lost by the change, then I am sure that the tenants will be willing to arrive at the same conclusion; and if, on the

  265
  other hand, we come to the conclusion they have lost by the change, the Government will sympathize with them and feel that they have taken a step injurious to them."
  Now, what could be taken as the meaning of that? That if it should turn out that the average reduction of rent according to the valuers had hitherto been too great, why then the valuers would be dismissed. The speech which the Chief Secretary made was that the object of the Land. Court was not so much to fix fair rents as to give satisfaction to those now dissatisfied. The Land Act was passed and agreed to by many at great sacrifice of principle and personal feeling, in the hope that it would assuage agitation, and that there was some kind of finality in it; but the effect of such language as the Chief Secretary had used was to encourage agitation. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in effect, that if there was any dissatisfaction felt with the Land Commissioners, application should be made to him, and the Government would see that the matter complained of was set right. The Government had not been able to give any satisfactory reasons for the discontinuance of the valuers, or why they were about to deprive the Land Commission of the advantage of their assistance. The Land Commissioners were the only proper authorities on this matter. He thought his hon. Friend and Colleague was perfectly justified in bringing forward this subject this evening; for it was impossible for him to have passed over the answer of the Chief Secretary, or to see the present step taken in the very teeth of the Land Commissioners. The Land Act was the child of political agitation, and it would have to grow up in its infancy in the atmosphere of agitation; but the great object should be, as far as possible, to lead people to understand that there was some measure of finality about the policy which introduced it; that further concessions would not be made, and that the policy of the Act would not be interfered with by political pressure, no matter from what quarter it might come. The course the Government had taken would have a tendency to defeat the true policy for which the House passed the Act and entertained such great hopes—hopes which had already been crushed.
  MR. J. N. RICHAKDSONsaid, he must express his regret that more of his
  266
  Colleagues from the North of Ireland were not in their seats when the Chief Secretary for Ireland made his very satisfactory statement to the House. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that all that was wanted was fair and impartial justice. If the farmers of the North of Ireland desired more than that they must find some other exponent of their views than himself. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had spoken of public plunder. If he saw the Sub-Commissioners adopting a policy of public plunder, or putting their hands into other people's pockets, the Land Act would have to find some other exponent than himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last took exception to the speech made by the Chief Secretary in October last. There were some observations which might bear the construction the right hon. and learned Gentleman put upon them; but as he himself introduced the deputation, he might state that the impression left on their minds by those observations was not similar to the construction which had been put upon them. Their impression was that the valuers had been appointed for an express purpose—namely, to expedite the decisions under the Land Act; and that, if they did not bring about that result, they would be changed. The Prime Minister said the appointments had not increased the number of cases heard, or the number of fair rents fixed, and had not decreased the plethora with which the Courts were gorged; and he thought that was sufficient reason for going back to the old procedure of the time when the Land Act was introduced. The gravamen of hon. Members opposite appeared to be that the Government had given way to clamour. The only charge that could be brought against the Government was that of having given way to clamour. But if the term popular sentiment were substituted for clamour the question would assume a different aspect. It was unwise in such matters to disregard popular sentiment. Without, however, wishing to throw any cant or any charge at hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he might safely state this—that if there were any very strong public sentiment raised in the North of Ireland against the appointment of these valuers on their

  267
  attachment to the Court, it arose from the action of the Conservative Party, and their attitude towards the Land Act ever since it became law. The Land Act was not long in existence before a landlords' meeting in Dublin was convened, and ridiculous statements were bandied about respecting the in competency of the Sub-Commissioners, and equally ridiculous stories as to the rapidity of their valuations. It was said of one of them that he poked his stick into the ground, drew it up again, with the decision, "Fifteen shillings an acre." Shortly after that followed a proposal in "another place" that a Committee should be appointed to consider the working of the Land Act, and a noble Lord in the "other place" stated that the object of the Committee was to revolutionize the administration of the Land Act. But owing to the spirited action of the Government that object failed. Then followed a guerilla warfare on their part, and individual Sub-Commissioners were attacked. In one instance a Sub-Commissioner was objected to because it was stated he was an ex-publican. It turned out, however, that the gentleman in question was both tenant farmer and landlord—that he had been recommended by the highest authorities, and that he had been complimented by Captain Gibson, brother of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, for the discrimination and care with which he had fixed fair rents. This course of action begot a very strong sentiment in the minds of the tenants that the Sub-Commissioners were their friends—more, perhaps, than really they were; but when they found in their places the valuers they objected to them, and objected much more than if the action had not previously been taken. Those objections were threefold. In the first place, the tenant farmers in the North of Ireland boldly stated that a change in the administration of the Act was a breach of faith with them. They looked upon it in this light, and they justified their opinion. They called to mind that after the Land Act was passed every inducement was offered in some parts of Ireland for the tenants not to avail themselves of the Land Court. A document was sent to him the other day containing the following words—" Hold the harvest; pay no rent; avoid the Land Court."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What is the date of that document?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSON: I do not know the date of the document?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Is it more than a year old?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSON: It is less than a year old.
  MR. O'KELLY: Was that document issued in consequence of the attempted suppression of the Land League and the arrest of the Irish Members?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONwas unable to say, but after the passage of the Land Act such a document was issued; but, notwithstanding such pernicious advice, 32,000 Ulster tenants poured into the Land Court; and the fact of their doing so was, he believed, greatly owing to the number of cases that came from other parts of Ireland. Those 32,000 tenants sent in their originating notices on the faith of fair rents being fixed on certain procedures; and now was it fair or just for the Land Commissioners to alter that procedure without the consent of the applicants for originating notices, bearing in mind that they could not withdraw from the Court without the consent of the opposing party? Another objection which was held to be good against the appointment of valuers, and which he considered extremely valid, was the amount of friction they caused in the working of the Land Act. The valuers were of the Commission, and yet not in it. They were, or had been, imperium in imperio. The valuer gave his report on the fair rent separately from the Report of the Commissioners; and the following was therefore the result, or had been the result in his experience:—If the valuer sent in a report stating a farm was worth less than a fair rent fixed, then the tenant thought he had a grievance, and was apt to appeal. If, on the other hand, the valuer sent in a report that the rent was higher than the fair rent fixed, the landlord naturally thought the Land Commissioners were not dealing fairly with him, and was apt to appeal. Then, if for peace sake, as might sometimes have been the case, the Sub-Commissioners adopted the value of the valuer, then the valuer became master of the situation, and really decided the fair rent; but the objection which was the most fatal in the North of Ireland was the very name of valuator. In old

  269
  times, before the existence of the protection thrown round the tenant farmers of Ireland by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, the valuer was a regular part of the machinery by which the landlord could squeeze the rent out of his tenant to an unfair point. If a sale took place from an old and generous proprietor in Ireland to a mere speculative purchaser it was the sign of a visit of an "impartial valuer," and this impartial valuer seldom gave any decision other than a raise of rent. Therefore, it was not altogether unreasonable that they should bring upon themselves the name of "rent-raisers." But this was a mere piece of sentiment, and the Government could not give way to it. But then, on the other hand, they could not afford to ignore sentiment; and no doubt, had the Loader of the Opposition paid a visit to Belfast, he would not have done so. In conclusion, he was thankful to Her Majesty's Government for not having disregarded what he considered to be the proper and Constitutional expression of sentiment in the North and West of Ireland upon this subject, and he earnestly trusted that the algebraical prophecy of the Prime Minister might be fully realized.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the House might fairly and justly join in an expression of sympathy with the hon. Member who had just sat down at the surprise which had fallen upon the Ulster Liberals, who, accustomed to having their respectful protestations disregarded by Her Majesty's Government, were now quite astonished to find that I the desired removal of the Court valuers had taken place without any consultation with them. He only hoped that the expression of the hon. Member's grief would be duly reported to his constituents, and that they would derive a useful lesson from it at the next election. If a Member of the House desired to bring pressure to bear upon a Liberal Government, he had better not be an Irish Liberal himself. Irish Liberals were too faithful, and Her Majesty's Government too sure of their attachment under all circumstances, to render any little appearance of discontent on their part a matter of the slightest importance in Ministerial eyes. There was no doubt, however, that several surprises had fallen upon the House that night. They had heard the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E.
  270
  Forster) declare his desire to prevent the increase of acerbity between Parties in that House. They had him coming forth in the novel character of a pourer of oil upon troubled waters. When the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary for Ireland his appearances in that character were decidedly few and far between. They had also witnessed the spectacle of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) protesting against the intrusion of the Executive into judicial operations; but it struck him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not one word of protest against the intrusion of the Irish Executive into the sphere of the judiciary when they deliberately interfered with the preparations of the Irish tenantry to bring their cases before the Land Courts in the form most suitable to them, and, in pursuance of the policy of interference, cast into gaol without trial the Representatives of the tenantry of Ireland. He was, therefore, inclined to think that the present protest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was based less on constitutional scruples than upon the selfish fears of his supporters in Ireland; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt surprise at the action of the Government, he ought to remember that no less a person than the Irish Solicitor General was the Representative of a tenant farmer constituency; and, if he recollected that the tenant farmers of Derry had threatened wholesale to withdraw their cases from the Land Courts unless the Court valuers were dismissed, he would have been at no loss to arrive at one of the reasons which induced the Government to get rid of these objectionable after growths of the Land Act. If the Court valuers were not dismissed, it would, at the next election, be decidedly a case of the dismissal of the Solicitor General from the representation of Derry. However, while he certainly thought the Government were wise in getting rid of the Court valuers, he was tempted to sympathize with the spirit of the exclamation of the Conservative Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford), who asked—"How is all going to end? "This system of experimentation upon popular feeling was a poor remedy for Ireland. He wished the Government would lay before the country without delay some definite scheme for the settlement of the Land Question. Instead of the condemned

