Sitting of 10 August 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 9] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) * [288].
Second Reading—Leaseholders (Facilities for Purchase of Fee Simple) [134], deferred.
Committee—Education (Scotland) [226]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Cholera Hospitals (Ireland) [282].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Isle of Wight Highways (recomm.) [268].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [265], and passed.
Withdrawn—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham) [21].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF DR. DAVIS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a case brought by Dr. Michael Davis, J. P. against Terence Reilly, for possession of a holding in Coravillis, Inniskeen, county Cavan, and which was tried before Captain Mansfield, R. M. and Messrs. Gibson and Chambers, J. P. who, on examining the documentary evidence, pronounced the complainant guilty of perjury; and, whether he will direct any proceedings to be taken against Dr. Davis?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that in the course of the case referred to one of the magistrates present—namely, Mr. Chambers, did say that Dr. Davis, in an application which he joined with his tenant in making under the Arrears Act, had made an affidavit not in accordance with what the law required, and sworn what was not true. Such statement was, however, made under a misapprehension of the facts, and was not concurred in or approved of by the two other magistrates mentioned in the hon. Member's Question; and on inquiry I do not find that there are any grounds for instituting proceedings against Dr. Davis. It is, of course, no part of my duty to order a prosecution.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CATHOLICS IN DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What provision, if any, has been made for the spiritual necessities of the Catholic inmates of the Donegal Workhouse since the resignation of the Catholic chaplain, the Rev. Hugh M'Fadden, P. P. on the first of May last; is it a fact that the Catholic inmates attend Mass on Sunday in the Parish Church without being in charge of any official in connection with the Workhouse, and is this in accordance with Workhouse regulations; is it a fact that the Parish Priest of Donegal is obliged to employ a Catechist to instruct the Workhouse children after Mass in the Parish Church; is it true that the Catholic Guardians have declined to attend the meetings of the Board in consequence of the majority refusing to appoint a Catechist, there being no Catholic school teacher or official in connection with the Workhouse; and, whether the Local Government Board approve of a Catechist being appointed in the absence of any Catholic official, and have expressed their regret that the majority of the Board will not sanction such appointment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Roman Catholic chaplain resigned his office in May, and it was found impracticable to obtain the services of another chaplain. The workhouse inmates have, therefore, as the only alternative, been allowed to attend Mass in the parish church on Sundays and Holy days. They are not attended by a workhouse officer to the church, which is only a few hundred yards from the workhouse. The master has reported weekly to the Guardians that the inmates returned in good time, and in good order. The arrangement is, of course, unusual, and is not provided for in the general workhouse regulations. The Local Government Board are not aware of the employment of a Catholic catechist at the expense of the parish priest; but they understand there is a Roman Catholic monitress in the workhouse who teaches the children their Catechism. It is the case that the Local Government Board approve of the appointment of a Catholic catechist, and have expressed to the Guardians their regret that the majority decline to sanction such an appointment. With
  54
  regard to the non-attendance of the Catholic Guardians at the Board meetings, I am informed that it is not known locally that the catechist question is the cause of it.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether this was not a case in which he ought to recommend the Local Government Board to appoint paid Guardians for the district?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that would be a very strong step to take, having regard to the fact that the present Guardians were elected for the general administration of poor relief.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsuggested that the Local Government Board should intimate to the Guardians that they might be compelled to override their decision.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would consider the matter.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE—PENSIONS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners who retired from the force between 1866 and 1874 got only about three-fourths of their pay as pension, although the Act of 1847 gave them their full pay as pension after 20 years' service, and although the majority of these men served over thirty years; whether it is the fact that the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the officers of the constabulary who joined and were discharged under the Act of 1847 were pensioned off with their full pay; what is the reason of this inequality in the treatment of officers and men who joined and served in the same force and were discharged under the same Act of Parliament; and, whether the Government will give to pensioners with 30 years' service the full pay allowance to which the Act of 1847 entitled them after a service of 20 years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The case of these pensioners has been several times debated in this House, and has been frequently considered, and successive Governments have decided that they received the pensions to which they were entitled by law. I cannot undertake to re-open the matter, the details of which are too complicated to be satisfactorily dealt with in answer to a Question; but

  55
  I may mention that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a direct comparison between the case of these men and that of Constabulary officers serving under the Act of 1847 and of the Metropolitan Police can be instituted as he suggests. The officers had to serve for 40 years under that Act before they could retire on full pay; and, in the case of the Metropolitan Police, different statutory provisions exist to affect the construction.

  ARMY—TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of allowing men who have taken their discharge at the expiration of either the first or second period of service, or who have purchased their discharge at any period of service, to re-engage within six months, reckoning their former service? The hon. and gallant Member also asked, Whether the noble Marquess's attention has been called to the refusal of a large number of men to re-engage on the completion of their first term of service, on account of not receiving their Deferred Pay; and, whether he will consider the advisability of issuing such Pay on re-engagement instead of withholding it until discharge?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It will be convenient to answer this and No. 6 Question together. There is some confusion in the terms employed. Inducements have been offered to men to extend their service with the Colours, and one of these is the permission to re-engage for pension, if recommended by their Commanding Officer. I believe that the number of men who, up to the present time, have extended their Colour service, is not large. Both the suggestions in the hon. and gallant Member's Questions have been considered; but they would both be in principle opposed to the short service system, and they would also tend actually to defeat the object which we have at present in view, which is to secure an extension of the continuous service of men now serving in the ranks.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: On Tuesday I will ask the noble Marquess, Whether it is not a fact that two officers of the Guards were sent to Portsmouth especially to tempt men recently arrived from India to re-engage, and thus to
  56
  defeat the short service system; and whether that attempt did not fail owing to their not receiving deferred pay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Does the hon. and gallant Member employ the term re-engage or extend their service?
  COLONEL COLTHURST: Extend their service with the Colours.

  ARMY—GOVERNORS OF MILITARY PRISONS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to Articles 376 and 377, Royal Warrant, Pay, &c, 1881, What length of service will entitle existing Governors of Military Prisons to promotion to first class; and, whether appointments to Military Prisons will in future be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 377?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The class refers to the charge, and not to the individual. The condition of receiving the pay of the first class is to be the Governor of a Military Prison of the first class. Article 377 constitutes the rule for future appointments.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—OUTRAGE AT DRUMCLIFFE, CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police and magistrates with regard to an outrage committed on Sunday, the 8th ultimo, at Drumcliffe, in the county Sligo, where five young men, members of the Orange Lodge of Sligo, having first indulged in liquor at the house of a publican named Adams, marched along the highway, wearing Orange sashes, shouted abuse of "Papists" in front of the Catholic Chapel, cursed the Pope, and pursued and fired at a young man named Denis Tighe, a Catholic; why the police allowed, or have not sought to punish, the breach of the Sunday Closing Act which led to this disorder and violence; why Constable Craig, the Constable in charge of the locality, omitted to report the facts to his superiors until after they had been published in the "Sligo Champion" of the 14th instant, six days after the occurrence, when it was no longer possible to conceal them; why Constable Craig, in the summons, charged the act of firing off a revolver at a person as

57
merely a Road Nuisance Offence; why, instead of summoning the five offenders as defendants he summoned two of them as witnesses; why he summoned the man fired at as a defendant, not as a witness; and, why he refrained from summoning several eye-witnesses who could have given conclusive evidence; what notice will be taken of the conduct of Constable Craig; whether the three magistrates who heard the case at Sligo, on the 20th ultimo, dismissed it without prejudice, although several witnesses directly identified the defendants, though the only evidence for the defence was that of two men who had been themselves abettors of the disorderly proceedings, and though the Chairman characterised the "whole affair" as "disgraceful;" and, whether, considering the nature of the evidence, as well as the manner in which the case was managed and presented by Constable Craig, the Government will now order the arrest of all the offenders, and the renewal of proceedings against them?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that a party of young men returning from an Orange meeting at Drumcliffe entered a public-house and had some refreshment. There was no breach of the Licensing Laws, as they were bonâ fide travellers. They subsequently met on the road another party, and a row ensued. Two shots were fired, the Orange party allege from behind a hedge, while the Roman Catholic party allege that they were fired by the Orangemen. The constable followed the usual course of reporting the matter to the district Resident Magistrate and taking his directions. All the parties were summoned, and the evidence was so contradictory that the magistrates could come to no decision, and dismissed both sides without prejudice. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] I assure the hon. Members that both sides swore extremely determined. I will not say there was hard swearing, as it would imply that one side have sworn truly and the other side untruly. Every effort is being made to obtain further evidence, and if the charge of firing shots or carrying firearms can be brought home to anyone, they will be made amenable.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the men were not arrested and searched to see whether they had firearms in their possession?
MR. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the houses of these parties were searched for firearms?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, the houses of the Orange party had been searched, but no firearms found.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a tenant named Thady Timlin, of Culleens, near Ballina, county Sligo, was lately ejected from his holdings for a debt of thirty shillings, one year's rent; whether the ejectment was enforced by the landlord, a person named Henigan, accompanied by a bailiff and two policemen, without the presence of the sheriff; whether they seized, in satisfaction of the debt of thirty shillings, the bedclothes belonging to the old couple who lived in the house, and a crop worth about ten pounds; and, whether the proceeding was legal, and what redress is open to the evicted tenant?
MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a telegram stating that Timlin was evicted for non-payment of two years' rent, amounting to £3. The eviction was carried out by a bailiff named Farmer, acting under a deputation from the Sheriff. He was not accompanied by police; but a police patrol happened to pass while the eviction was going on. The bailiff told Timlin that he might regard all his effects as seized; but it does not appear that anything was carried away. If there is any suggestion of illegality in the proceedings it is not for me to decide the point, as the Courts are open to persons feeling aggrieved.

BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND ART—IRISH SCIENCE TEACHERS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any arrangement has been concluded between the Department of Science and Art, South Kensington, and the Board of National Education in Ireland, to ensure to the Irish science teachers payment on the results of the May examinations at an earlier period than heretofore; whether the Department will endeavour to make such payments before the new classes are formed in the beginning of October; whether it is still considered

59
necessary that claims from schools not in connection with the Commissioners of National Education should be referred to their Board for the purpose of being supervised by the Board's inspector before payment can be made by the Department; and, whether the delay in paying the Irish claims has not been due principally to the time occupied by the Returns passing through the hands of the Marlborough Street officials?
MR. MUNDELLA: The arrangement which I promised the hon. Member last year has already been made, and we hope to make all payments duly claimed before the end of September. No claims from any schools will in future be sent to the National Board. But in cases of doubt, where Returns are inaccurately filled up, we shall avail ourselves of the assistance of the Board. The delay in the past has been largely due to the complex arrangement which has now been superseded, and to the late date at which the schools sent in their claims, and too often to their inaccuracy when they are filled up. I hope we shall secure much greater accuracy and despatch in the future.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL—CONVERSION OF PERPETUAL ANNUITIES—FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
MR. GREGORYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the proposed conversion of perpetual annuities held by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery will involve any alteration in the accounts kept by him with the suitors of such Court, or in the orders dealing with the funds to which they are entitled, or whether such suitors will be credited as heretofore with sums of £3 Per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities in the books of such Paymaster General?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the conversion of a portion of Government Stocks held by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery on behalf of suitors into Terminable Annuities will not involve any alteration in the accounts kept by him with the suitors, or in the orders dealing with the funds to which they are entitled. The suitors will be credited as heretofore with the Stock to which they are entitled, and with the interest upon such Stock as it accrues due.

NAVT—THE DOCKYARDS—LEADING MEN OF SHIPWRIGHTS.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What course they propose to adopt with the present acting leading men of shipwrights in the event of the proposed organization being carried out?
SIR THOMAS BRASSEY (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN): All acting leading men of shipwrights will become acting inspectors.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MEDALS FOR VOLUNTEERS—MEDALS FOR LONG SERVICE.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to confer a medal for long service on the officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates of Her Majesty's Volunteer service; and, if so, when it is proposed to carry that intention into effect?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As this Question has been already twice answered, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply on the 20th of April last to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell), to the effect that the issue of medals should be restricted to war services, long and meritorious Army service, and the saving of life?