  271
  Court valuers, whose conduct was perfectly irreproachable, but at the same time unendurable, they were to have a number of additional Sub-Commissioners. No increase in the number of Sub-Commissioners would settle the Irish Land Question; and if, instead of continuing experiments of the kind of dismissing Court valuers one day and appointing Court valuers the next; now disregarding the respectful protestations of the Ulster Liberals; now listening to the angry complaints of the Land League, and the vigorous tugging of Mr. Michael Davitt at what the Prime Minister would call the chapel bell; if, instead of pursuing a see-saw policy of that kind, the Government came forward with something like a clear and satisfactory settlement of the Land Question, based on the Land League programme, and introduced, he did not say some liberal, but some honest scheme of purchase, under which a peasant proprietary might be created by the purchase of their holdings by the tenants at a fair price, a great deal of the time of the House would be saved, and a great deal of discomfort, disorder, and discontent would be prevented in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that if the object of the Government was to save time, nothing could be more calculated to further it and to enable land cases to be disposed of rapidly than the course which the Government had now adopted. He thought the Government fully justified in that course. It did not affect the judicial action of the Land Commission, but was a matter quite outside it. He did not know what was to be the quorum of a Sub-Commission as strengthened to five members; but if three was the quorum, then the Legal Sub-Commissioner and two others could be sitting whilst the other two were out examining lands to be dealt with at future sittings. That was a system which was calculated to remedy the defect which undoubtedly did exist under the old system. Apart from the question of saving time, there were much graver considerations, which made it wise and just to depart from the experiment which was tried for three months. The Government and the Land Commission must be taken as representing the force of the law in Ireland, and, no doubt, they did not act without consultation with one another; but if the Land Commission, in suggesting the appointment of land
  272
  valuators, and the Executive, in following their recommendation, had made a mistake, the wisest and honestest course was to acknowledge that mistake at the earliest opportunity, and correct it. No doubt, the course taken by the Government was an interference with the decision arrived at by the Land Commission; but it was not an interference of a judicial description. The valuators in the Land Commission Courts were not in the position of Judges, and could scarcely be treated as witnesses; they were persons who exercised a paramount influence on the Court, but whose opinion was not binding. In the whole course of jurisprudence no instance of a body of persons placed in a similar position could be found. The appointment of these persons was entirely outside the judicial duties of the Land Commissioners. In most Acts of Parliament a question like that of the valuators was provided for by the Act; in this case it was delegated to the Commissioners as persons employed in an administrative capacity to carry out the Act. Such a matter was properly one for legislation, and the action of the Government with regard to it in no way constituted an interference with the judicial discretion of the Commissioners. He only regretted that the Government had not earlier taken the step they now proposed.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that, while the Prime Minister had denied that any charge had been made against the valuators, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had approved of the decision of the Government as being in accordance with Irish popular opinion. What did that mean? He agreed with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that though the decision of the Government that night might be of small importance, yet there was a great question of principle behind—namely, where was this to end? The position of the landlords in Ireland was, in many respects, most miserable. However friendly their relations with their tenants, however low their rents, they found themselves in litigation, and their property gradually sliced away. If safeguards were provided for them—Acts of Parliament—popular pressure was brought upon the Government, and they were abolished. Although the Prime Minister denied that a charge had been made against the valuers, to the

  273
  effect that since their appointment the reductions of rent had been less than before, yet the conduct of the Government emphasized that charge. By the act of dismissing or refusing to allow the valuators to be employed longer, the Government were endorsing that charge. If a charge were made against the Sub-Commissioners, and the Government were publicly to state their intention to dismiss them, and, at the same time, deny the accuracy of the charges made against them, would not the dismissal create the idea in the public mind that the Government considered them guilty? If that applied to the Sub-Commissioners it also applied to the valuers. It was said that the dismissal was in accordance with popular opinion in Ireland. What was popular opinion in Ireland? Owing to the large number of tenants in proportion to the landlord class, popular opinion meant the views of one class of suitors before the Land Commission. One of the arguments used on behalf of the Government at the time of the establishment of the Land Court was that it would be a tribunal strong enough to withstand the pressure of the popular Party; and yet now, as soon as pressure of that kind was exercised in connection with that tribunal, the Government gave way. If the business of the Sub-Commissioners had not been expedited by the appointment of the land valuers, the reason was very simple. These valuers, who were experts, were three or four times as long about valuing a farm as the Sub-Commissioners, who discharged the duties of valuations in a very perfunctory manner. If farms were to be valued fairly, business could not be got through more quickly than at present. That the employment of valuers had not resulted in a reduction of the number of appeals was no fault of theirs. As long as varying decisions were given by the Commissioners on the question of fair rent, there would, of course, be appeals. The serious part of the position of the Government was that they were usurping functions which, if not legally, at least morally, did not belong to them. The Land Commission had the power to appoint valuers, and, under the Land Act, the Executive had no right to interfere. But because the action of the valuers was influencing a certain number of votes in the North of Ireland, the Government made an
  274
  unfair use—["Oh!"]—of the powers vested by the Land Act in the Treasury, with the object of counteracting that influence. It was notorious that the change in the views of the Government was the result of pressure exercised upon them from the North of Ireland. Where was this to end? Would not every succeeding Government be apt to submit itself in the same way to popular pressure? The Prime Minister, at the commencement of the Session, denounced a proposed Committee, on the ground that its investigations would interfere with the judicial decisions under the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "That the object of Parliament had been to fence the Land Commission round so that nobody could interfere with it."
  Yet the moment that the right hon. Gentleman found himself subjected to pressure from his own supporters he exercised, in a most improper manner, that very interference which he deprecated but a few months ago. The decision of the Government would destroy the efficacy of the Land Act, so far as quiet and contentment were concerned. The tenants of Ireland believed that these valuers had been dismissed because their decisions had resulted in a less reduction of rent than previously. That being the prevalent belief, the landlords would naturally feel that the Government had made an unfair use of their powers, for the purpose of conciliating the tenants, some of whom had been known to threaten that they would turn Land Leaguers if their rents were not reduced. The tenants were naturally under the impression that pecuniary benefit was connected with the giving of a vote on behalf of the Liberal Party. The Government had arrived at their present decision because pressure had been brought to bear upon them by the tenant farmers of the North of Ireland, in the hope of getting a greater reduction of rent than they thought they would obtain under existing Circumstances. The great mass of the landlords in the North of Ireland were Conservatives, and the tenants Liberals; and the Government were about to purchase political support by confiscating the property of those who were opposed to them in opinion.
  MR. MACARTNEYobjected to the change of policy on the part of the Government, because every new change

  275
  led people to believe in further changes, and not to wait until they saw whether they might be benefited by what was to be done. Men skilled in the valuing of land were to be laid aside, and lawyers were to occupy the chief positions. Landholders were excluded because they were landowners. Tenants were not excluded; but they ought to be excluded as well as the landlords, if fair play were done, because they were on the other side. There were 17 Land Commissions, on which there was one legal Commissioner and two lay Commissioners. Therefore, 34 new men would be required. But when the House recollected the criticisms passed upon some former appointments, they would come to the conclusion that the Government would have very great difficulty in finding 34 fit men. The new men would be inexperienced; and, therefore, when one of them went out to examine land with his senior, he would naturally follow the judgment of the latter, and therefore it would be just as well if the more experienced Commissioner had gone out alone. There was nothing in which people could have so little confidence as in a Government which was so constantly changing, which did not know its own mind, and which was always setting its sails to the popular wind. His hon. Colleague"; (Mr. T. A. Dickson), the most prominent man in the agitation, had prophesied that before the end of three months the whole of the late arrangement would be knocked on the head, and so it was. But this uncertainty had exercised the most baneful influence upon the country—it had prevented some from going into Court, and had induced others to withdraw, in the hope that there would be another batch of Commissioners who would lower rents still more. There was another element in the case which should not be overlooked. Those who could not pay had not gone into Court; but many who could had stopped back, because they believed that the Government would give them a longer time, and now they would be "sold," because they would find themselves unable to go into Court; and as to the Irish proprietors, he was not one of those who wished to be bought out or forced to leave the country to which he and others were as much attached as any peasant could be. Many of the Irish proprietors were of old
  276
  Irish descent, quite as much as those who professed alone to represent the Irish people, and why they should be brought out any more than the peasants he could not see. This he would say—that until even-handed justice was done between man and man no Government would obtain the respect of the Irish people.
  MR. LEAapologized for the absence of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), who had just been referred to. The hon. Member stayed in the House several days awaiting this discussion, and would have come over to-day had he expected it to come on. All he had done was to tell the farmers that if they found the working of the Land Act was slower under the system of Court valuers they might rely upon the promise of the Chief Secretary that it should be discontinued. Whilst the tenant farmers of the North of Ireland desired that this Land Act should be final, they had a perfect right to demand a just administration of that Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had stated that what was now being done by the Government was a great change. It was nothing of the kind; it was simply reverting to the old system. For 12 months the Laud Act worked in a fairly reasonable manner, but slowly, and the Government tried to expedite its working; but the plan they adopted failed, and consequently they reverted to the old practice. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not allow himself to be browbeaten by the speeches of right hon. and lion. Gentlemen opposite, who, a few months ago, could find no charges strong enough to bring against the Sub-Commissioners, nor allow anything of that kind to prevent him from carrying out the intentions the House had in passing the Act. The object of the Act was to make the property of the tenant of land in Ireland equally sacred in the e3res of the law, and equally safe with that of the landlord. He believed that under the system which the Government were abandoning that intention was not fully carried out; and he urged them to maintain the Land Act in its integrity, and to give the protection which was necessary to attain the objects for which it was passed.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the object of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) in