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—VALUATION OF HOLDINGS—"DRISCOLL v. HALL."
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in hearing evidence in "Driscoll v. Hall," the Land Commissioners heard any witness as to value, or confined themselves to hearing evidence as to a legal point; whether they sent a court valuer; in how many cases have they given decisions in which neither they nor the Sub-Commissioners sent a court valuer, and is it an invariable rule not to give judgment unless they or the Sub-Commissioners have sent a court valuer, or heard evidence as to value; and, is it the fact that the rent fixed is greater than what the middleman pays his own landlord for his tenant's land, and for twice as much land in addition, which is in his own possession?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he had referred to the Land Commission

61
on the subject, but had not yet received any reply.

CHINA—THE OPIUM TRADE.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the negotiations with China about opium, which have been proceeding since 1876?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The only information that I am at present able to give my hon. Friend is, that the negotiations, as I stated in this House on April 3, are proceeding, and being carried on; and that proposals have been made by the Chinese Government, to which Her Majesty's Government have signified their readiness, under certain conditions, to agree.

SUEZ CANAL—THE CORRESPONDENCE OF 1872.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he had read Colonel Stanton's despatch of the 14th of September 1872, in which he states, with regard to M. de Lesseps' claim to the exclusive right of ship communication between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea—
"A pretension which the Khedive is, however, by no means prepared to admit, as he maintains, and I imagine justly, that no such construction can he attached to the terms of M. de Lesseps' Concession, and that there can he no doubt as to his own right to make canals or carry out any other public work within Egyptian Territory,"
before he received the deputation of shipowners on the 13th of July this year, and stated, with reference to the monopoly claimed by M. de Lesseps—
"We (the Government) came to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps, or his Company, had an exclusive right by water through the Isthmus to the Gulf of Suez;"
and, whether he still adheres to that statement?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir. When I met a deputation of shipowners in July last, I was cognizant of the Correspondence in 1872, which related to a claim supposed to have been set up by M. de Lesseps for a monopoly of all waterways between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, both as against the Khedive and any Company. The question discussed with the deputation was not the power of the Khedive to make
62
Government Canals in Egypt, but his power to grant a Concession to an English Company for a parallel Canal through the Isthmus, as urged by several deputations and Memorials of shipowners. It was with reference to this proposal that I used words to the effect—but not the exact words—quoted by the hon. Member, and I see no reason to depart from that statement.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the rate of mortality in the ten cities and boroughs of the Metropolis is not many degrees less than in several of the large provincial towns of the United Kingdom, whose supply of water is drawn in from other than riverine sources, and the sale of which, to consumers, is altogether in the hands of the Municipal Corporations?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The facts, according to the best information I can obtain at so short a Notice, are these. Taking the towns in the United Kingdom with a population above 100,000, and excluding those where the supply is furnished by Companies, or where the supply is partly or wholly from rivers, there are, I think, nine towns where, according to the last published Quarterly Return of the Registrar General, the death rate was higher than in London, and four where it was lower.

TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will communicate to the House, on the Motion for Second Reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill, a statement giving particulars of the sums (if any) advanced by the Irish Land Commission, for the purpose of promoting emigration from Ireland, under Clause 32 of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881; "also of the advances made for the like purpose to Irish boards of guardians by the Commissioners of Public Works, under Clause 18 of "The Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882," and of the grants under Clause 20 of the same Act for the like purpose, showing the date and amount of each payment, and the person or persons to whom the same was made?
MR. TREVELYAN: I will communicate substantially to the House what the hon. Member asks for; but I may not be able in the course of a speech to give full details as to dates and particulars of every payment; but I will give a general view and abstract of what has been done. I can see no objection to the hon. Member having the information in the shape of a Return.
MR. SEXTONasked if the Return would be furnished before the second reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not pledge himself to that; but it would be given as soon as possible.
MR. GIBSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the second reading of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
MR. TREVELYAN: I fear no positive information can be given.
MR. GIBSON: Will it be next week?
MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly.

SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—CETEWAYO.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, if it prove to be the fact that Cetewayo has been compelled to seek British protection in the Reserved Territory, Her Majesty's Government will direct that measures shall be taken to prevent him or his adherents from recommencing war, or using the Reserved Territory as a basis for fresh agitation or military operations in Zulu-land? The right hon. Gentleman added:—I should like to say that I hope this will not be treated as a hypothetical Question. The suggestions I make are only too probable; and I trust we may hear that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to incur the responsibility of doing nothing to prevent the recurrence of bloodshed in Zululand.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Whether the right hon. Gentleman regards this Question as a hypothetical one or not, it does not alter the fact that it is hypothetical, and that it is put in a hypothetical form. Events in Zululand have, no doubt, taken a new and unexpected turn during the last few days. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we only had information recently; and it is impossible at three hours' Notice, and in
64
the absence of positive information as to Cetewayo's movements, to say what will be the action of the Government beyond the maintenance of order in the Re-serve.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I feel that three hours' Notice is not long, and I shall repeat the Question another day; but I may remind the hon. Member that prompt action is needed if anything is to be done.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—THE VOLKSRAAD.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will communicate to the House the text or substance of the Vote of Censure lately passed by the Transvaal Volksraad upon Her Majesty's Ministers; whether it is a fact that the Transvaal Budget of the year shows a deficit of £200,000; whether he can obtain a summary of the Transvaal Budget; and, whether any time has been fixed for the payment of the £450,000 owing by the Boers to Her Majesty's Exchequer, or any portion of that sum?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the substance of the Resolution adopted by the Transvaal Volksraad, which the hon. Member, with rare wit, calls a Vote of Censure on Her Majesty's Ministers, was to the effect that the Raad, having seen that the Imperial Government had resolved to take into its own hands the Government of Basutoland under certain conditions, and considering that such a step requires the confirmation of the Cape Parliament, now in Session, resolves that the said step is considered injurious to the peace, welfare, and future union of South Africa, and that this Resolution should be communicated, among others, to the Cape Parliament and the Imperial Government. The Governor at the Cape asked for instructions as to what he should do with the Resolution; and the Secretary of State, on the 26th of July, directed him to inform the Transvaal Government that, in the absence of any explanation of the reasons for which they adopted the Resolution and sent it to the Imperial Government, they must decline to discuss with the Government of the Transvaal a matter which lies altogether beyond the functions of that Government. As to the second Question, I cannot say what deficit, if any, the Transvaal

65
Budget of the year shows. We have not the figures; and, although we could obtain a summary of it, there would be no advantage in doing it. As to the last Question, I must refer the hon. Member to a Return which I laid on the Table of the House three weeks ago, from which he will see that the Debt is £380,000, and not £450,000. No time has been fixed for the payment of this sum, as by the terms of the Convention—which the hon. Member should consult—it is to be paid by an Annuity for 25 years of £6 0s. 9d. per cent.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether one of the conditions of the Convention was not that £100,000 should be repaid last August; and, whether the Resolution of Censure was communicated to the Government through the British Resident in the Transvaal?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; the Resolution was communicated through the British Resident. As to the £100,000, I have so often explained the matter in this House that I really cannot repeat it.

SPAIN—SURRENDER OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES—COLONEL MACEO.
MR. O'KELLYasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government will make any further representations to the Government of Spain in reference to the liberation of Colonel Maceo, who was illegally arrested on British territory, and handed over to the Spanish Government; whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that Colonel Maceo is kept locked up in his room almost constantly, and that, during the four months he has been a prisoner in Pampeluna, he has not been further than fifteen or twenty paces from his cell; whether his family, during their daily visit, are locked up with Colonel Maceo in the cell in which he is confined; whether anyone is allowed to visit Colonel Maceo without the special permission of the Governor of the Citadel; whether the Spanish Government grant only an allowance of six reales (about one shilling and three-ponce per day) to Colonel Maceo to enable him to live; and, whether this treatment of Colonel Maceo is in accordance with the promises made to Her Majesty's Government by the Govern-
66
ment of Spain to treat Colonel Maceo with the consideration due to his rank?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not, at present, the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any further representation in the case of Colonel Maceo. The Papers presented to Parliament will show that Her Majesty's Government have made every effort to secure him treatment in a manner according to the promises made, and that they have received on this subject satisfactory assurances from the Spanish Government. Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid will, however, continue to watch the case.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the noble Lord say whether any Representatives of Her Majesty's Legation at Madrid have visited Maceo in prison to find out how he is treated; or do they simply depend upon the representations of the Spanish officials? Time after time I have received letters from Maceo denying the statements.
MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order for introducing controversial matter into a Question.
MR. O'KELLY: Well, Sir, I wish to ask whether the Legation at Madrid has taken the trouble to send someone to find out how Maceo is treated?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The principal complaint, I believe, relates to the fact that the prison at Pampeluna is an exceedingly cold place. That is a proper complaint. With regard to the other Question, I may mention that Maceo's representations have been forwarded to Her Majesty's Government; and, if the hon. Member wishes it, I will lay them on the Table.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the noble Lord inform us whether Colonel Maceo has been living on 1s. 3d. a-day for the last nine months; and, whether such treatment was in accordance with the agreement made by the Spanish Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I really do not know whether he is living on 1s. 3d. a-day or not.
MR. JOSEPH COWEN: But will the noble Lord answer the hon. Member for Rescommon as to whether the Representatives of the British Government at Madrid communicated with Maceo himself?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI am not aware whether one of the Legation

67
at Madrid has personally been to the prison or not. I do not suppose the hon. Member thinks that Maceo ought to be visited week by week and day by day; and I do not suppose that a single visit would be any guarantee that during a certain period of time the promises of the Spanish Government would be carried out. We have obtained assurances from the Spanish Government, and we have every reason to believe that the Spanish Government are loyally carrying out their promises.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: But will the noble Lord take pains to get from Maceo himself an account of how be has been treated? That is the question—not whether he will ask any Minister to ask the Spanish Government their opinion.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have already done so, and that communication I have already offered to lay before Parliament.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: But the House has not been informed whether the statement as to 1s. 3d. a-day is correct?
MR. O'KELLY: I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether from this 1s. 3d. a-day Maceo has not to maintain his family?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I will forward the Question containing these allegations to Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, and call his attention to it.

SPAIN—MILITARY INSURRECTIONS.
MR. BOURKE: Perhaps the noble Lord can inform the House whether the Foreign Office has any information as to the insurrection which has broken out in Spain?
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: It is a military rebellion; and I should like to know whether the Government intend to send out, as they did to Egypt, Forces to put down that rebellion?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the Question, Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the Minister at Madrid of the outbreak, of which accounts have appeared in the newspapers, in the South of Spain towards the Portuguese Frontier. It appears also that there is a military movement in the extreme North of Spain on the Frontier of France; but beyond that little is known.

MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—ISSUE OF PROCLAMATION PROHIBITING LANDING OF FOREIGNERS.
MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a telegram in The Standard of to-day, which purports to contain the words of a Proclamation from the Superior Commandant at Tamatave, signed Billard, and to the following effect:—
"Considering the attempts of certain officers of Her Majesty's corvette Dryad to impede the course of justice, and to obstruct the action of the authorities by substituting themselves for private persons in questions which do not concern them personally; considering the interference which Commander Johnstone, of Her Majesty's corvette Dryad, believed himself authorized to exercise in requiring the military authorities to render an account of the execution of their orders—Decrees that access to Tamatave is forbidden to all foreign sailors, soldiers, and officers."
He further asked, with reference to the appointment of a successor to Consul Pakenham at Tamatave, to what Power that Consul would be accredited, and from whom he would receive his exequatur?
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, If any further information could be given with reference to the important despatches which arrived at the Admiralty yesterday?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; it is not in my power to make any addition to the short statement I made yesterday upon the subject of the despatches. With regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I may remind him that, so far as I recollect, yesterday I undertook, upon Notice from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), that I would give an answer on an early day as to the appointment of a successor to Consul Pakenham. I propose to answer that Question when the hon. Member puts it down. But I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that a Consul is never accredited. He is not like a diplomatist, he receives an exequatur, but be is not accredited; and therefore the successor of Consul Pakenham will have a Consular and not a diplomatic position, and will not be accredited to anybody. A more important Question which the right hon. Gentleman asks me is whether we have observed this Proclamation

69
by a gentleman named Billard. In the first place, there is some uncertainty as to this, because The Times contains two Proclamations by some Commandant or gentleman occupying some position in Tamatave, and relating to entirely different matters; and this question is so mixed up with the question mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that I think it would be better to reserve any answer to it until the Prime Minister, myself, or someone else on behalf of the Foreign Office, gives a reply.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLappealed to the Prime Minister to say whether he could give any indication when time was likely to be found for the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, and especially whether any Irish Bills were to be given precedence over it; because he knew that the Representatives from Ireland had been bad boys, while the Scotch Members had been on their good behaviour.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was very sorry that comparisons of that kind, which tended to provoke feelings of retaliation, should be introduced into a Question of this sort with regard to the order of Public Business. He could not at that moment say anything about the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill; but he hoped on Monday some arrangement would be made with reference to it. With regard to the Evening Sitting, he hoped they might be allowed to take it, and make all the progress possible with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, and the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill. Yesterday there was only one Motion down on the Paper—that of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), who kindly offered to withdraw it in favour of Government Business. Since then, however, a crop of five others had sprung up; and he would appeal to hon. Members in whose names those Motions stood to give way in deference to the general sense of the House and the necessities of the case. Should they not be able to finish the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill to-night they would be precluded from taking it to-morrow, other Business having been appointed. On Monday
70
they were bound to apply themselves to the Business of Supply, and the first day at disposal would be Tuesday, when it would be made the first Order.
MR. HEALYannounced that he should not proceed with his Motion, which stood second on the Paper.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEappealed to the hon. Members for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), for Westminster (Lord Algernon Percy), and for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), who had Motions on the Paper for the Evening Sitting, to withdraw them.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, Mr. TOMLINSON, Lord ALGERNON PERCY, and Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR agreed not to proceed with their Motions.

EGYPT—INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention had been called to the serious news published in The Standard of that morning, to the effect that the Canal system in Lower Egypt having been allowed to fall into a ruinous state, it was doubly difficult to combat the inroads of the Nile; and, further, that the utter worth lessness of the whole Governmental machinery in Egypt was fully known?
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: I have already answered this Question. I have reminded the House that the Egyptian Government had at its disposal the skill of a distinguished engineering officer, Colonel Moncrieff, who was specially charged with this matter.

BANKRUPTCY BILL—THE IRISH CLAUSES.
MR. GREGORYasked the President of the Board of Trade, What were his intentions with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill, which was set down for Saturday? If the clauses relating to Ireland were not added the course of the Bill would be perfectly simple; but if they were introduced they would unquestionably lead to controversy. They would hardly get through it at the Saturday Sitting, and a day next week—perhaps more than one—would have to be devoted to it. He expressed a hope that the Bill would be relieved from the incubus now placed upon it.
MR. GIBSONsaid, he had heard a rumour that it was under the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade to make some modification in the Irish clauses to the extent of applying the local bankruptcy system to Ireland, and of not going on with the other Irish clauses. He mentioned the matter in case the right hon. Gentleman might wish to say something about it.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be in the recollection of the House that originally we proposed that the clauses relating to Ireland should be taken on the Report stage. But objection, deserving of weight, was taken to that, on the ground that it would be a strong measure to ask the House to extend the scope of the Bill in an important respect without having those clauses considered in Committee. Yielding to that objection, what I propose to do is, when the Bill is called on to-morrow, immediately to move that it be re-committed for the purpose of receiving the Irish clauses; and, no doubt, upon that Motion it would be perfectly legitimate for any Gentleman who objects to the extension of the Bill to Ireland to discuss that as a question of principle. I would venture, with the permission of the House, to go a step further, and to make an appeal to hon. Members who take that view, while they should state fully, as they are entitled to do, their objections to the principle, yet, if the decision of the House is against them, and if it should appear, as I think it will, that there is an almost universal concurrence of opinion amongst the representatives of commercial classes in Ireland that this Bill should be extended as proposed, that, at all events, their subsequent opposition on the stage of Committee will be confined to as narrow statement as is consistent with anything like fair discussion. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] I find to-day that there are 30 pages of Amendments on the Paper, and that 255 of these Amendments stand in the names of six Members from Ireland. Now, there is no doubt, if these Amendments are to be pressed with all the pertinacity of which hon. Members from Ireland are capable, at this stage of the Session, it clearly will be almost impossible for the Government to do what they are anxious to do—namely, to give effect to what they believe to be the wishes of the people of Ireland. If so, the whole responsibility must rest
72
with the hon. Members who bring about that result. I hope there is no such intention; and that, the principle having once been decided, the discussion of the details will be confined within very moderate limits.

EGYPT—THE DEBATE ON THURSDAY. EXPLANATION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, in one of the morning papers to-day I observe the statement put into my mouth that I had pledged the Government to withdraw from Egypt at a definite time—namely, in the month of November next; and on turning to the report of my words contained in that newspaper, I find a sentence upon which the misrepresentation of my words is based. I need hardly say, in the presence of many who heard my statement, that I used no words of the kind. The sentence, which has been mis-reported in two newspapers, but which in all the other newspapers I have seen is correctly reported, is as follows:—I said—
"That Sir Evelyn "Wood had expressed the opinion that in the month of November next he would, with one regiment of Cavalry, one battery of Artillery, and eight battalions of Infantry, he able to answer for the tranquillity of the capital."
The word "capital" has been misreported "country," and it is upon that mistake that the misrepresentation has been based.

WATER SUPPLY (METROPOLIS).
In reply to Mr. WARTON,
SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that he had at hand no detailed figures respecting the quality of the London water supply; but there was no doubt that the analysis had shown different degrees of purity in the water of the different Companies.

PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—THE REGENT'S CANAL.
In reply to Mr. MONK,
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Chairman of Committees had, at the instance partly of the Local Government Board and partly of the local authorities of the districts through which this Canal passes, induced the Canal Company, he believed, either to introduce a clause in this Bill, or to make independent provision with regard to the purity of the Canal.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
DR. LYONSsaid, there was a semiofficial statement in The Daily News of this morning that the Government intended to proceed with this Bill on Saturday. It would be interesting to the Medical Bodies in Ireland if the Vice President of the Council would state whether that was correct?
MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that the paragraph spoken of was not semi-official, and he knew nothing of it. The Government, he added, should require to see their way before they proceeded with any of the Bills that had come down from the House of Lords.

EGYPT—INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, referring to the statement of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he had already answered the Question respecting the state of the Canals in Egypt, said, that the noble Lord had not done so; and he wished, therefore, to repeat the Question.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have answered the Question.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
    Clause 8 (Procurement of voting by unqualified voters to be illegal practice).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 97, after the word "practice," to insert the words "Any person who before or during an election knowingly publishes any false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate at such election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of another candidate shall be guilty of an illegal practice."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYthought it should be a candidate who had been "put in nomition."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that would leave the door open to false representations before the nomination.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the clause would not reach the issue of forged placards by one Party recommending the voters of the other Party to plump to the disadvantage of their own candidates.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were many reprehensible practices which it was difficult to reach by legislation.
    MR. GORSTthought the Amendment a dangerous one, and one that certainly should not be needlessly or thoughtlessly inserted in the Bill. It would lay the candidate open to the charge of an illegal practice through the verbal statement of an enthusiastic supporter. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERpointed out that the Ballot Act provided how a candidate might be withdrawn, and this must take place several days before the election. The Amendment was therefore unnecessary, and he thought it was dangerous. If the Attorney General inserted words providing that an offence under the clause should be summarily punishable before a magistrate he would not object so strongly to it; but he would prefer that it were withdrawn.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no dogmatic opinion as to the phraseology of the Amendment; but he thought it would be wiser to let it stand in its present shape. It was calculated to meet a real grievance, because they all knew that one of the greatest abuses and scandals of their Parliamentary electoral system was the publishing and circulation of false statements. The question was not thoughtlessly brought forward, as it was fully considered in Committee, and the Amendment had been on the Paper for three weeks.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the Amendment was very immature, and the more he heard of it the less he liked it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)pointed out that the Amendment was simply to meet the case of a man who made the statement that there was to be a withdrawal, he

    75
    knowing full well that the statement was false.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the rumour might be spread upon the day of the election, when it would be too late to contradict it, or it would have to be done at an expense that would carry the candidate beyond the amount allowed under the Bill. He thought the Bill would open up all the avenues of political chicanery, which were as bad as all the forms of political corruption which could be devised.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised the purists in the House objected to the Amendment, because its object was simply to penalize the conduct of any person who knowingly published a false statement.
    BARON DE FERRIERESsupported the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed to add to the clause the following Proviso:—
    "Provided that a candidate shall not he liable, nor shall his election he voided, for any illegal practice under this section committed by his agent other than his election agent."
    The consequence of an illegal practice by any other person would be a fine upon such person.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, as amended, after the word "candidate," to insert the words "who had been put in nomination."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Report of election court respecting illegal practice, and punishment of candidate found guilty by such report. 31&32 Vict. c. 125).
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 5, line 35, to leave out "agents," and insert "election agent." He said, that if somebody or other should pay a small sum to take a voter to the poll the candidate ought not to be subjected to the severer penalties. He should be
    76
    content that the candidate should lose his seat.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 35, to leave out the word "agents," and insert the words "election agent,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'agent' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment, because if it were accepted the maximum penalty was gone. The chairman of the candidate's committee might spend a large sum corruptly, and the candidate might go down at the next election and get the benefit of the corrupt expenditure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Employment of hackney carriages, or of carriages and horses kept for hire).
    On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were made:—Page 6, line 40, leave out "provided that nothing in this section," and insert "nothing in this Act;" page 7, line 1, leave out "by;" page 7, line 2, at end of clause insert as a new subsection:—
    "No person shall he liable to pay any duty or to take out a licence for any carriage by reason only of such carriage being used without payment or promise of payment for the conveyance of electors to or from the poll at an election."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Certain expenditure to be illegal payment).
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved to leave out the clause. He asked what was the use of making things serious which were not really serious? Every man liked to show that he was not ashamed of his Party, and therefore he liked to display a bit of ribbon or a cockade; and what harm was there in that?
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 9, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. War-ton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'No payment or stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the clause had been fully discussed before.
    Question put, and agreed to,
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 11, after the word "torches," to insert the word "fireworks."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fireworks' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not go further than "torches."
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 19, after the word "law," to insert the words—"No payment or contract for payment shall be made to or with any returning officer in excess of the amounts claimable as security in Schedule Three to the Act thirty-eight and thirty-nine Victoria, chapter eighty-four. Any payment made to a returning officer in excess of the amounts set out in the said Schedule shall, if such payment be made in pursuance of any claim or demand made by such returning officer, be an illegal practice on the part of such returning officer, out shall not affect the validity of the election."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)resisted the Amendment, pointing out the injustice of preventing a Returning Officer from being repaid for excess of expenditure where a candidate was willing to repay.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsupported the Amendment, which he thought would be useful in keeping down election expenses. He would like to know why a candidate should ever be asked to pay more than the law allowed?
    MR. RYLANDSthought the Returning Officer should be kept within strict limits in his expenditure.
    MR. WHITLEYdefended Returning Officers as a most honourable class of men. They had to find the money with which the polling booths were provided, and they ought to be sure that their expenditure would be repaid.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would be in favour of the Amendment; but he could not find who was to put the law in motion.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that the Returning Officer could, before the election, calculate to a nicety his expenses, and could take care to keep within the Schedule; and he would do so if the candidate was forbidden to pay. Returning Officers were, no doubt,
    78
    honourable men; but there were cases in which they might be tempted to favour candidates from whom they knew they could get their money. It would, however, be better to make the receipt of money in excess of the Schedule by the Returning Officer the offence, instead of the payment by the candidate. He proposed to amend the Amendment by substituting "the receipt by" the Returning Officer in lieu of "any payment made to."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "any payment made to," and insert the words "the receipt by."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the question was this—Were they going to forbid payments which were not excessive? If they were satisfied that the Returning Officer had done his duty, and had done no more than the law required, and if the payments were in excess of what was allowed by the Schedule, were they going to say that that Returning Officer was not to get back that money? The Amendment did not do that. His objection was that the Amendment would prove an utter sham.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Amendment would make Returning Officers get the work done as cheaply as possible, whereas now there was no motive for economy.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER, in supporting the Amendment, said, the expenses of the Returning Officer were practically four. These consisted of the cost of printing and issuing notices, of obtaining polling booths, of employing the officers under him, and of his own professional charges for the trouble he was put to in the matter. The Schedule to the Act of 1875 was, he thought, sufficient to meet all expenses. With reference to the cost of polling booths, it was not the case, as had been suggested by an hon. Member, that a Returning Officer could be called upon to provide a house; because there was now in every parish in England such an institution as an elementary school, and such schools were, by Act of Parliament, placed at the disposal of the Returning