  277
  moving the adjournment of the House was to enter his protest, in the strongest possible manner, at the earliest moment available to a Member of Parliament, against the constant interference which had been going on since the Royal Assent had been given to the Land Act on the part of the Irish Executive with a judicial body—an interference which had been carried to such an extent as positively to amount to a pollution of justice—[" Hear!" and a laugh]—he repeated, to a pollution of justice, which would have been stigmatized as disgraceful if it had occurred in a Turkish Pashalik. It was clear that there was a most unconstitutional—he might say an incestuous—connection between the Commission in Merrion Street and Dublin Castle, though no unconstitutional practice had in time past been more strenuously or more successfully resisted than an interference with a Court of Justice. Now, the valuers, about whom so much fuss had been made, were appointed in strict pursuance of the Act, and in accordance with the repeated recommendations of the Commissioners themselves. That the Act itself contemplated their appointment was evident from the words of the 37th section, which provided that the Court might direct an independent valuer to report to it his opinion on any matter referred to him by the Court, such Report to be accompanied by a statement of the circumstances of the case. The valuers, in fact, were appointed by the Court, and the principle of valuation was not only admitted, but also recommended by the section he had quoted. Now, however, the valuers were to be put an end to by the Government after only six weeks' experience of their services, and without any valid reason alleged. In that six weeks probably no more than about 200 cases had been tried; but had they shown the incompetence of the valuers? If so, let the Chief Secretary say in what part of their technical work there had been a miscarriage of justice. But, after all, who had complained of their conduct? The details of the agitation against them ought to be before the House; but the House was never allowed to have details, and had to be content with the generalities which were so easily swallowed by the Prime Minister's supporters. The late Chief Secretary had said that the appeals did not diminish; but why should
  278
  they diminish? [A laugh.] He should like to ask the Prime Minister, who seemed so merry, why measures should be taken either to diminish the appeals under the Act, or, for the matter of that, to increase them? What, in short, was the title of the Government to interfere with the administration of a law? Only the other day he had heard the Chief Secretary say that he had written to the Commissioners with respect to the interpretation of the Hanging Gale Clause, and had impressed upon them the expediency of giving a decision on that point. Was ever such a thing done in England? And yet the Chief Secretary had told the Commissioners to do this, with or without a case before them, in order to suit the convenience of the Government. He wondered whether any Government would attempt so to degrade an English Court. As. for the action of the valuers, he presumed that their decisions, being based on a knowledge of the value of land, would tend to diminish the number of appeals; and he believed that, contrary to the view of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), it was most undesirable that they should be placed in the power of litigants by the publication of their Reports. The Prime Minister said that in a document, which he declined to produce, the two reasons appeared which induced the Government to appoint these valuers—namely, that their employment would increase the rapidity of the tribunals, and would diminish the number of appeals. Those were the only reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman; but how could the right hon. Gentleman be sure that the Commissioners had given all their reasons? If they had done so, it was very doubtful whether they would have been listened to by the Government. In all human probability, other reasons influenced them also; but they had either not placed them on record or had stated them in the second document which existed on this subject, but which the Government declined to produce. The truth was that the object of the Government was becoming clearer and clearer every day. The intention was to reduce Irish rents all round, with an utter disregard of right and wrong; to reduce them largely when the country was disturbed, and more moderately in times of peace. As to doing justice alike to landlord and

  279
  tenant, that never entered the Prime Minister's head. He was always appealing to the divine right of justice; but ever since the Land Act passed the divine right of justice had boon outraged and repudiated. There was no doubt that public opinion in England was shocked at the enormous and inconsiderate deductions of rent first made by the Sub-Commissioners—reductions which were made in the teeth of all the predictions and assurances of Members of the Government. No doubt, the reductions exercised for a moment a pacifying effect on the National feeling of Ireland. In addition, there had been the Kilmainham Treaty; after that Ireland became a little quieter; and then it was that this application of the Land Commission for the appointment of additional valuators had some slight chance of favourable consideration from the Government. The consequence was that in some cases, which excited a good deal of attention at the time, the reduction of rents was not quite so large, and there was a greater approach to divine justice. There was a tremendous outcry at once. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) said the Government yielded entirely on account of the outcry from Ulster. He did not think the Government cared twopence half-penny about Ulster; it might cry and complain as long as it liked against the Court valuers if other things had not happened. There was an apparent probability that treason and all the offshoots of treason were again likely to raise their heads. He had never noticed that the chameleon like and versatile eloquence of the Members for Ulster had exorcised any influence on the Government. The only Party which did so, and which gained the ear of the Prime Minister, was the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Party to the Kilmainham Treaty. A short time ago the attempt to murder an Irish Judge revived the memory of the murders in the Phœnix Park. Lately, there had been several incendiary speeches, reminding one of those which preceded the agitation of 1880. Her Majesty's Government quailed at once. When the House met Questions were put about the Court valuers. At that moment, apparently, the Government stood firm. But events had occurred since; and it
  280
  was now seen in the answer of the Chief Secretary what effect they had had on the mind of the Government. It at once attempted to fall back on the old practice, and to buy off agitation. It arranged for rents to be reduced down to the old iniquitous standard of reduction, and that in the most insidious and malignant manner that could be adopted, for it could not have been done with more effrontery. They abolished the Court valuers, and said they were going to appoint additional lay Commissioners. What was the difference between them? The valuers were appointed by the Land Commissioners, a judicial body—at least, so far as the Government would allow it to be. The Court valuers were, in every sense of the word, specialists and experts acquainted with the science of valuing land. The Assistant Commissioners were appointed by the Government, and were nothing more or less than Government agents and tools, sensible to the slightest impression from Dublin Castle, and summoned from time to time to meet the Chief Secretary there if the original practice were still continued. The Prime Minister would have made the error of stating that there was to be no additional cost if the Chief Secretary had not corrected him. The valuers were to be got rid of, and there was to be a new set of men, picked up, Heavon knows where, who would command the confidence of none but the lowest class of the Irish people. The best barometer to indicate whether Ireland was peaceable or disturbed was the working of the Land Act. When Ireland was peaceable landlords were more mercifully treated; but when it was disturbed the more unblushingly and mercilessly was their property torn from them. The House could depend upon it that Ireland was getting into a more disturbed state on account of the announcement the Government had made that night. The Prime Minister had said that the object was to expedite the proceedings of the Land Commission; that merely meant that the reducing of rents all over Ireland was to proceed at express speed without the slightest regard to justice, allowing all the tenants to come in, not one by one, but simultaneously, to share the plunder. That was the process by which the Prime Minister told them confidence was to be restored, industrial enterprize

  281
  to be established, and the fact proclaimed to the world at large that the relations between landlord and tenant were placed on a permanent and enduring basis. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman had most extraordinary methods of attaining his ends. The last step he had taken would do more than any other to frighten capital away from Ireland. In conclusion, he wished to ask an abstract question of the Government, which had some bearing on events now going on in Ireland—a question that, perhaps, the Chief Secretary would answer, although if the right hon. Gentleman did not answer it he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would put it to the public. His question was this—Who was the greatest criminal—he who, to secure the acquittal or to avenge the convictions of a murderer, stabbed a juryman in the street; or he who, to buy off political agitation, corrupted and poisoned the pure source of justice and assassinated justice? [Groans.] He should not be in the least disturbed by those expressions of disapproval. The course the Government had taken that night justified him in metaphorically asserting that they had assassinated the Courts of Justice; and he asked which was the greatest criminal—the man he had mentioned, or he who had assassinated a Court of Justice arbitrating between man and man? Which of those two parties was the most likely to inflict the most enduring and lasting misery on unfortunate Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYANconfessed that he rose to reply with a feeling of some warmth, which, however, had not been increased, but rather diminished by the terrible interrogatory which had just been administered to him. He had listened to the speech of the noble Lord with the usual interest, and with no other feeling except, perhaps, a feeling that the general powers of political attack which the noble Lord undoubtedly possessed had suffered from the fact that his argument was somewhat overdrawn. From first to last too hot and high a tone had been given to the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had brought it on at a certain inconvenience to the House, went to Manchester, and, with great gravity and solemnity, charged him with having made a speech which no Minister ought to have made. At other places, and
  282
  even before his own (Mr. Trevelyan's) constituents, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had not given an answer which was called for. At last the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had got him face to face and would have an answer, and when he had risen to give it the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present. The question had been stated to the House by the two right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket), and by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), who never understood his case, and he would now proceed to answer them without replying to the attacks that had been made on the Government. The Government had been attacked from both sides of the House with reference to the appointment of valuers; but the Government had done its best to be painstaking and impartial in looking into the subject. Last Session many Members spoke to the effect that the Land Act was too slow in its operation, and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had brought in a Bill at the beginning of the Session to deal with the matter. At a later period men on both sides in politics and on agrarian politics united in saying that there would soon be a block in the Land Courts. Mr. Nicholl said that in Kerry two sets of Commissioners were required. Mr. Orr stated that it would take, at the then rate of progress, eight or ten years. Mr. Cottrell said that the number of cases waiting to be disposed of was enormous, and could not be got through in a reasonable time. Everybody agreed that the delay would amount to a denial of justice. It was true that a much more encouraging view was taken by official persons—by Mr. Litton, Mr. Godley, Secretary to the Land Commission, and Justice O'Hagan. Justice O'Hagan thought that by the end of 1883 all the cases would be disposed of. The Government felt it was a serious thing that there should be this delay, which would prevent the people from applying to the Land Courts, and in August they began to consider the matter, in order to see what could be done to facilitate the speedy hearing of all cases before the Courts. The Government consulted the Land Commissioners, so far they could within the limits of the Statute. With respect to the constitution of the Land Courts, the Go-