    79
    Officer. If a Returning Officer were, by some extraordinary concatenation of circumstances, driven to put up one of the old-fashioned polling booths, the Schedule was amply sufficient to cover the cost. Where the shoe pinched was really in regard to the Returning Officer. The latter might say, before an election commenced—"I cannot carry on this election for the figure allowed by the Act of Parliament. "Will you (the candidate) object to pay me so much more?" It was all very well to say that a candidate was weak-kneed if he acceded to this request; but he was placed in a very awkward position; and he would generally say—" Spend £200 or £300 more, and be very pleasant and agreeable with the Returning Officer," because it was very important, on the election day, to be on good terms with the Returning Officer. It was always an important question as to how the election was fixed with regard to the position of the working men, for it might be arranged for such a day that a large number of the working men electors would be practically disfranchised. The Returning Officer had, therefore, very great power with the candidates, and had no right to place any of them at a disadvantage. The scale on which the Returning Officer was allowed to make his charges was most liberal; and he could not see why the Attorney General should object to the proposal, especially with the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). If necessary, he was prepared to move an Amendment himself, in order to make it quite plain that the clause was only to refer to money received by the Returning Officer in excess of that granted under the Schedule. He did hope the Attorney General would reconsider the matter, and would admit that they were bound to prevent any pressure being put upon a candidate with respect to the expenses of the Returning Officer.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment before the House was one which would fail, and, in fact, spoil the Bill. He suggested that the discussion would arise more conveniently on the Schedule.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, they ought to take care that the Returning
    80
    Officer could not make charges as he pleased. Good things were put in the way of the friends of the Returning Officer, and the Amendment would only facilitate corruption.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had already discussed the principle of the Bill. If the House allowed the Amendment to be withdrawn, they could then discuss the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to insert it in the Schedule. If the House was in earnest, any illegal practice on the part of others should be an illegal practice on the part of the candidate also.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSScomplained of the tendency to scatter "illegal practices" all over the Bill instead of grouping them together.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the Attorney General would not oppose it when they came to the Schedule. Although he had the greatest confidence in the hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not forget that he was a lawyer; and he did not want the matter adjourned merely until such time as the Government had a majority. At present he (Mr. Labouchere) had a majority, and, if necessary, he would press for a Division in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)remarked, that the desire of the Government to bring the proposal into a Schedule limiting the Returning Officer's charges was a proof of their sincerity; for the Amendment, as it stood, would, in practice, come to nothing.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words inserted in proposed Amendment.
    MR. CALLAN MR. CALLAN moved further to amend the Amendment by omitting the words—
    "If such payment be made in pursuance of any claim or demand made by such returning officer."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'No payment or contract for payment shall be made to or with any returning officer in excess of the amounts claimable as security in Schedule Three to the Act

    81
    thirty-eight and thirty-nine Victoria chapter eighty-four. The receipt by a returning officer of any payment in excess of the amounts set out in the said Schedule shall he an illegal practice on the part of such returning officer, but shall not affect the validity of the election,' he there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 93: Majority 22.—(Div. List, No. 272.)
    Clause 16 (Certain employment to be illegal).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 23, after the word "whatever," to insert the words "except for any purposes or capacities mentioned in the first or second parts of the First Schedule to this Act or."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISobjected to the Amendments on the ground that it would produce the most dire confusion in reference to the duties of clerks at elections. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham seemed to be running a heat with the Attorney General in endeavouring to make the Bill as obnoxious and perilous as possible. He supposed it was the revulsion from his former occupation that had driven him completely to the other pole; and he was following this course to show how horrified he was at what he had endured when he managed the elections of his Party.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 32: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 273.)
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved to add at the end of the clause—
    "Every bill, placard, or poster having reference to an election shall bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher there of; and any person printing, publishing, or posting, or causing to he printed, published, or posted, any such bill, placard, or poster as aforesaid, which fails to bear upon the face thereof the name and address of the printer and publisher, shall, if he is the candidate, or the election agent of the candidate, be guilty of an illegal practice, and if he is not the candidate, or the election agent of a candidate, shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)accepted the sub-section, and undertook to put the Proviso in its
    82
    proper place before the Bill went to the other House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 17 (Use of committee room in house for sale of intoxicating liquor or refreshment, or in elementary school, to be illegal hiring).
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Any premises on which' stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause was discussed for three days, and was carried by large majorities. He therefore hoped the House would not strike it out now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON) moved the following Proviso to the clause:—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall apply to any part of such premises which is ordinarily let for the purpose of chambers or offices or the holding of public meetings or of arbitrations, if such part has a separate entrance and no direct communication with any part of the premises on which any intoxicating liquor or refreshment is sold or supplied as aforesaid."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Report exonerating candidate in certain cases of corrupt and illegal practice by agents).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 35, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "Act," inclusive, and insert the words "by reason of the offences mentioned in such further report be void, but the candidate shall not be subject to any incapacity under this Act,"—(Mr. Jesse Collings,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Nomination of deputy election agent as sub-agent).
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 23, after the word "shall," to insert the words "send or."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdraivn,
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 10, at end, to add—
    "Nothing in this section shall be taken to restrict the existing power of any candidate to appoint volunteer unpaid agents in any polling booth."
    In Ireland they found the sheriff obstructing them in every case where they had not chapter and verse to confront him with. In Ireland they never paid anybody at elections now; but if it was not plainly stated in the Act, the Irish sheriffs might insist that they should pay these men.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 33, after the word "same," to insert the words "Nothing in this section shall be taken to restrict the existing power of any candidate to appoint volunteer unpaid agents in any polling booth."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think the hon. Member for Monaghan might be afraid of the consequences stated, as the matter was clearly in the Bill already.
    MR. HEALYremarked, that the Bill would only last for a year, and if they found any difficulty with Irish sheriffs, he hoped that the Attorney General would remember the point. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would bear the point in mind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 23 (Office of election agent and sub-agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 3S, to leave out all the words from the end of the last Amendment to the word "district," in line 36,—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 24 (Making of contracts through election agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 8, after the word "election," to insert the words "but no such polling agent, clerk, or messenger shall, because of any such appointment, be deemed to be an agent of the candidate for any other purpose than that declared in the said appointment."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 9, "That Clause 24 be divided into two Clauses."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the said Clause be divided into two Clauses."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 25 (Payment of expenses through election agent).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 11, line 23, after the word "election," to insert the words "or for the purpose during such election of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from "sub-agent" to "candidate," in line 28, the effect of which was that the agent of a candidate should hand to the sheriff the necessary election expenses at the time of nomination. Now, if the agent lost his train that day the candidate would be done for; and he, therefore, moved to omit the provision.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 25, to leave out from the words "sub-agent" to the word "candidate," in line 28.—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment, as, from what the hon. Member for Monaghan said, the provision might give rise to considerable inconvenience under certain circumstances.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 11, line 40, after the word "practice," to insert the words—
    "Any person making any payment for the purpose during such election of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate otherwise than through the election agent shall personally be guilty of an illegal payment."
    The object of his Amendment was to prevent outside associations from interfering in the electoral rights of a con-

    85
    stituency, either by providing money or otherwise.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the object aimed at was already attained by the words in Clause 25; but if it were not, he thought the Amendment would be an undue interference with the liberty of the Press, and it would not be right to prevent pictures, such as had a marked effect at Birmingham during the last election, or placards being circulated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the question had been discussed in Committee, and it was then thought that the words used were of too general a character, and that instead of doing good they might work injuriously. Therefore, he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsupported the Amendment.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that the Amendment would prevent agents of the United Kingdom Alliance from posting bills in favour of any candidate who promised to support the principle of Local Option. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to do that, and to choke off all agitation in favour of any particular Party or principle.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 26 (Period for sending in claims and making payments for election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 12, line 23, at end of line, insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where the election court reports that it has been proved to such court by a candidate that any payment made by an election agent in contravention of this section was made without the sanction or connivance of such candidate, the election of such candidate shall not be void, nor shall he be subject to any incapacity under this Act by reason only of such payment having been made in contravention of this section."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 12, line 29, after "court," to insert—
    "And any sum paid by the candidate or his agent in pursuance of the judgment or order of
    86
    such court shall be deemed to be paid within the time limited by this Act, and to be an exception from the provisions of this Act, requiring claims to be paid by the election agent."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27 (Personal expenses of candidate and small expenses of committee room).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 13, line 9, after "agent," to insert" as a new sub-section—
    "The candidate shall send to the election agent within the time limited by this Act for sending in claims a written statement of the amount of personal expenses paid as aforesaid by such candidate."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 29 (Return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 14, line 21, at end of line insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where the candidate has named himself as his election agent, a statement of all money, securities, and equivalent of money paid by the candidate shall be substituted in the return required by this section to be transmitted by the election agent for the like statement of money, securities, and equivalent of money received by the election agent from the candidate; and the declaration by an election agent respecting election expenses need not be made, and the declaration by the candidate respecting election expenses shall be modified as specified in the Second Schedule to this Act."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 21, to insert, at the end of the last Amendment, the words—
    "2. (a.) The transmission of such return and declaration by the election agent shall terminate his general authority to act as agent of the candidate in respect of the election, and such general authority shall not be afterwards revived by any special authorisation given by the candidate to such agent to act on his behalf in any special matter."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 14, line 27, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "Provided always, That, if at the time of the said agent transmitting the said return the candidate shall be out of the United Kingdom, such declaration may be transmitted to the returning officer within

    87
    ten days after Ms return to the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Authorised excuse for noncompliance with provisions as to return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 16, line 12, at end of line, insert as a fresh subsection—
    "Where it appears to the court that any person being or having been election agent or sub-agent has refused or failed to make such return or to supply such particulars as will enable the candidate and his election agent respectively to comply with the provisions of this Act as to the return and declaration respecting election expenses, the court before making an order allowing the excuse as in this section mentioned shall order such person to attend before the court, and on his attendance shall, unless he shows cause to the contrary, order him to make the return and declaration, or to deliver a statement of the particulars required to be contained in the return as to the court seem just, and to make or deliver the same within such time and to such person and in such manner as the court may direct, or may order him to be examined with respect to such particulars, and may in default of compliance with any such order order him to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 16, line 17, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 20, and insert—
    "An order allowing an authorised excuse shall relieve the applicant for the order, from any liability or consequences under this Act in respect of the matter excused by the order, and where it is proved by the candidate to the court that any act or omission of the election agent in relation to the return and declaration respecting election expenses was without the sanction or connivance of the candidate, and that the candidate took all reasonable means for preventing such act or omission, the court shall relieve the candidate from the consequences of such act or omission on the part of his election agent."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 31 (Publication of summary of return of election expenses).
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 8, after the word "person," to insert the word "found."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'found' be there inserted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 34 (Hearing of person before he is reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice, &c, and incapacity of person reported guilty).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 17, line 31, after "reported," to insert as new sub-sections—
    "(2.) Every person reported by election commissioners to have been guilty at an election of any corrupt or illegal practice may appeal against such report to the next court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery held in and for the county or place in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and such court may hear and determine the appeal, and subject to rules of court such appeal may be brought, heard, and determined in like manner as if the court were a court of quarter sessions and the said commissioners were a court of summary jurisdiction, and the person so reported had been convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction for an offence under this Act, and notice of every such appeal shall be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the manner and within the time directed by rules of court, and subject to such rules then within three days after the appeal is brought.
    "(3.) Where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that appeals under this section are interfering or are likely to interfere with the ordinary business transacted before any courts of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, he may direct that the said appeals, or any of them, shall be heard by the judges for the time being on the rota for election petitions, and in such case one of such judges shall proceed to the county or place in which the offences are alleged to have been committed, and shall there hear and determine the appeals in like manner as if such judge were a court of oyer and terminer.
    "(4.) The provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, with respect to the reception and powers of and attendance on an election court shall apply as if such judge were an election court."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 18, line 22, at end, insert as a fresh sub-section—
    "(5.) With respect to a person holding a licence or certificate under the Licensing Acts (in this section referred to as a licensed person) the following provisions shall have effect:

    (a) If it appears to the court by which any licensed person is convicted of the offence of bribery or treating, that such offence was committed on his licensed premises, the court shall direct such conviction to be entered in the proper register of licences.

    89

    (b) If it appears to an election court or election commissioners that a licensed person has knowingly suffered any bribery or treating in reference to any election to take place upon his licensed premises, such court or commissioners (subject to the provisions of this Act as to a person having an opportunity of being heard by himself and producing evidence before being reported) shall report the same, and whether such person obtained a certificate of indemnity or not it shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring such report before the licensing justices from whom or on whose certificate the licensed person obtained his licence, and such licensing justices shall cause such report to be entered in the proper register of licences.

    (c) Where an entry is made in the register of licences of any such conviction of or report respecting any licensed person as above in this section mentioned, it shall be taken into consideration by the licensing justices in determining whether they will or will not grant to such person the renewal of his licence or certificate, and may be a ground, if the justices think lit, for refusing such renewal."

    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment, in sub-section (b), line 3, before the word "election," to insert the word "Parliamentary."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Parliamentary' be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Words inserted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 28, after the word "to," to insert the words "the insertion of any name in."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 35 (List in register of voters of persons incapacitated for voting by corrupt or illegal practices, &c.)
    MR. GIBSON (for Mr. W. H. SMITH)MR. GIBSON (for Mr. W. H. SMITH) moved, in page 20, line 11, after the word "published," to insert the words—
    "(9.) The registration officer shall also, immediately after such report as aforesaid has been made, put a mark against the name of every such person so convicted in the existing register of voters, and any person against whose
    90
    name such a mark shall have been placed shall not be allowed to vote at any election taking place on the same register."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Amendment would give the Registration Officer judicial power, without calling upon the elector to show cause or even identifying him. That proposition was contrary to all law.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 37 (Withdrawal of election petition).
    MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved, in page 22, line 2, after "petition," to insert—
    "And shall have power to examine upon oath any person or persons whoso evidence the Public Prosecutor or his assistant, or other representative, may consider material."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)accepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved, in page 22, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (6), and insert—
    "In every case of the withdrawal of an election petition the security shall, subject to any order made by the Court for the payment of the costs, or of any part of the costs, of the sitting Member or Members, become and be absolutely forfeited to the Crown."
    The clause as it stood only proposed forfeiture where the Court was satisfied that the withdrawal was the result of an improper contract. The Amendment would be a protection against vexatious Petitions; and he believed that owing to the ambiguity of the law Petitions would be more numerous than they had ever been before.
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (6) stand part of the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not accept the Amendment. He thought it would be rather hard that a person who had presented a Petition bonâ fide, and afterwards found that he had been misinformed, should, on withdrawing it, have to forfeit the deposit.
    MR. WARTONhoped that, in the interests of purity of election, the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
    MR. NEWDEGATEconsidered that the Attorney General's resistance to the Amendment was in direct contravention of his declarations regarding the object of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 21: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 274.)
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Further Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]
    (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 265.]

      CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
      Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.
      Clause 38 (Continuation of trial of election petition).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 22, line 28, to leave out from "trial" to the end of the clause, and insert—
      "Or of all the proceedings in relation or incidental to the petition, the authority of the said judges shall continue for the purpose of the said trial and proceedings."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 40 (Power to election court to order payment by county or borough or individual of costs of election petition).
      On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendments were made:—Page 25, line 26, leave out from beginning of line to "the High," and insert "in;" page 25, line 26, after "shall," insert" in principle, and so far as practicable; "page 25, line 29, leave out from "expenses" to end of line 30, and insert "on a higher scale than
      92
      would be allowed in any action, cause, or matter in the High Court."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 42 (Removal of incapacity on proof that it was procured by perjury. 31 and 32 Vict. c. 125. s. 47).
      On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment was made:—Page 26, line 9, leave out from "accordingly" to the end of the clause.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 43 (Amendment of law as to polling districts and polling places).
      MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved, in page 26, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (3), and insert—
      "The power of dividing a borough into polling districts vested in a local authority by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the enactments amending the same may he exercised by such local authority from time to time, and as often as the authority think fit, and the said power shall be deemed to include the power of altering any polling district, and the said local authority shall from time to time, where necessary for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, divide the borough into polling districts in such manner that—

      (a.) Every elector resident in the borough, if other than one hereinafter mentioned, shall be enabled to poll within a distance not exceeding one mile from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling district need not be constituted containing less than three hundred electors; and

      (b.) Every elector resident in the boroughs of East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much Wenlock, and Aylesbury, shall be enabled to poll within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling district need not be constituted containing less than one hundred electors.

      So much of section five of the Ballot Act, 1872, and the enactments amending the same as in force and is not repealed by this Act shall apply as if the same were incorporated in this section."
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR MR. T. P. O'CONNOR moved, in page 26, line 28, after "county," to insert—
      "In the county of the town of Gal way there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint."
      Galway had always been treated exceptionally under the electoral law, because there were no wards in it, and a large part of the constituency was rural. Barna was four miles outside the town, and contained a few hundred voters.

      93
      For many generations the candidates had been allowed to supply cars. For these reasons, he hoped the Attorney General would accept the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 26, line 28, after the word "county," to insert the words "In the county of the town of Galway there shall be a polling station at Barna, and at such other places within the Parliamentary borough of Galway as the town commissioners may appoint."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)expressed his readiness to accept the Amendment; but invited objections, if there were any, to the proposal from Irish Members. Galway had always been treated as being in a peculiar position. It was not divided into wards, nor into district polling places.
      MR. LEWISsaid, his borough—Londonderry—was in precisely the same position, because a large part of it was rural. He trusted the Attorney General would be consistent, and allow the principle of this proposal to be applied to the various constituencies generally. Otherwise, he hoped the Amendment would not be passed.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he did not object to every facility being given to the voters of the county of the town of Galway; but, unquestionably, the conduct of the Attorney General was remarkable. The principle was equally applicable to Waterford and Cork. He objected to one isolated provision relating to one Irish borough being inserted in the middle of the English section of the Bill.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), while holding that Galway had always been an exception amongst all the other Irish boroughs, requested the hon. Member for Galway to bring up the Amendment on the Irish section of the Bill.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 44 (Election commissioners not to inquire into elections before the passing of this Act).
      MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved to leave out the clause, on the ground that, as amended, it proposed to grant an amnesty for all
      94
      electoral offences committed before the passing of the Bill. Had the Bill contained this clause when originally introduced it would not have reached the Committee stage; and if the clause were allowed to remain in it the title of the Bill should be "A Bill for the absolute condonation of corrupt practices." The Government seemed anxious to screen some of their Colleagues.
      Amendment proposed, in page 26, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. Raikes.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'notwithstanding the provisions of the Act' stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)regretted the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with this clause. He imputed to the Government that they wished it passed to screen their Colleague. The clause was not inserted by the Government; it was brought up at the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). It was for weeks on the Paper—it was acquiesced in by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and was read a second time without challenge. It was, therefore, wholly unjust of the right hon. Gentleman to charge the Government with introducing the clause in their own interests. The fact was that in some cases the defeated party in an election dared not petition; and if they were successful in the next election, their opponents were in the same position. Thus a vicious continuity of corruption was established, which the clause was intended to break.
      MR. EDWARD CLARKEconfessed that he looked upon the clause as one of the most valuable parts of the Bill; and he was sorry that his right hon. Friend should have moved his Amendment in the temper which he had displayed. He (Mr. E. Clarke) cared not for corruption in the past. All he aimed at was to prevent corruption in the future. There were many boroughs which were not only corrupt in themselves, but were the cause of corruption in others. In them corruption was kept alive by the reluctance of men to petition, as they knew their conduct in the past would be inquired into. The Attorney General was right in saying that the suggestion first came from him—although the final terms were settled by an hon. Member

      95
      opposite. The clause would do more to establish purity of election than all the pains and penalties which the Bill contained. The Bill would be grievously impaired if the clause were omitted, and he hoped that the Government would stand fast by it.
      MR. R. N. FOWLERdenied that the clause had been accepted unanimously, because he had never assented to it, having said "No" when it was put from the Chair, and only abstained from pressing his objection on account of the lateness of the hour. They all knew there were certain boroughs which were notoriously corrupt. At the last General Election those boroughs returned 11 Liberal and only three Conservative Members, so that the supporters of the Government had the predominance in corruption; and hence the desire of the Attorney General to procure for those boroughs an act of indemnity in regard to the past.
      SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDconsidered that when on the Report of the Judges the House voted the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the electoral history of a borough the inquiry would be incomplete unless they examined into the circumstances attending the elections previous to that one which was the original subject of inquiry by the Judges. The impression abroad was that the object of hon. Members was not so much to secure purity of election in the future, as to protect themselves and their pockets. The clause would prevent the whole truth being ascertained, and therefore he should oppose it.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) would allow him to say—as he seemed disposed to lay down the law—that his experience of elections, both as a Member of that House and of the Bar was slight. While they laid down the most rigid restrictions with regard to the use of ribbons or torches, they were folding themselves in a cloak of virtue, and declaring that there should be no inquiry into the past. The argument of the Attorney General that the liability to such inquiry would prevent the presentation of Petitions was disproved by the cases of Gloucester, Boston, and Canterbury. The clause meant that every Member of the House would whitewash himself in respect of the
      96
      past. He believed in the professed object of the Bill, but not in its structure. The Bill was not unconnected with Party purposes, and would have been framed on different lines if it had been simply designed for effecting purity of election.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER, HERSCHELL)said, he trusted that many hon. Members opposite would share with him the regret with which he listened to the closing observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He confessed that, for his part, he did not give the greatest credit for a desire for purity of election to those who were always insulting others with respect to their motives. When the hon. Member said this Bill was not unconnected with Party objects he forgot that his insinuation was made in reference to a proposal which originally came from the other side of the House, and was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke); and he did not hesitate to tell the hon. Member that he insulted them when he said that, by accepting an Amendment from the Opposition, which they professed to believe would advance the object of purity of election, they did so from Party motives, and to screen themselves. ["Oh!"] If the hon. Member would not feel insulted by such an accusation, he did not envy him the bluntness of his moral feelings. It was an intentional insult, and one which they had a right to resent. If the hon. Member did not consider it an insult to be called a hypocrite, a humbug, an impostor, and false to the professions he made, he did not care much for his notions on such matters. [A laugh.] It might be a matter of laughter to him; but it could not be so to anybody who took an honourable view of the proceedings of life. When the hon. Member said this clause was passed for Party objects, did he remember that it passed without a single objection from the other side, except a solitary "No" from the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler)? The hon. Member had spoken of boroughs like Gloucester, in which both Parties had never been slow to petition against each other, undeterred by the fear of exposing the corruptness of the constituency. But did not the hon. Member know of many other instances where the converse prevailed? Whether he knew it or not, it