  283
  vernment felt themselves to be responsible. At the same time, they would have been to blame if they had not consulted those who were working the Act, and held the position, and were acquiring the qualities of Judges. Accordingly, in August last, the Land Commission submitted to the Government a proposal intended to increase the expedition of trials and to diminish the number of appeals of which the essential features were—first, that each Sub-Commission should consist of three members, two legal and one lay Commissioner; secondly, that a valuer should be attached to each Sub-Commission; and, thirdly, that the legal Sub-Commissioner should sit in Court with one lay Commissioner, and that the remaining one should be engaged in valuing the fields. That was the expectation of the Commission and the Government, and on the question whether or not that expectation was realized the present controversy turned. He would not enter on the question whether the House of Commons did or did not declare itself against the appointment of those valuers during the debates on the Bill. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who showed that Section 47 of the Act clearly substantiated the right of the Government to appoint valuators. The Land Commission appointed 17 valuers, one of whom was attached to each Sub-Commission. These appointments at once attracted considerable attention, and roused a wide-spread feeling of apprehension; for, first of all, the valuation was to be made summarily, and then, also, it was not to be subject to cross-examination. He was bound to say—and he had given reasons to a deputation which waited on him on the subject for his opinion—that the apprehension was quite unfounded. But the real objection was as to the personal characteristics of the men, and to the name which they bore. It was said, and believed, that the men chosen were notoriously in the interests of the landowning class, whose sympathies were with the landlords against the tenants; and that Protestants had been appointed to the exclusion of Catholics. Now, he challenged the confidence both of Ulster tenants and Southern tenants in these men. If Catholics could not trust Lord
  284
  O'Hagan, and if tenants could not trust Mr. Litton, he did not know who could be trusted by men of any religion or of any class. On what principle did they proceed to selection? On this point the Commissioners say—
  "We must at once assume our proper share of the responsibility. The proposal to adopt the system of valuators emanated from us. We saw several candidates, made inquiries into their qualifications, and named the men who seemed to be the fittest, and as to their religion, we never dreamed of asking a question on this subject."
  MR. PLUNKETasked from what the right hon. Gentleman was quoting?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he ought to have stated that as coming from the Land Commissioners, and he frankly confessed he had been taking a liberty with the House; but he would see if the Land Commissioners would allow him to lay the document on the Table.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is in the power of any Minister to quote from any document which he is not prepared to lay on the Table?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR): The right hon. Gentleman has already declared that he committed an irregularity; but that he would try to put himself in Order by putting it on the Table.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I understand from your ruling that the right hon. Gentleman is bound to lay it on the Table?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR,): He mentioned that he had committed an irregularity; and, according to the Rules of the House, he has no right to quote from a document which is not on the Table, if any objection is made.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he could not withdraw what he had said, and in the interests of the persons concerned he should be sorry to do so. What was the result? The result was that a body of men had been appointed valuers who were of the same class as the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The difference was that they gave their attention to the valuation of the land and the improvements that had been effected, by personal inspection on the land itself, without having the duty of settling in Court what value should be set on those improvements.

  285
  Undoubtedly the existence of an apprehension that the Land Act would be worked in a manner unfavourable to the tenants was a very serious matter to the Executive Government, for, in his opinion, the fair and impartial working of the Act was essential to peace. It was a serious fact that general anxiety and panic, or something like a panic, did exist towards the end of last September. It found vent in newspapers and in speeches, and eventually in a large deputation of Ulster tenant farmers, which waited on him at Dublin Castle. He could quote speeches which were made which would show that their anxiety was great and their apprehension genuine, that the valuers were men who were entirely in the interests of the landlords, and who would decide against the tenants. These expressions on the part of sincere and representative men were a very serious matter indeed; and it was his evident and plain duty to re-assure the minds of the tenants. If, in his own mind, he believed the changes recently made had not impaired the impartiality of the Land Courts, the undoubted belief of the tenants was that the valuers were prejudiced against them in every possible manner, and that they could not get justice. He (Mr. Trevelyan), on the other hand, did entertain the belief that they would have justice done them when they came before the Sub-Commissioners, and was lately provided with an actual case where the valuer had fixed the rent lower than the Sub-Commissioners. He had absolute evidence, in his own opinion, that they were not the creatures of the landlords, as was supposed; and he felt it to be his duty to make the fact public, and he believed in doing it he checked a feeling which, if not settled at the outset, must have been dangerous to the country. Some thought that in his desire to re-assure the minds of the tenants he went too far. In a passage to which great exception had been taken he said it must be remembered that, after all, the valuer was not the Judge; and if the tenants found that the decisions under the new system were much the same as those under the old—and he believed they would be so, because the decisions under the latter were not inconsistent with justice—and if appeals were found to be less frequent, then the tenants of Ireland would gain very dis-
  286
  tinctly, and the landlords too. That and other passages of the same character had been taken exception to. It was urged that the tenants, who, broadly speaking, were one of the parties to a suit, came to complain of decisions that were likely to be adverse to them, and that a Member of the Government reassured them by giving details as to such decisions. Now, if he had his own way, he would never answer in the House a single Question as to the decisions of the Land Commissioners, the Sub-Commissioners, or the Reports of the valuers; but a Member of the Government, in the presence of a popular Assembly, which really was the ruler of the country, and could override precedent and principle, was not his own master. This Session hon. Gentlemen had come down to the House and put to him Questions, not as to the average decisions, but as to special decisions of the Commissions, in which landlords were specially interested. On the 30th of June the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) asked him such a Question relative to the decision of the Commissioners sitting to hear an appeal at Castle bar. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton)—the brother of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, who had to-night made such severe remarks on his conduct for entering into explanations with tenants as to decisions in the Land Court—came down and asked him a Question in regard to certain appeals heard at Castlebar from judicial rents fixed by Sub-Commissioners; and whether, in cases of such marked discrepancy between the opinion of the official valuer and the decision of the Court, the Government would provide a further appeal? Then the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick) asked several Questions as to special decisions given by Sub-Commissioner Thomas Meek; and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—on behalf, he presumed, of some Irish Member—asked, him a Question with reference to some decisions in connection with the estate of Mr. Stuart Knox. Those, then, were four representative Irish Conservatives, all of them calling his attention to decisions of Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners, and requesting answers of exactly the same nature as those which he was blamed

  287
  for giving to the tenant farmers on the 4th of October. It was not enough for him to give general assurances of the impartiality of the Commissioners; he was obliged to enter into details. Did the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis)—who always had a Motion on the Paper on the subject—object to his answering the Questions addressed to him? If they had objected and had supported him, if they had not backed up their brother Members of their own Party by their countenance, he might have refused to answer at all. But he was placed in a position in which, without extreme discourtesy, he was bound to answer Questions about judicial decisions; and if he did that he was bound to treat all alike. When landlords name to express their apprehensions he did his best to re-assure them; and when tenants came to express their apprehensions, if he shut his mouth and refused to do his best to re-assure them, he should be the Minister of a class and not of the whole country. When the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), who might from his interest almost be called an Irish Member, asked him whether he was aware that reductions of 39 per cent had been made by a Special Commissioner, he answered that that was not the case, but that the reduction was only to the extent of 26 per cent, and did any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite then object? That was an instance exactly analogous to that in which the tenants came and asked him if the reductions were 15 per cent, and his replying—"No; they are 20." It was necessary that on this occasion he should correct the statements made on all sides by Members of the House. The real fact was that the percentages of the reductions of rent had varied very much less than many hon. Gentlemen supposed. Up to the commencement of January, 1882, the average reduction for all Ireland was 23 per cent; up to the 15th of April it was 20 per cent; up to the 31st of May, 21 per cent; up to the month of June it was 20 per cent; up to July, 19 percent; up to August, 18 per cent. Under the new system, when the valuers were in office, the reductions were down to 17 per cent. It appeared to him, though it did not seem to be so to some hon.
  288
  Members, that those reductions were equable, gradual, and perfectly explicable, on the ground that the worst cases came forward first, and that he was, therefore, defending Courts whose action was perfectly defensible. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a more serious objection, because he alleged that by his conduct on the 4th of October he had made the Government responsible for the judicial administration of the Land Act. That charge in the mouth of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) took almost terrible dimensions, for he said that by the action of the Executive Government with a judicial body there was a pollution of justice as black and shameful as would disgrace any Pashalik in Asia Minor. Why, it was asked, could they not leave that Court alone, like any other Court of Justice? He could not understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reconcile that charge with the policy pursued last Session by himself and his Friends. If the Executive Government had no legitimate influence over the administration of the Land Commission, what was the meaning of the Question addressed to the Representatives of the Executive Government in the House as to the action of the Land Commission and its officers? Perpetually Questions were addressed to him which could only have one meaning—namely, that he should bring some influence to bear on the Land Commissioners in order that some of their officers should be censured, shifted, or removed. The senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) had asked whether he was aware that Mr. J. G. MacCarthy, a Sub-Commissioner, was acting judicially in a district with which he was professionally connected; and whether he would suggest to the Commissioners the advisability of making some other arrangement for the Sub-Commission in that district? The noble Lord the Member for Downshire (Lord Arthur Hill) had asked him to interfere in the case of a Sub-Commissioner against whom he brought specific charges of having business relations with people which would not allow him to be impartial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself who introduced that Motion had asked him to represent to the Irish Land Commission that it was not just or expedient to employ Assistant Commissioners to act as