      97
      was well known to others that there was many a case of the kind in which electoral corruption had been allowed to go scot-free. The Government believed that this Bill would give a new chance to electoral purity, and that many boroughs which had not been pure heretofore would endeavour to be pure in future. They said to the boroughs—"Here is a new system introduced, a new effort made in favour of purity. If you carry out the spirit of this Act, you will be pure, and you will be in a position, whatever may be your past record, to petition against those who may be guilty of corrupt practices."
      MR. GIBSONobserved, that the Solicitor General had argued the case with his usual clearness, though he had, perhaps, infused into it rather more warmth than was necessary. He should support the Amendment, because he considered it was a rank absurdity to appoint Commissioners to inquire into the electoral history of a borough, and, at the same time, to tell them they must limit their inquiry to what happened at the very last election. If the ascertainment of truth was the object of the Bill, he could not understand how the clause could be defended. If, in the case of witnesses, it was necessary to give an amnesty as to the past, Parliament would be required to pass a fresh Amnesty Bill after every General Election. If they could not got rid of the clause altogether, he should seek, by two Amendments, to bring it into harmony with his arguments—namely, to give the right to the Royal Commissioners to inquire into the history of every election, if they thought fit to do so; but providing, at the same time, that any witnesses who were examined as to corrupt practices in which they might have been engaged in the past should be freed from the consequences of such corrupt practices. The House was now entitled to consider the Bill independently of the trivial discussion which took place on this point in Committee, and he should be glad if, when the Bill left the House, this clause were not found in it.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) seemed to think it was sufficient if the witnesses examined as to corrupt practices in the past were freed only from the consequences of any corrupt practices in
      98
      which they might have taken a part. He (Mr. Anderson) thought it was necessary to exempt the witnesses from the publicity of any inquiry into past circumstances. If Election Commissioners had the right to inquire into the past electoral history of the constituency previous to the passing of the Act, the result would be that many Petitions that ought to be brought would not be brought, owing to dread of the exposure which might ensue, and thus the purpose of the Act might in many cases be defeated.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSbelieved that, as a matter of fact, he did suggest that he and his hon. Friends should not divide the Committee when the clause was proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The clause did not appear in the original Bill; the Government had merely taken it up, and, therefore, they were not bound to defend it to the utmost. Since the Committee stage he had carefully studied this matter, and he had come to the con-elusion that it would be better to leave the clause out altogether.
      MR. BULWERconsidered that, in this matter, some discretion ought to be vested in the Election Commissioners. The clause enacted that no witness called before the Commissioners should be liable to be asked any question relating to any corrupt practices committed prior to the passing of the Act. There never was anything more absurd. The Tory "man in the moon" might come forward and give evidence against the Radical candidate, and the counsel of the latter could not put a question to him as to his previous career.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): There are Amendments to meet that case.
      MR. BULWER: Yes; but Amendments might, or might not, be accepted, and he was speaking of the clause, and he would give his hearty support to the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the clause had been made part of the Bill by a great surprise. His breath was almost taken away when he heard that the clause was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and he was so dumbfounded that he was not able to say a word. If, after the Bill, they were sure of entering upon a political millennium, he would be ready to wipe off

      99
      the past; but since he could not believe that such was likely to be the case, he thought they would not act wisely if they were to begin by condoning the past. He should, therefore, decidedly vote against the clause.
      MR. CALLANsaid, the Attorney General exercised a wise discretion when, at a late hour at night in Committee, he accepted this clause, for it would prevent the corrupt pactices of Taunton, the borough which he represented, from ever coming before the public. In his (Mr. Callan's) opinion it would be most injurious to allow this clause to remain in the Bill, and he would illustrate its effect by two or three cases from Ireland. Take, for instance, Dublin City. Up to the time when Commissions of Inquiry were sent out corruption prevailed most extensively amongst the freemen of Dublin. It was exposed, however, by one of these Commissions, and since then Dublin was a model to the Kingdom for the purity and independence of its elections. Then see what was the result in Sligo, which was Conservative, and in which corruption prevailed so extensively that the borough was disfranchised; and Cashel also, which belonged to the great, free, and independent Liberal Party, which, too, was disfranchised for corruption. Then look at Bandon—Orange Bandon—where on whose gates were inscribed the words—" Turk, Jew, or Atheist may enter here, but not a Papist." There corruption always prevailed. At the last election the Hon. Percy Bernard took a consignment of the free and independent electors of that town to Plymouth, regaled them magnificently, and presented them with £20 each, and, of course, the electors were too late to take part in the election when they returned home. A Petition was presented, but by arrangement it was withdrawn, and Mr. Bernard retired; and although that House of Liberal purists were well aware of the facts they did not issue a Commission. A Liberal was elected at the next election; but, of course, he could not say that the hon. Member was guilty of corrupt practices, as he was now a Member of the House. It was the same thing in Portarlington and Athlone; and as for Dundalk, it was so thoroughly corrupt that if this clause was withdrawn a Liberal candidate could never face that constituency again. He was not,
      100
      therefore, surprised that the Conservative Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) and the Liberal Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) should have come to an agreement on this question, following the good old Scotch proverb—"You scratch me and I'll scratch you."
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 33: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 275.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 27, line 6, to leave out from "question," to "prior," in line 7, and insert—
      "For the purpose of proving the commission of any corrupt practice at or in relation to any election."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 54 (Obligation of witness to answer, and certificate of indemnity).
      MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved, in page 31, after sub-section (4), to insert—
      "Where a solicitor or person lawfully acting as agent for any party to an election petition respecting any election for a county or borough has not taken any part or been concerned in such election, the election commissioners inquiring into such election shall not be entitled to examine such solicitor or agent respecting matters which come to his knowledge by reason only of his being concerned as solicitor or agent for a party to such petition."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 58 (Definition of candidate, and saving for persons nominated without consent. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 87, s. 3.).
      MR. GORST MR. GORST moved the omission of certain words, the effect of which would be that it would be for the Judge to determine when was the commencement of an election. A candidate, as the clause stood, might spend any amount of money on a constituency for a considerable period up to the commencement of the election, as defined by the Bill, and escape all penalty.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 32, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "candidate," to the word "and," in line 16.—(Mr. Gorst.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment, as he had sufficiently met the case put by his hon. and learned Friend.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 32, line 16, to leave out from the word "issued," to the word "accordingly," in line 18, and insert the words "but nothing' in this section shall prevent such person from being responsible for any act done for the purpose of promoting or procuring his election, although done before he was so nominated as or declared to be a candidate,"—(Mr. Attorney General,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), remarking that he had drawn up the Amendment at the request of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), offered to withdraw it.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there was a good deal of "nursing" of constituencies going on at this time, and objected to the Amendment being withdrawn.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he should oppose it, unless it were restricted to acts done by the candidate personally.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 59 (General interpretation of terms).
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 33, line 29, at the end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—
      "The expression 'committee room' shall not include any house or room occupied by a candidate at an election as a dwelling, by reason only of the candidate there transacting business with his agents in relation to such election; nor shall any room or building be deemed to be a committee room for the purposes of this Act by reason only of the candidate or any agent of the candidate addressing therein electors, committeemen, or others."
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved, in page 33, line 29, at end, insert—
      "The expression 'person' includes an association or body of persons, corporate or unin-
      102
      corporate, and where any act is done by any such association or body, the members of such association or body who have taken part in the commission of such act shall be liable to any line or punishment imposed for the same by this Act."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved in page 34, line 11, at end of line, to insert as fresh paragraph—
      "The expression 'personal expenses' as used with respect to the expenditure of any candidate in relation to any election includes the reasonable travelling expenses of such candidate, and the reasonable expenses of his living at hotels or elsewhere for the purposes of and in relation to such election."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved, in page 34, line 18, at end of line, insert as fresh paragraph—" The expression 'Licensing Acts' means the Licensing Acts 1872 to 1874."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 34, line 20, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "and time shall be reckoned as in those Acts."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 62 (Commencement of Act).
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he desired to take the opinion of the Committee upon the question of the commencement of the Act. He understood it was not very likely there was to be a General Election in the course of the coming autumn—the Prime Minister was the only person who could inform them upon that head. Now, this was a very complicated Bill, and it would take some time to realize its provisions. To admit of the constituencies having time to understand the Bill, he intended to propose that the Act should not come into operation until the 1st day of January, 1884. Certainly, the 1st of September next was too soon for the Act to come into operation, and he trusted some later day would be fixed upon. The 1st of January next would be a very convenient date; but he would not be adverse to it being provided that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of November next.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three," and insert the words "January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was desirous that the country should fully understand the provisions of the Act; but he did not think that its operation should be delayed so long as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He (the Attorney General) was particularly anxious that the Act should come into operation before the next municipal elections. If the 15th of October would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he would be quite willing to so far delay the operation of the Bill. That date would afford the constituencies plenty of opportunity for studying the provisions of the Act.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the time suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman was too short. The Act would probably not obtain the Royal Assent until the end of this month, and after that it would have to be printed and circulated.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not understand, if there was not to be a General Election within the next two months, why the Bill should be hurried on at this break-neck pace. It was not yet clear that Parliament would be prorogued by the 1st of September, and therefore it was absolutely absurd to suggest that the Act should come into force on that day. The country ought, at least, to be given two or three months in which they might become familiar with the provisions of the Act. This was a new Act, which would require to be printed and circulated, and very carefully studied indeed. He ventured to say that even the professional classes in the country would have little or no knowledge of the provisions of the Act before November next; and, in his opinion, it was a thoroughly reasonable proposal that the Act should come into operation on the 1st of January. The Bill was brought in on the 15th of February, 1883, and therefore it might have
      104
      been reasonable at that period to have fixed the 1st of September as the day upon which the Act should come into operation. The month of August was now pretty well advanced, so that even the 15th of October was too early a date upon which the Act should come into operation. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not be satisfied with the concession of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
      MR. GORSTreminded the Committee that the Ballot Act, which was very much more complicated than this Act, came into operation directly it was passed. The Ballot Act was full of most novel and difficult provisions, and it was necessary that the Returning Officers throughout the country should at once make themselves masters of those provisions. He believed that, as a matter of fact, the Bill became law on the very day it was passed, and that within a week or two of its passing there was an election at Pontefract, and a few days later one at Preston. Both those elections were conducted by the Returning Officers without a single hitch or mistake. Now, if the people of this country could make themselves masters of the Ballot Act in short a time, why should they not do the same in this case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down knew perfectly well that people did not sit down and study for months Acts of this kind. If anyone wished to make himself master of this Act, he could do so in a very few days, and there was not the slightest necessity to postpone the operation of the Act, so long as the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired.
      MR. CROPPERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had spoken about municipal elections. Was it clearly understood that this Bill was to apply to municipal elections?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Definition Clause provided that corrupt practices should affect municipal elections.
      MR. LEWISsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had actually made a comparison between this Act and the Ballot Act. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware what people had to study in this Act of Parliament? Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware

      105
      that the Act contained a succession of enactments of a highly penal character, which the electors, and candidates, and agents had to understand at the risk of their liberty, their character, their credit, and at the risk of their seats? He (Mr. Lewis) was not at all surprised at the peculiar course the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had pursued in regard to this Bill, when he found at the end of their deliberations that he looked upon this Act as an analogous measure to the Ballot Act. He supposed they would have the privilege and pleasure of welcoming the hon. and learned Gentleman in the next Parliament—he hoped they would. But suppose there should be a General Election this autumn, was the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of an opportunity being afforded to candidates, and agents, and electors, to understand the complications of this measure, and of ascertaining what were the crimes which were now, for the first time, to be visited with such extraordinary penalties as the Bill provided? There was only one condition on which he (Mr. Lewis) would assent to the operation of the Bill being fixed for the 15th of October, and that was that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who certainly had conducted the Bill with remarkable courtesy, would give up his recess to the preparation of a treatise upon the Act, and issue it on the 1st of October. He had no doubt that a treatise prepared by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be so valuable and complete, that anyone, after its perusal, would be enabled to go through an election with safety to themselves. The principle of the law of this country was that everyone was presumed to know the law. Could any candidate, agent, or elector, be presumed to know this Act unless he had an opportunity of studying it and understanding it? They knew that one of the results would be that many lawyers would set to work to make explanations of the Act which would be most useful; but how could that be done in the middle of the Long Vacation, when people were away shooting? There were certainly some 60 or 70 Members of the House of Commons—those who had taken part in the discussions upon the Bill—who understood a little of its provisions; but what could the great mass of the people of the
      106
      country be expected to know about the measure? He hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), if he could not succeed in obtaining the postponement of the operation of this Bill until the 1st of November, at least would persist in his Amendment.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that if there was not to be an Election before the 1st of November, why should the Bill be brought into operation before that date?
      MR. GREGORYsaid, it was very necessary some time should be given for the consideration of the provisions of the Act. It was impossible for any layman to understand the Act in a moment. He did not object to the Act on account of its penal character; but he contended that, inasmuch as it was an Act of that character, it was absolutely necessary the public should have an opportunity of understanding it. Having regard to the Long Vacation, he had some doubt as to whether it would be sufficient to postpone the operation of the Act to the 1st of November even. Personally, he should prefer to see the 30th of November fixed upon. He did not think the municipal elections ought to enter into their consideration at all. The real question was, that inasmuch as under this Act people would be exposed to very severe penalties they should be able to obtain full knowledge of those penalties; that they should know in what way they were affected by the Act.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that they had already passed the words "first of," so that they had no option but to fix upon the 1st of some month or other.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to adopt the 15th of October; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) insisted upon the 1st of a month, he (the Attorney General) should be obliged to take the 1st of October.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his Amendment ought to be to leave out the words the "first day of September." He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his present Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthen moved to leave out the words "first day of September."
      Amendment proposed, Clause 62, page 35, line 4, to leave out the words "first day of September."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      Question put, and negatived.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) moved to insert, in the place of the words just omitted, the words "fifteenth of October."
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 3, to insert, after the word "the," the words "fifteenth of October."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'fifteenth day of October' be there inserted."
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out, in reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that this was a totally different Act to the Ballot Act. The Ballot Act affected the Returning Officers; but this Act affected the whole country.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he never drew an analogy between the Ballot Act and this Act. What he said was, that if the people could get up the Ballot Act in a short time, they could also get up this Act, if they wished to do so, in a short time; and the hon. Gentleman who had attacked him knew that perfectly well. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) knew as well as he (Mr. Gorst) did, that if anyone wished to get up an Act of Parliament he could do so easily enough, and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) also knew well enough the truth of what he (Mr. Gorst) had said.
      MR. LEWISsaid, he had only one other word to say. This was a thoroughly practical question, and one which ought not to be evaded. He would put a practical case to the House. Supposing a vacancy occurred in a county, and the election was to take place in the third week in September, he wanted to know what opportunity the electors would have of informing themselves of the provisions of the Act, which probably would not have been printed until the first or second week in September It seemed to him they were really endeavouring to prevent those who were to be affected by the Act from having an opportunity of considering it.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should prefer the 31st of October to the 15th of October.
      Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out "fifteenth," and insert "thirty-first,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
      Question put, "That the word 'fifteenth' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 29: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 276.)
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELL (for Mr. DALRYMPLE)proposed to leave out Subsection (2). He moved this Amendment to elicit from the Lord Advocate the reason why the provisions of the Act should not apply to Scotland.
      Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (2) of the Clause.—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the reason why the provisions of the clause did not apply to Scotland was that, under the Act of 1853, very efficient provision was made for the matter dealt with by the clause. It was thought that the present law had worked exceedingly well.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in page 36, line 23, after "Act," proposed to add as new subsection:—
      "(5.) Court of Oyer and Terminer shall mean a Circuit Court of Justiciary, and the High Court of Justiciary shall have powers to make Acts of Adjournal regulating the procedure in Appeals to the Circuit Court under this Act."
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 36, line 32, to leave out Sub-section (7), and insert—
      (25 and 26 Vic. o. 35; 39 and 40 Vic. c. 26.)
      "The expression 'Licensing Acts' shall mean 'The Public Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862,' and 'The Publicans' Certificates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' and the Acts thereby amended and therein recited;
      "The expression 'register of licences' shall mean the register kept in pursuance of section twelve of the Act of the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, chapter fifty-eight,"
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (11).
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, line 13, after "Court," to insert "or to the trial of cases at the Royal Courts of Justice."
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 64 (Application of Act to Ireland).
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 37, to leave out Sub-section (2).
      Amendment agreed to.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)proposed, in page 37, line 17, after "Act," to insert—
      "(16.) The provision of this Act, with regard to costs, shall not apply to Scotland, and, instead thereof, the following provision shall have effect:—
      "The costs of petitions and other proceedings under 'The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,' and under this Act, shall, subject to any regulations which the Court of Session may make by Act of Sederunt, be taxed as nearly as possible according to the same principles as costs between agent and client are taxed in a cause in that court, and the auditor shall not allow any costs, charges, or expenses on a higher scale."
      Amendment agreed to.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.
      PART I.

        PERSONS LEGALLY EMPLOYED FOR PAYMENT.
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the 2nd sub-section of the Schedule, Part I.—namely, in page 39. line 7, to substitute the words "for every two thousand electors" for the words "to act within each polling district." This Amendment, which was not moved in Committee, but deferred to the present stage of the Bill, owing to the somewhat hasty manner in which the Schedule had been passed through, was intended to limit the large number of sub-agents which the candidates, in the case of some counties, would be allowed to employ. He bad not heard from the hon. and learned Attorney General how far he
        110
        was disposed to go in the direction of this proposal; but he hoped he would see his way to imposing some restriction upon the number of sub-agents which the Bill proposed to allow. It was the 21st clause of the Bill which let in sub-agents for the first time. The clause provided that the election agent of a candidate by himself or by his sub-agents should appoint polling agents, clerks, and messengers for payment on behalf of a candidate at an election, and hire committee rooms on behalf of the candidate. He would remind the House that this matter of sub-agents was an entirely now importation since the Bill of last year was introduced, in which Bill only one agent was allowed in counties, as in boroughs; whereas the sub-section he now proposed to amend affected counties only. He had no doubt that with regard to counties, or, at any rate, some of them, a certain number of sub-agents were necessary, and it was, therefore, quite right that they should be employed; but this sub-section would allow one sub-agent for every polling district in the county, and that, he submitted, was altogether in excess of the requirements of the case. Now, there were many counties in Wales, and he believed in Scotland also, which, although they had, comparatively speaking, a very large number of polling stations, had, notwithstanding, a small number of electors in proportion thereto. Again, he apprehended that by this Bill the number of polling stations would be largely increased, which would, therefore, probably increase the number of sub-agents. He voted in one county that, with but a small number of electors, had 15 polling stations, and the effect of the Bill, in its present form, would be to allow to each candidate for election that number of sub-agents. He confessed to some astonishment that such a provision should have found its way into the Bill since last year; because although it had, undoubtedly, been the habit of some candidates to employ as many agents as possible, yet he believed that no one had ever thought of employing so large a number as that which he had just mentioned. He observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) bad an Amendment which went in the same direction, with this difference—that instead of substituting, as he proposed to

        111
        do, the words "for every two thousand electors," his hon. Friend would simply strike out the words of the sub-section which allowed one sub-agent for each polling district, the effect of which would be that only one sub-agent would be allowed. He (Mr. Evans Williams) went on the basis of the number of electors in each constituency; and he contended that if it was necessary to restrict the number of sub-agents at all, that principle ought to be the guide as to the number of sub-agents which candidates for counties might be expected to employ. Unless, therefore, that principle was embodied in the Bill, he thought it would be better that the provision as to sub-agents should be left out of it altogether. In proposing this Amendment he was a ware that he should be met by two arguments, neither of which he considered to be of sufficient weight to remove his objection to the Bill in its present form; and the first was that the appointment of sub-agents was purely optional on the part of the candidate. He very much regretted that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was not then present, because he had understood the noble Lord to say that it was his intention to move an Amendment practically to the same effect as that on which he was about to take the sense of the House; and when Clause 21, which brought in these sub-agents, was under discussion, the noble Lord protested against it, and said that, although he wished Woodstock to be treated as a county, he was opposed to the employment of so many sub-agents. He (Mr. Evans Williams) thought that the objection to his Amendment, founded upon the fact that the employment of sub-agents was optional, fell to the ground, because the Bill ought to save candidates from undue pressure being put upon them to appoint sub-agents. The second probable objection that would be urged to the Amendment was that the candidate would be restrained from employing too many sub-agents by the maximum of expenditure allowed by the Bill; but, surely, those who used that argument did not suppose that gentlemen could be always referring to the maximum to see that they were not exceeding the prescribed amount. His own fear was that those sub-agents would absorb a great deal more than
        112
        their proper share of the amount; he believed that the effect of the maximum would be to lead people, who had hitherto carried on elections at a lower expense than that set forth in the Schedule, to bring their expenditure up to the maximum in future; and he thought the Attorney General would find that his anticipation of cutting down election expenses to one-third of their former amount, would be in that way counterbalanced. He trusted the Attorney General would be able to see his way to the adoption of the Amendment, which he now begged to move.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 39, line 7, to leave out the words "to act within each polling' district," and insert the words "for every two thousand electors,"—(Mr. Evans Williams,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)regretted that he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for New Radnor. He pointed out that the area of some of the counties was so large that the polling districts were at a considerable distance from the central district, in which cases assistance was necessary to the principal election agent. It seemed to him better not to depart from the principle which had been over and over again acquiesced in; and, therefore, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House upon his Amendment.
        DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, as the hon. Member for New Radnor had stated, it had been his intention to move an Amendment to the 1st Part of the Schedule, to strike out all the words after "sub-agent" down to "district" inclusive; but he should now be satisfied with supporting the Amendment before the House, without taking a Division upon his own. He objected to sub-agents being appointed by the candidate for every polling district in the county on two grounds—first, because sub-agents were altogether unnecessary; and, secondly, because their employment would lead inevitably to increased expenditure at elections. If the Bill remained in its present form, they would have the old state of things re-occurring

        113
        —namely, that a network of sub-agents would be spread over the country, and produce the demoralization which was inseparable from an arrangement of that kind. It had been said, and he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say, that a large county election could not be fought without a correspondingly large number of sub-agents; but that was certainly not the invariable rule, because he himself had fought one of the largest constituencies in Scotland (West Aberdeenshire) with only one agent, and he did not believe the work could have been better done. Further, he believed that the electors themselves very much preferred that mode of doing business to the old system.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 29: Majority 62.—(Div. List, No. 277.)
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 39, line 28, after the word "Aylesbury," to insert the words "and in the case of any district borough within the meaning of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,'"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. GORSTsaid, he proposed to insert words limiting the amount to that fixed by the 38&39 Vict., so that it should be impossible for more to be paid than the Returning Officer had allowed for the candidate's expenditure.
        Amendment proposed, in page 39, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "not exceeding the amount authorized by 38 and 39 Vict. c. 84."—(Mr. Gorst.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the result of this Amendment would be that if an agent came to another professional man and said—" I have spent £30 more than the candidate is allowed," the candidate might be unseated, although he repudiated the expenditure. The House had already come to a decision upon this point, and he could not assent to the Amendment.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the House would adopt the
        114
        Amendment. It was quite true that there had been a decision on a similar question, but that decision was come to under a misapprehension; and he believed the real sense of the House was in favour of some such proposition as this earlier in the Sitting; and it was only through a misunderstanding as to what Members were discussing that the decision was arrived at. What were they asked to do? The Returning Officer, under the present law, could spend so much money; but they now practically said that that Officer was at liberty to spend more, and trust to the candidate to repay him. If there was one portion of election matters more loose and ill-considered than another it was the expenses entered into by the Returning Officer. If the expenses were paid by the borough, or county, or local authority, instead of by the candidate, a great deal more care would be exercised by the Returning Officer than at present was exercised; and he wondered that the Attorney General, in a Bill which had for its primary object the reducing of expenditure, should refuse to accept such a reasonable Amendment, and one which would have great effect in reducing expenditure in directions in which unnecessary expenditure was made. If the Amendment was adopted, the Returning Officer would have to be very careful to keep himself within the limit of the Schedule of expenses laid down by the law. Those expenses were ample for everything, and some of them were, in fact, excessive; and yet he found that a Returning Officer, being assured that there would be no difficulty in getting the money back from the candidate, would be altogether careless as to the expenditure. In fact, the money paid by the Returning Officer in excess of the scale often went really in the direction of a corrupt influence; for a candidate who would spend any amount of money on the Returning Officer's expenses was very often looked upon with more favour than one who was not inclined to do so. Nothing could be more reasonable than this proposal. The Attorney General almost accepted it that afternoon; and it was only because a number of hon. Members flocked in from another part of the House, and then heard the Government Tellers declare against the Amendment, that it was not adopted by a large majority.