  289
  Judges in localities in which they were now or were recently connected by residence and occupation. The meaning of that was that a special Judge should be removed from a special district. What meaning had those Questions except that the Executive Government were to use certain influence with the Land Commission; and if he gave an evasive answer he would be met, he would not say by murmurs, but by expressions of dissatisfaction in the House? On another occasion he told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Sub-Commissioner had been shifted; and, instead of expressing any disapproval, the right hon. and learned Gentleman smiled very benignly and expressed a most serene satisfaction. The conduct of the Government in the House showed that the apprehensions of the landlords were unfounded, and that their interests were being duly consulted; and if the Government gave the same assurance to the tenants he did not think anyone could complain. Indeed, between the two operations he could not see any difference whatever. He now proposed to meet the practical question before them. The reason why the Government had asked the advice of the Land Commission with reference to these valuers was not that they were themselves dissatisfied with the judgment of the Sub-Commissioners, but because they thought the Courts did not work fast enough. It was impossible to tell this at first, although the result was certainly prophesied, because during the earlier part of that Session they could not ascertain for certain the pace of the Courts, and that was the real explanation of the seeming inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government. Five or six weeks ago it was said that the Government had expressed confidence in the valuators; but they did not say anything about the rapidity of their work, because they had not then sufficient experience. They now possessed that experience, and, considering the very great additional burden upon the Exchequer, the advantage gained by their labours was extremely and almost infinitesimally small. In the six weeks ending August 19, 16 Sub-Commissioners' Courts fixed 2,677 fair rents—it would be very unfair to take the earlier weeks, because they had not got into working order. In the six weeks ending November 16, 17 Sub-
  290
  Commissioners' Courts were working, and they fixed 2,788 fair rents, so that by the addition of 17 valuators with the same salary as the Sub-Commissioners they got in the course of six weeks only 100 additional cases disposed of out of a total of nearly 3,000. On the question of appeals, it was not the case that all the appeals were for cases decided before the change. The total appeals up to the 18th of September were 3,714, and since the 18th of September 1,127. If they compared this with the number of fair rents fixed, they would find that, while the Sub-Commissioners were working without the aid of valuators, the percentage of appeals was a little over 25 per cent. Since they had been working with the aid of valuators, the percentage had been a little over 27 per cent. These appeals were an equal grievance to both parties, and the Government were very anxious to avoid them. The principal reason for the appeals, in the belief of the litigants, was that the valuer had not sufficient time to value the land. The Government were anxious to meet a feeling of that sort by adding two pairs of Sub-Commissioners to each legal Commissioner, so that the Sub-Commissioners might have abundant and over-abundant time to examine each case. They were satisfied by the double staff they would keep the legal Commissioners employed, and with a little expenditure of money they would have a Court which would do to secure justice to all parties, and they earnestly hoped that soon both parties would come to acknowledge it. It might be that some disappointment had been felt by those who had watched the operation of the Act. The Act worked slowly, it was true; but not really as slowly as would, perhaps, appear on the surface. But it was not merely that fair rents were being fixed, it was the great and widespread tranquillity it caused, and its operation as a settlement between landlord and tenant over the whole face of Ireland that made it the most valuable. They were continually hearing that first one landlord and then another had made arrangements under it. Statistics had been placed in his hand which showed the work of one single man in valuing farms for the purpose of settlements, and they stated that he had traversed eight counties, and had visited the holdings of 1,228 tenants, of

  291
  whom 72 went into Court, while 94 per cent of the total number of 1,156 made arrangements in a friendly manner. He did not think it was too much to hope that that was a process which had been going on since the beginning of the Land Act, both in the Courts as they were originally arranged, and he believed it would go on under the Courts as they were now to be arranged. Through out the whole of their scheme the Government had tried to do justice to both parties, and to restore friendly relations between the two classes, in the hope and expectation that in so doing they might bring peace, quiet, and goodwill to Ireland.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had devoted a good deal of his speech to the defence of the valuators; but, in his opinion, they were a class very detrimental to the peace of Ireland; indeed, he considered them as some of its worst enemies. But whatever else his speech might have shown, it proved conclusively that the Government had never made up their minds, but drifted from one opinion to another. Before, however, dealing with that consideration, he wished to refer to what fell from the Prime Minister. His speech was divided into two parts—the first comprising a defence of his own conduct; and the second a most glowing and impassioned prophecy of the magnificent results which would unquestionably follow this new phase of his Irish policy. For his own part, he had become rather wearied of these perpetual prophecies of the triumphant successes of the present Administration; he wished to see more of the practical growth of the country and less of these glowing anticipations of the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary had told them that the object of these changes was to secure the confidence, not of one section, but of both sections of the Irish people, and he laid great stress on the fact that he had endeavoured to gain the confidence of the landlords of Ireland. If that were so, he had signally failed. There had been that night a significant silence on the part of those who aspired to represent the tenantry of Ireland, and one voice only had been heard from those Benches during that debate. With a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) he was not indisposed to agree. When the hon. Member entreated the Government to
  292
  cease from this perpetual patchwork—this perpetual alteration in the administration of the law—and to let the people of Ireland know what they intended to do, and to adhere like men to their declarations, he cordially agreed with him. But he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in thinking that it was part of the duty of the Irish Executive to be perpetually interfering with the mechanism and arrangements of the Land Commission. he was astonished when he hoard the right hon. Gentleman say that, because Questions were continually being asked with regard to particular decisions of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, hon. Members who put those Questions showed that they regarded the Land Court as merely a branch of the Executive Government. Before his connection with Ireland, had the right hon. Gentleman not heard Questions continually put by English, Scotch, and Welsh Members as to the decisions of various Courts; and did he or anyone suppose that the Members who asked, or the Home Secretary who replied to, those Questions regarded those Courts as forming any part of the Executive Government? There was one point he wished particularly to refer to. During the course of the debate the Chief Secretary had referred to an official document which had not been laid upon the Table of the House. The Prime Minister also referred to an official document, and led the House to understand that he was giving the House the meaning of that document. He referred to the document in respect of two points. One was that he was led to believe that increased speed would be obtained by the appointment of valuators, and the other that there would be a considerable diminution of appeals if they were appointed. The Prime Minister said that he consented to the change on that condition, and as that had not been fulfilled, the Government were perfectly right in reversing their policy. According to the universal practice of Parliament, the document to which the Prime Minister had referred ought not to be withheld from the House of Commons. He earnestly pressed the Prime Minister to permit that document to become the property of the House. That observation applied with far greater force to the document quoted in extenso

  293
  by the Chief Secretary. He trusted that the House might rely upon the production of that document. He had noticed with considerable interest the reference of the Chief Secretary to the valuable results of the labours of the Lords' Committee on the Land Act. A few months ago the labours of the House of Commons were interrupted, and a list of measures—the loss of which the Prime Minister had never ceased to deplore—was put aside, in order that the House of Lords should be censured for instituting that inquiry. He heard, therefore, with very great pleasure the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the valuable evidence that had been taken by that Committee. He hoped that in future the House of Lords, in the exercise of its undoubted rights, would be allowed to institute important inquiries upon subjects of great public interest without a Liberal Minister again interfering with the proper proceedings of the House of Commons for the purpose of denouncing the legitimate action of the House of Lords. The first defence of the conduct of the Government put forward that night came from the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who said that a legal point was involved; and the right hon. Gentleman taxed his ingenuity to show that Her Majesty's Government were expressly debarred by Act of Parliament from appointing valuers. That was rather a left-handed defence of the Government, because in its very statement it condemned their action. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that his Successor might have acted inadvertently—that he might not have had the purport of this section brought to his notice before he consented to the appointment of valuers. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that Lord Spencer, who was a consenting party, was a leading Member of the Cabinet when the Act was passed, and that the Prime Minister was the loading spirit all through those debates. It must have struck the right hon. Gentleman with astonishment that it should have been reserved for himself and Lord Spencer to be the sole proper expositors of the legal meaning of that Act of Parliament. And here he was reminded that the same Law Officers not improbably were consulted upon both occasions, and gave their valuable advice.
  294
  Were they to understand from the right hon. Member for Bradford that the Law Officers who had been consulted by him gave different advice from the Law Officers whom his Successor consulted, they being identically the same Gentlemen? What must the right hon. Gentleman have thought of the soundness of his legal argument when the reply came to it, not from hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side, but from the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)? And now they had it admitted that the appointment of valuers was strictly legal and Constitutional; while half of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down went to show how admirably the appointment of valuers had worked, how fully their conduct justified the Land Commission in appointing them, how well they had discharge their duties, and what increased confidence they had given in the administration of the Act. And having shown all that, the rest of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to the lamest possible reasons why this admirable body of men were to be dismissed and a new set of gentlemen called in. And what did it all come to? To a question of speed. They did their work too slowly; it was necessary to get on with greater rapidity. Never mind whether the work was done well or ill, so it was done quickly. Let us hurry on to the end of the chapter, and it would be found that two Sub-Commissioners would be more likely to expedite business than any valuer. Now, he altogether disputed that view of the case. He greatly doubted the stability of this great speed. And as for diminishing appeals, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman could not but have a very considerable effect in increasing the number of appeals from the judgment of gentlemen who were appointed under such conditions and with such objects. He regretted to hear the vindication which the right hon. Gentleman had made of these last appointments by Her Majesty's Government, and that the connection between Dublin Castle and the Land Commission had been so plainly admitted. He regretted many incidents in this debate; but there was one thing which he did not regret, and that was that the New Resolutions of the Prime Minister had afforded to his

  295
  right hon. and learned Friend the opportunity, of which he had availed himself, of calling the attention of the House, and through the House of the country, to the latest instance of vacillation and change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government in connection with Ireland.
  Question put, and negatived.
  [The following is the Entry in the Votes.]
  Mr. Gibson, Member for the University of Dublin, 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 the 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. Gibson:)—Question put, and negatived.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    II. STANDING COMMITTEES.

      RESOLUTION 1 (STANDING COMMITTEES ON LAW AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, TRADE, &c.)
      [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [THIRTY-FIRST NIGHT.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th November],
      "That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may be committed to them respectively."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      And which Amendment was,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not expedient to consider the matter of the proposed Resolution at this period of the Session,"—(Sir S. Assheton Cross,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question again proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Question."
      Debate resumed.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he thought the House was entitled to hear some further explanation of the Resolution the Prime Minister had brought before them. The most deadly enemies of the Resolution could not have pulled it to pieces more effectively than two hon. Gentlemen sitting on the other side—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) summed up the whole of his argument in defence of the Resolution in a word by saying that they ought to pass it because it was an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the House had been engaged for the last five weeks in experimenting, and trying to revolutionize the Procedure of the House. But the experiment of that evening, when 40 Members were sufficient to enable the adjournment of the House to be moved, would prove to Her Majesty's Government that the changes made would not be so satisfactory to them as they thought. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had entirely broken down in his attempt to answer the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. He honestly thought that every Member of the House, if left to himself, would be glad to end this Session, of which he, for one, was heartily sick and tired. A strong argument in favour of the Amendment was afforded by the remarks of the Prime Minister, who, during the last two or three weeks, had been constantly calling for the attention of the very small attendance of Members at the debates on the Procedure Resolutions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman spoke the truth when he said these Grand Committees would "multiply the voices of the House." The speechifying in the Committees would tend to increase the amount of talk in the House itself, for hon. Members who had been defeated upstairs would renew their opposition on the third reading stage, and would thus initiate an additional debate. The Resolution provided that all Bills relating to law or trade should be referred to one of the Standing Committees; but, as the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out, there was a saving clause—"Unless the House shouldother-

      297
      wise order." But what did those words mean, and how was the House to order it? While the Government were asking the House to reduce the number of the stages of a Bill, they were really by these words introducing a new stage, because a proposal to refer a measure to a Standing Committee might be met by a Motion that it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and thereupon a debate would arise. Having regard to the fact that there were now several Parties in the House, he thought that the Committee of Selection would have great difficulty in deciding on the composition of the Committee. One of the effects of the Government proposal would be that the veto which the House possessed on the proceedings of Committees upstairs would be much more frequently applied than heretofore. In his opinion, the duties to be imposed on the Chairmen of those Committees were so onerous that they would have to be appointed as officers of the House, and receive a remuneration. The proposal of the Government was a mistake, and before any great lapse of time it would, he believed, break down. He hoped the Amendment of his right hon. Friend would be carried.
      MR. GORSTsaid, that before the House divided he was anxious to say a few words in order to explain why he intended to vote for the Amendment which his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir B. Assheton Cross) had moved. When his right hon. Friend first moved the Amendment he confessed that he felt a strong dislike to it. He quite recognized that the Resolutions in reference to Standing Committees were of a very important character. He had thought, whether rightly or wrongly, at all events sincerely—that the previous Resolutions proposed by the Prime Minister greatly abridged the privileges of Members of that House, and therefore he had accepted them with extreme reluctance. The present Resolutions were certainly not of that character; they were of a different class, and nobody could say that the plan was one which greatly detracted from the responsibility or security of Members of that House. Therefore, as the House had spent so many days in discussing the previous Resolutions, he had been most anxious that the Prime Minister should have an opportunity of submitting to
      298
      the consideration of the House the Resolutions of the Government in regard to Standing Committees. He had been prepared, and he still was prepared, to give a fair and candid consideration to the plan of the Government, and for that reason he was reluctant to attempt to out short a discussion by such a Motion as that which had been moved by his right hon. Friend; but he felt bound in candour to say that during the course of this debate it had become perfectly plain to him, and it must be perfectly plain to the majority of the House, that the Government had not got any well-digested plan at all; and, although the House must proceed to consider these Resolutions, what they ought to consider was not the plan of the Government, but whether the House in an exhausted state, at the fag end of the Session, should create for itself a plan for carrying out the idea which the Prime Minister had laid before them. He did not think that was a position in which the House ought to be placed. It was quite clear that they should have to go on and discuss in detail the scheme of the Prime Minister. He had no wish to detain the House now by attempting to discuss matters of detail; but if the House would indulge him, he would just give two examples in order to explain what he meant when he said that the plan of Her Majesty's Government was not digested at all. The first illustration he wished to give was that there was no plan whatever proposed by the Government for the election of these Standing Committees. Nothing could be more crude or unsatisfactory than the proposal that they should be nominated by the Committee of Selection. He would not speak about the Private Bill Committees, because the appointment of Private Bill Committees was, no doubt, perfectly satisfactory; it was a sort of general body, appointed by the Committee of Selection to the general satisfaction of those who appeared before it. But for the appointment of Committees like these Standing Committees, the Committee of Selection possessed no qualifications whatever. The House did not even trust the Committee of Selection to appoint its Select Committees. The Committee of Selection was sometimes allowed to nominate one or two Members of a Select Committee when that Select Committee met for private inte-

      299
      rests; but when a Select Committee was appointed to deal with purely public questions, no one dreamt of vesting the appointment of the Committee in the Committee of Selection. Well, the mode of appointing Select Committees in that House was most unsatisfactory; and the reason why the House acquiesced was that they—the Select Committees—had no important functions to discharge. He thought it was the late Mr. Disraeli who said that Select Committees were an elaborate mode of finding out what everybody knew. They had no power to legislate in that House; and when it came to a question of the appointment of these Standing Committees, which were to exercise a great and appreciable influence upon the legislation of the country, no one would contend that the appointment of such Committees should be made by the Committee of Selection. The Committee of Selection, as his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) said, really represented the Front Benches on each side of the House. He did not mean to undervalue the Front Benches, and he never did; but one thing that would be certainly carried out in the appointment of these Standing Committees, as it was now proposed to be made, was the elimination of every single Member who had what was called independence of opinion, regard only being had, as the qualification of a Member to serve upon them, to whether he was likely to give a steady vote for the Party to which he belonged. They on that side of the House denounced the tyranny of force, but on that side of the House they had means quite as effective for the coercion of any recalcitrant Member; but they disliked anything like the coercion of independence of thought as strongly as they disliked the influence brought to bear in that direction by certain Caucuses throughout the country. He was, therefore, quite certain that if Standing Committees were appointed by the Committee of Selection, or by a selection from both sides of the House, or by any other means of that kind, the result would be to eliminate from these Standing Committees all those Gentlemen on both sides of the House who had distinguished themselves in their debates by anything like independence of thought. Whether that would conduce to the shortening of debates when a
      300
      Bill left the Standing Committee he would leave hon. Members to judge. Those who found themselves excluded by their character and qualifications from serving on the Standing Committees would revenge themselves by expressing their opinion upon every measure which was returned to the House; and he did not think the Government would be able oven to try the experiment of the appointment of Standing Committees until they had devised and laid before the House some means by which Standing Committees, when appointed, would be really representative of the House itself. A Committee, upon which not only a legitimate Opposition, but even what might be called an illegitimate Opposition, composed of Members sitting below the Gangway, and even in regard to which the Radical Party might be placed in a large minority, would not be a Committee that would secure the confidence of the House; and he would advise the Government, before they proceeded further with the Resolutions, to consider and lay before the House some well-digested scheme by which these Standing Committees would be made more thoroughly representative. He was not saying this in order to cast any blame upon the Prime Minister. Of course, the Prime Minister could not attend to all these matters of detail. The right hon. Gentleman formed an idea, but nothing more than an idea. But he wondered why the Prime Minister did not ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) to work out the details of the scheme. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman had never thought about the scheme at all, and that the scheme in the right hon. Gentleman's mind was as crude and as general as it was in the mind of the Prime Minister. It was rightly so in the case of the Prime Minister, because it was not to be expected that, with his numerous avocations, he could condescend to enter upon these details; but the case was very different with the President of the Local Government Board. It would greatly assist the House if the right hon. Gentleman would prepare, in a proper form, the details of the scheme, so that they might be fully explained to the House. There was another thing he desired to call the attention of the

      301
      House to—namely, the mode or principle on which Bills were to be delegated to the Standing Committees. There, again, the Government were just as much at sea as any hon. Member. They had no scheme to explain, and therefore they could not explain it. The definition of the terms "law" and "trade" was as crude, and vague, and general as any definition could possibly be. The Government could not even themselves specify what Bills they were going to refer to these Standing Committees, nor could they tell whether a particular Bill was to go or not. They had been asked if Bills would be referred to the Standing Committee simply by a vote of the House, and they did not know whether that was to be so or not. It seemed to him, therefore, that with the vague definition the House now had it would be necessary for the House in every case to resolve that a Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee. He knew that was not the language of the Resolution; but the language of the Resolution would have to be altered, or else it was quite plain that they would have the extraordinary anomaly of having Bills which excited the greatest amount of passion and interest in the country referred to a Committee upstairs. To give only one instance, what would the House say to a Bill for the abolition of capital punishment going upstairs? That was clearly a law Bill; but were they going to have such a Bill referred to a Select Committee upstairs? If not, how was it to be intercepted? How was a Bill of that kind, which naturally fell within the definition given in the Resolution, when the House did not intend it to be referred to a Select Committee upstairs—how was it to be intercepted? They did not know when the Bill was to be referred; they did not know by whom it was to be referred; they did not know how it was to be referred; and on all those important particulars the Government had not yet formed any scheme which they were able to lay before the House. For these reasons he must say that he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the wisest course the House could now pursue, reluctant as he was to disappoint the Prime Minister in carrying out this scheme, was to postpone the consideration of the remaining Resolutions until the Government scheme was in a more workable shape. Of course,
      302
      he would find himself in a minority, and he could not hope to prevail against the majority of the House; but he should be perfectly content to give effect to his views in the Division Lobby, and he, for one, would feel it his duty, if his right hon. Friend went to a division, to record his vote in favour of the Amendment.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I will only stand for a very short time between the House and the division which I think it is anxious to take; but I wish to say a few words upon this subject. I am not prepared to absent to the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and his Friends, that it is not expedient to discuss this question at the present moment. No doubt, hon. Members are anxious to see this extraordinary Session come to an end; but there is another anxiety we also have, and that is that the House should be placed in a position next Session to be able to tackle the work that will be placed upon it in a satisfactory manner, and that it may not have to begin the Session with further debates upon Procedure. Therefore, for my part, I am anxious that this matter, even at the expense of great personal sacrifices to many Members, should be thrashed out as far as it is possible to do so during this Session. We have been told—and I accept that view—that this is an experimental measure, and I think there are a great many Members who will vote in favour of the measure on the ground that it is an experiment only—an important experiment—and an experiment of which we are bound to consider the full scope—an experiment to be tried on important Bills, which doubtless interest great classes in this country, and, therefore, an experiment that we must look fully in the face before we assent to it; but, nevertheless, an experiment which it will be possible to reverse if it should not be found to be expedient. I am not prepared to assent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but, on the other hand, I think we should do our duty if we endeavour to see the full scope of this experiment, and I am sure that the Government will be disposed to give as full explanations of its principle as it is in their power to do, because we cannot conceal from ourselves that the experiment is based upon novel principles; and I think that this debate

      303
      may have one important effect—namely, that of giving a certain guide to the Committee of Selection to determine them as to the kind of idea which the House entertains with regard to the composition of the Grand Committees which are to be appointed. Now, it appears to me that there are three principles on which a selection might take place—three possible principles. I should exclude some of them as impracticable; but still I think it is right that they should be stated. One principle would be the principle of nationality; another principle would be the principle of experts; and the third principle, I think, would be this—that these Grand Committees should be as clearly as possible reflections of the House of Commons; and I do not hesitate to say that I trust the determination of the Government, and the determination of the Committee of Selection, if to that body should be confided the most important and difficult task of appointing these Committees—I trust the principle which will mainly guide the selection will be the principle of constituting these Committees, so that they shall be, as far as possible, a miniature of the House of Commons itself. I exclude the idea of these Committees being composed upon the principle of nationalities. I see that there are many Amendments placed upon the Paper which seem to indicate that, in the opinion of some Members of this House, it would be desirable so to develop this system as to have Scotch Committees, Irish Committees, and Welsh Committees to deal with questions relating to those nationalities. Now, I should consider that a most dangerous development of the present system; and if I thought that that was in the mind of a majority of this House—if I had reason to believe that it was in the mind of the Government—I should vote against this experiment, because I should consider that it was leading us into a dangerous development. I understand from the language of the Prime Minister that such an idea is not in the mind of Her Majesty's Government, and that what is in the mind of Her Majesty's Government is simply a division of labour. I gather from the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) that, on the whole, the view of the Government leans to the idea that these Grand Committees are, as far as possible,
      304
      to be reflections of the House. Now, I do not conceal my opinion that I should be afraid of those Committees being constituted on the principle of men with special interests having a special claim to be appointed upon them. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did speak of a special interest taken by Members in certain classes of subjects. I will remind the House that there are three considerations which are to be borne in mind by the Committee of Selection, as these Resolutions are drawn—namely, the classes of subjects, the composition of this House, and the qualifications of Members. I trust that the main point—that the main consideration which will guide the Committee of Selection, will be the composition of this House, and that they will think less of the qualification of Members, and less of the classes of subjects to be referred to these Committees, because I am not afraid to express my strongest conviction that nothing would be more dangerous than to confide the consideration of a certain class of subjects to a Grand Committee composed of men strongly interested in those subjects. It is a plausible, and in some respects it sounds a common-sense view, that you are to confide the consideration of subjects to men specially interested in those subjects. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Not pecuniarily interested.] I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that pecuniary interest in a subject should never be considered; but I think that an intellectual, or any other interest taken in a particular subject, might have some weight. However, I would say this, with the greatest possible conviction—that if I wished to introduce a great reform, either in trade, or in law, or in any other department, I should have much greater confidence in appealing to the general sense of the House than to any particular Committee constituted from classes. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer; but they will see that my point is not that we shall not delegate these powers, because if we can delegate these powers to a Grand Committee, fairly representing the House, I am entirely in favour of the Government view; and it will be seen that in the criticisms I am making I mean to lay down this proposition in the strongest possible terms. I sympathize with the Government in their efforts to delegate these powers; I sympathize with their efforts to facilitate

      305
      the labours of the House; but I am anxious that it should be done in such a manner that the labours of the House will be performed by Grand Committees precisely on the same principles and in the same manner as if those labours were performed by the House itself. And now let us consider for a moment, if the House will allow me to follow up this train of thought—let us consider for a moment, if the great shipping questions initiated by Mr. Plimsoll had been committed to a Grand Committee for consideration, whether he would have been able to carry those reforms. I doubt whether it would have been possible. When you wish to reform the law, to reform commerce, to reform any great industry or any trade in regard to which there are great interests concerned, it is necessary to maintain a general interest in the House in the particular subjects. It is necessary that the general opinion—the strong tide of opinion—of this House should be kept strongly at work in order to check the views that might be taken by those specially interested in particular subjects. In a word, I may say that I am strongly against the composition of Grand Committees on the principle of any large number of "experts," as they are called, being placed upon them. An hon. Member yesterday evening denied that there were experts in this House. Well, I think that cannot be the view that will be taken by the House in general, or, if so, it is only a dispute in regard to the meaning of the term. Everybody knows what is meant when we speak of a Committee of Experts. Another phrase may be taken—those specially connected, with any particular industry or any particular trade; and I maintain that it would be dangerous to place them on any Committee in such numbers as that they should give a general decision with regard to the clauses of a Bill committed to their care. And here, I think, I may point out a danger against which I trust the Committee of Selection will guard, if these important duties are conferred upon them. They will find themselves in a great difficulty and in a great dilemma. They will have strong pressure brought to bear upon them to put upon a Grand Committee connected with trade the Representatives of almost every constituency connected with trade and manufactures. If they give way to that pressure,
      306
      no doubt they will have a Grand Committee on which those interested will be so largely represented that there would be a fear of the general feeling of the House—that broad opinion, to which I wish a final appeal to be made upon all these questions—being insufficiently represented. On the other hand, if they do not put on a sufficient number of those who are interested, it is just possible that complaints may be made by individual Members and by their constituents that they are not upon the Grand Committee. That is the difficulty with which it will be necessary to deal, and which we must face in the experiment we wish to undertake. Hon. Members opposite have objected very much to the view that these Committees should be generally based upon the principle of the composition of the House. I understand that while hon. Members opposite object to the preponderance of experts upon these Committees, as I do—for I share the opinion that any preponderance of experts on these Committees would be a great mistake—I find that hon. Members also object to this House being represented on the Grand Committees in its natural proportions.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Regard being had to the composition of the House.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; it has been urged over and over again, and urged, I think, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), that it would be an invasion of the practice of the House. That was also urged by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I never said so.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Then I beg the noble Lord's pardon; but it certainly has been urged in almost every speech made upon the question on the other side of the House, that it would be wrong to depart from the principle that there should be only a majority of 1 upon a Select Committee. The argument was raised in this way—that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had, from the year 1868 downwards, attempted to change the old practice of the House that a Select Committee should be so composed that the majority should only be a majority of 1 upon such Committees.
      MR. GLADSTONE: That was the former practice.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; that was the former practice; but I confess it appears to me that when a Bill is referred to a Committee, the Select Committee should not be composed on the principle of only having a majority of 1 in favour of the Government of the day, no matter in what proportion the majority of the House itself may be in reference to the minority. I object to these Grand Committees being composed on the principle that there should only be a majority of 1 on each Committee, while there is a majority of three-fifths or two-fifths in the House itself. I consider that much harm has been done in past years, whatever Government has been in power, through adopting the principle of nominating Select Committees in that way. It has been a distinct disadvantage to the majority of the day, especially when it is taken into account that the Chairman of the Committee, who is always named from the majority, cannot vote; and it has happened, over and over again, that a Select Committee appointed to consider a Government Bill has found itself in this position, that the minority of the House were actually in a majority upon the Committee. If any accident happened so as to prevent one single Member of the majority attending the Committee, then the result has been that the minority have practically become the majority. Then, if this plan of Standing Committees is to be tried, it appears to me that one of the principles on which we ought to stand is this. These Committees are to be, as far as possible, the reflection of the House at large. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) made some strong disparaging observations with regard to the Committee of Selection. It appears to me that the Committee of Selection has done its difficult work with admirable tact during a large number of years. It has had a very difficult task to perform, and I regret to find there is a tendency on the part of the noble Lord, and of other Members of the House, to increase the difficulties, not of their political opponents only, but of the authorities of the House. I think it is a pity, considering the great difficulties under which Parliament is labouring, that any attempt should be
      308
      made to increase them by endeavouring to throw discredit upon such bodies as the Committee of Selection, who have such heavy and responsible duties committed to their charge, and who endeavour to discharge them with conscientious impartiality. I admit the immense difficulty which will be cast upon the Committee of Selection. I admit that their duties will be far greater than those they have had to perform hitherto, and for this reason—that hitherto they have had to impose a duty upon Members, whereas now they may have to confer a privilege upon them. They will have to settle who is to serve on these Grand Committees, and a more difficult task could never be confided to any body of men. Then I believe that by a frank discussion of the situation, while we are engaged on the matter, we shall facilitate the task which the Committee of Selection may ultimately have to perform. No doubt, other Members may take a different view from that which I take, and say that it is mainly to men conversant with particular subjects that the Committee of Selection ought to look; and I will make this admission—that they ought to see that upon those Grand Committees they place the strongest experts that exist in this House in regard to particular subjects. But, if I may venture to suggest, they should look rather to the strength of the men than to the number of the men, because I believe it is not by putting on these Committees a large number of specialists that we should arrive at the result we wish to attain. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government spoke yesterday of a division of labour, and how by a division of labour we ought to be able to obtain greater results. I admit the advantages of a division of labour; but as my right hon. Friend spoke of the increased work which in the country has been performed by the division of labour, I wish to say that that division of labour has, in regard to many trades, had one disadvantage, and that is of creating a class of specialists fit to perform the particular class of work placed upon them by the division of labour, but incompetent to address themselves to the work as a whole. The result has been that the persons engaged in a particular trade have become too special. The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I point to a danger which

      309
      may attend the selection of these Committees. It is not through specialists that we are to attempt to deal with the question. We must attempt the composition of a Committee as far as possible in regard to the subjects referred to it, but with a representation of all classes in this House upon it. I hope I have justified the remark that I made at the beginning of these few observations, that I am anxious not to increase the great difficulties of the Government in endeavouring to deal with the arrears of work; but, at the same time, it appeared to me that it was right we should realize to ourselves some of the leading principles involved in this delegation of power, and not lose ourselves in the consideration of difficult objections which I trust may be overcome. It is easy enough to cite a number of objections in detail to any plan. Many of the objections in this case, when I heard them, I will honestly say, made a considerable impression upon my mind, and when I listened I wondered how it was possible to overcome them. But when I think of the difficulty of the present state of things, when I perceive the difficulty of applying ourselves to our work, I am not without a hope that we may be able to overcome those difficulties of detail, and that the greater sacrifices that are demanded of men of business, of lawyers, and of many other classes by these Grand Committees will be met with the same readiness which men in public life in this country so often display in the discharge of public duties. Then, in regard to the duties confided to them, I think we shall be able to overcome these difficulties. We should, however, commit a great error, in the delegation of our power, were we to act on a false principle and forget the Representatives of the constituencies of this country. I will never admit that great interests of a varied character are to be determined by specialists, or any limited number of men; and we should take care that all classes, and the Representatives of all interests, have a voice in determining the legislation which is to affect any one class. In nearly all the discussions which have taken place on this subject, in nearly all the speeches which have been delivered, one fact has become prominent and apparent—namely, that we cannot separate the interests of this
      310
      country in this fashion, where all are so united; and it is difficult to draw the line and say where the interests of agriculture overlap those of trade—where law begins or where trade begins. It is necessary for the country that there should be an amalgamation of interests; and, for my part, I have always protested against the idea that the interests of classes are separate and antagonistic. I believe the interests of classes all overlap and depend on each other; and, therefore, whatever may result from these proposals, I trust that all of the interests of this country may be taken into consideration in dealing with any special interests, and that the House of Commons will retain, as I believe it ought to retain, the full power and full opportunity of discussing every question and every law which affects any single class of the community.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given some excellent advice to the Members of the Committee of Selection, and he regretted he did not see more than one of that body present. He had only seen one in his place since this discussion began. The right hon. Gentleman had made some useful and instructive observations, with many of which he was disposed to agree; and his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) complaint was that they did not find on the Notice Paper any materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion as to what these Committees would be, or how they would work. Apparently it was left to the Committee of Selection to find it out in the best way they could. Then, again, they hardly knew how far they had got Committees of Selection upon which they could depend—that was to say, to what extent the House could rely that the Committees of Selection would not be themselves tampered with. As the functions of these bodies grew, was the House to rest assured that the numbers on the Committees or their complexion would not be altered? They knew what a Committee of Selection was now, but they did not know what it might be under new manipulation. The Grand Committees, if they were ever to be tried, ought to be tried on a different principle to those laid down in the Resolution. Each Committee ought to be a minor form of a Committee of the Whole House; but the Committee of the Whole House should

      311
      be left to form panels for themselves to serve like Committees on Private Bills. In order to enable the House to do this the whole of the definition of the Bills in the Resolution ought to be struck out, in accordance with his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) Amendment standing on the Paper. If the Committee of the Whole House were to form two panels of 60 or 80 Members, without reference to the Bills to be referred to them, there would be a chance of substantial Committees being formed, and there would be no pressure whatever on the part of hon. Members to be put on this or that Committee, because no one would know until the time came for them to sit what Bills were going to be referred to them. He wished to refer to some other faults in the plan of the Government which led him to believe that it had not been sufficiently thought out. In answer to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), he would say it seemed to him that the Government had given no thought whatever to the mode in which the plan was to be worked. As it stood on the Paper the proposal was that certain Bills should be referred to the Grand Committees; but the Grand Committee was not to be constructed for the Bill. The Bill was to be referred to the Grand Committee after the latter had been constituted. Was, then, the promoter of a Bill to have no voice in its consideration in Committee—was he not to be on the Committee? It was not even provided that the President of the Board of Trade, when he brought forward a Bill, should be on the Committee to whom it was referred. At present, when a Public Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the Minister in charge of it was appointed Chairman; but no provision was made for that in the Resolution. No doubt, it was intended that Members of the Government should be on the Standing Committees, but Members of the Government would have little time to devote to such work; in fact, he hardly knew how this scheme could work without causing Ministers to neglect their Departmental duties. It was true that though there were "immense masses" of work to be done there was great power in the House to do it; but he was afraid the great "mass" of work in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was the 35 measures they had heard so much of as the
      312
      reforms to be proposed for the gratification, he would not say of the country, but of the Liberal Party. No doubt, there were great masses of work to be done; but to his mind this work was of a more unobtrusive character than that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, private legislation—matters connected with Town Improvement, Police, Sanitary Regulations, and Finance. These were matters pressing on the House, but to which the House was little disposed to give consideration. If Members of the Government, and others who ought to be considering important private legislation, were on these Grand Committees, the enormous and growing interests of the country would suffer by the establishment of the Grand Committees. It appeared to him that if the Committee of Selection was to mark out 80 Members each for two of these Standing Committees, Private Business would be starved still more than it was at present. As the Resolution stood, the House could not adopt it unless it was prepared to sit another fortnight to construct a scheme, word by word, and line by line, out of the very general and sketchy material on the Paper. Unless the House was prepared to do this, it would be well to decide to enlarge the Committees to which Public Bills were from time to time referred, and to postpone the Resolution. Unless they were prepared to devote a great deal more time to this matter than they had yet given it, it seemed to him that they were only aiming at something that was in the abstract and not in the concrete. The Government did not give them the assistance in the matter they were entitled to expect, if, at this period of the Session, on a subject so important, they only gave them this shadowy and vague Resolution.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 77: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 400.)
      Main Question again proposed.
      Debate arising;
      Debate adjourned 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 Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.