        115
        He hoped, now that the House had the issue fairly before it, and they really knew what it was, they would accept it. It was reasonable and just; and he had no hesitation in saying that it commended itself to the good sense of every Member.
        MR. LEWISrose to Order, and asked whether, this matter having been substantially decided that afternoon, it could be re-opened?
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSpointed out that by the Amendment passed in the afternoon the Returning Officer would be held responsible; but by this Amendment the candidate would be liable.
        MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was surprised that the Government refused to accept this Amendment. The whole principle of the Bill was to reduce expenses, and to prevent extravagant and corrupt expenditure; but, while that was carried out with regard to others, the Returning Officer was made an exception. Why should that be so? It was true the Returning Officer could not recover from the candidate anything beyond the amount fixed in the Schedule; but a candidate was free to make a gift. Why should not all other people taking part in an election be as free as the Returning Officer to ask whatever they chose, provided they were not able to recover by law? This was only an excuse for extortion from the candidate, such as had been practised in the past, and which would be practised again, if the opportunity was given, especially after this debate. A proclamation was now made by the House to all Returning Officers that, if they chose, they might ask as much as they chose from the candidate, although, at the same time, they could only legally recover the amount fixed in the Schedule. There would be pressure put upon the candidate to accede to these larger demands; and he would have to accede in the future as he had done in the past. If the principle and object of this Bill was that there should be cheap, and pure, and honest elections, why should this exception be made on behalf of the Returning Officers? It was within the knowledge of many hon. Members that they had had to pay demands largely in excess of the Returning Officer's expenses, and that was still more certain to occur in the future; because, as
        116
        he took it, this was a plain direction to the Returning Officers that they had free trade, and could exact from candidates just as much as by moral pressure they could be made to pay. It was inconsistent with the scope of the Bill; and he could not understand why the Government refused to accept the Amendment.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was reluctant to intervene in this discussion, because he knew the House was anxious to get through with the Bill; but he must strongly appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. He could speak with a certain amount of personal knowledge and experience in these matters. Everybody who had had experience of Returning Officers, and Irish Members especially, knew that the Returning Officer was generally a pluralist, and what in Ireland was called a "Shoneen "—a sort of half-landlord—one part of the time getting as much rent as he could, and another part of the time getting as much money as he could out of taxation. Just before an election began this officer would send a polite message to all the candidates, if there was a nice young barrister in the town who had no practice, saying it would be a nice thing if they would allow that young man to be his assistant; and so he got, perhaps, £150—£50 from each of three candidates, while, however, his charge did not amount to £30. What he would impress upon the Government so strongly was this—that as the Bill was in its present shape, and as the elections were conducted in Ireland at the present time, and as they had been conducted for some years past, this Bill, instead of reducing, would increase expenditure. Nothing could be further from the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind than to add 1d. of expenditure to the already large sums that elections cost. The Government should bind down the Returning Officers, who were robbers by profession. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, that was so, for they all regarded the candidates as persons whom everybody had a right to rob. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bind down the Returning Officers in this matter.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought they could decide this matter without further discussion at the present moment. It was fully discussed that after-

        117
        noon, when the Attorney General pointed out it was not a matter about which he had any very strong feeling. His hon. and learned Friend had said that he was quite willing to leave the matter to the decision of the House, and the House had decided against the view of hon. Members opposite. ["No, no!"] There must always be upon Government measures Amendments proposed which were not acceptable, but upon which the Government might have no strong feeling. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS said, he did not accept the Amendment.] He begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon—the Amendment had not been accepted; the Attorney General had declined to accept it, but had stated it was a matter on which he had no strong feeling, and one upon which he was willing to be guided by the opinion of the House. He (the Solicitor General) did not think it right to accept the Amendment; the question was one for the decicion of the House.
        MR. HEALY: Who does the hon. and learned Gentleman call the House? Does he mean those who are now in it, or those who will come in presently when summoned by the Bell, and who will vote without having heard a word of the discussion?
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 56: Majority 9.—(Div. List, No. 278.)
        MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to Schedule 1, Part II, line 12—namely, to leave out Section 7. That Amendment, however, had been put upon the Paper under an erroneous impression, for it appeared that its effect would be not, as he desired, to do away with the restriction upon the number of committee rooms in counties, but actually to disallow the expenses of such rooms. He proposed, therefore, leaving the section as it stood, to move a series of Amendments, the effect of which would be to increase the ratio of committee rooms in counties from the proportion of one to every 500 electors to that of one to every 300 electors. He thought that if it was considered proper and necessary to allow one committee room to every 500 electors in boroughs, it could hardly be deemed excessive to allow one committee room to every 300 electors in the scattered constituencies of counties. The constituency he represented, for
        118
        instance, contained 7,000 electors, in a population of 100,000, scattered over an area of 400 square miles; and it was obvious that a larger proportion of centres for political organization would be required for such a constituency than for a compact borough with the same number of electors crowded upon a few hundred acres. If the counties were deprived, as they would be under the Bill, of the legitimate convenience of authorized committee rooms, those interested in elections would be compelled to congregate for election purposes in public-houses, where they would be exposed to many of the influence sfrom which it was the object of the Bill to protect them. The restriction placed upon the total expenditure was a sufficient safeguard against abuse; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would, therefore, see his way to making some concession on this point, which concession, he was sure, would be well appreciated in many constituencies.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must say "no" to the hon. Member's proposal; the Government had conceded a great deal in the way of increasing committee rooms, clerks, and messengers, and he was afraid he could not go any further.
        Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 15, to leave out "5," and insert "3,"—(Mr. Cheetham,)—instead thereof.
        Question, "That '5' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
        MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to leave out, in page 40, line 31, the words "and III." He trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) would see his way to accepting this Amendment. The effect of it would be to exclude Part III. from the maximum Schedule. That which ought to be an allowance for every extraordinary expenditure—that was to say, any unforeseen or un-looked for outlay—was included in the maximum scale. They had heard of a placard being published through a borough requiring immediate answer, and, consequently, immediate expenditure. Accidents would happen, and they might find unexpected occurrences taking place rendering it absolutely necessary, in justice, to exceed the maximum allowed in the Schedule. It was no use giving the

        119
        £200 with one hand and taking it away with the other. This matter had seemed to him to be so important that he had taken the liberty of moving the recommittal of the Bill with respect to this section. Part III. was entirely delusive and absurd, and he, therefore, moved the Amendment standing in his name.
        Motion proposed, in page 40, line 31, to leave out the words "and III."—(Mr. Warton.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'and III.' stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they had agreed to a large increase in the maximum sum; but the hon. and learned Member would now add on £200 to every borough and county expenditure in the country, and that was a proposition he (the Attorney General) could not for a moment accept. It would be entirely departing from the Schedule.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. R. N. FOWLERproposed to insert, after "charges," in Part IV., line 32, "and the expenses of advertising." He said that "advertising" was not a corrupt expenditure, and it was admitted to be very desirable in the interest of candidates. Advertising was not an electoral abuse; yet the effect of the Bill would be that it would be quite impossible for a candidate in future to spend much money in advertising. He was particularly interested in this matter, because the constituency he represented was a large and populous one, and advertising necessarily led to considerable expenditure. Probably, the hon. and learned Attorney General only inserted his election address in some local paper. He (Mr. E. N. Fowler) and his Colleagues in the representation of the City of London, had, however, to advertise in The Times, and all the other morning papers, and likewise in the evening papers. If the Bill passed in its present form, they would have very small means, indeed, of bringing their views before the public. The amount allowed for advertising in the Bill was exceedingly small; but his advertising expenses were much larger than those of hon. Gentlemen representing smaller constituencies. Moreover, he was required to pay a considerable sum for committee
        120
        rooms, and in future committee rooms would be more difficult to obtain, because candidates would not be allowed to take public-houses for committee purposes. He maintained that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, and therefore he urged the Attorney General to assent to this Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 40, line 32, after the word "charges," to insert the words "and the expenses of advertising."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was true that advertising was not a corrupt expenditure; but it was, nevertheless, a most objectionable expenditure. It was unnecessary and very capable of being overcharged. He did not believe it ever did anyone any good; and of this he was certain—that if what the hon. Gentleman said was true—namely, that advertising was a very large item in his electoral expenses—he ought to be very grateful for the relief this Bill would give him. He would be able in future, if he chose, to devote to any charitable purpose what hitherto he had been obliged to expend on advertising.
        MR. CALLANsaid, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made such material alterations in the Bill as compared with the measure brought in last year. He agreed with the Attorney General that, although advertising was not a corrupt expenditure, it was a most demoralizing expenditure in the case of many patriotic newspapers which he knew. In the Bill of last year it was very wisely provided that the expenditure for advertising should only amount to a certain proportion of the maximum expenditure. As the Bill now stood, a candidate, if he chose, could spend the whole of the maximum upon advertising. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that advertising was a most objectionable form of expenditure; and, therefore, he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to revert to the plan which he proposed in the Bill of last year. Under last year's Bill, if a candidate were allowed to spend £350, he was also allowed to spend on advertising and printing, and the like, £100.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. LEWISproposed, in page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

        "Does not exceed

        £500

        200

        "Does not exceed

        1,000

        325

        "Does not exceed

        1,500

        375

        "Does not exceed

        2,000

        400,

        and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."
        He said, the object he had in view in dealing with the item of expenditure, was to draw the attention of the House to the arrangements which were proposed to be made in the event of a single election taking place in a constituency which returned two Members. He desired to accentuate this point, in order that, before they parted with this Bill, they might have some Amendment carried with regard to a difficulty which presented itself to many minds. The reason why he proposed to increase the scale relating to boroughs was that no provision was made for a single election in a double constituency. He maintained that the present scale was altogether insufficient. As the Bill now stood, a single candidate for a double constituency of 20,000 electors could spend £820, and no more. If the Amendment of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given Notice was not carried, two candidates standing in the same interest could spend £1,640. If the Amendment were carried, those candidates could, however, spend £ 1,230. As an example, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) and his Colleague (Mr. Thompson) in the representation of the City of Durham could, at the next General Election, if the Attorney General's Amendment were carried, only spend three-fourths of what they would be able to spend if they stood separately. He asked the House, as a matter of experience, what was the difference between a single election and a double election? There would be a little more advertising and placarding; but, taking it as a whole, the same ground would be covered, the same work done, and the same number of electors would have to be communicated with. In fact, the same amount of electoral labour would have to be gone through in the one case as in the other. This difficulty had never been attempted to be met by the Government. In fact, there were only two ways of meet-
        122
        ing it—namely, either by increasing the amount which each candidate could spend, or by adopting such an Amendment as that which he now submitted to the House. Personally, he was not interested in the matter; but it was a practical question of the greatest possible importance. It was far graver than many hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. At half-past 1 o'clock in the morning it would be perfectly idle for him to attempt to elaborate his case. He was content to say that, while he thought the scale was too liberal with regard to the smaller boroughs, it was not largo enough in the case of the larger boroughs. It was for the purpose of placing before the House, in a definite form, an alternative proposition, which he hoped the Government might see their way to adopt, and to provide against a great anomaly which presented itself in the case of a single election, that he put his Amendment before the House. That anomaly could only be met in one or two ways—namely, by increasing the expenditure, or by providing that where there was a single election in a double constituency the one candidate might spend so much plus the ordinary expenditure of a single candidate.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 35, to leave out after the word "be," to "2,000," and insert the words—

        "Does not exceed

        500

        £200

        "Does not exceed

        1,000

        325

        "Does not exceed

        1,500

        375

        "Does not exceed

        2,000

        400,

        and an additional £40 for every 1,000 electors above 2,000."—(Mr. Lewis.)
        Question proposed, "That 'Does not exceed 2,000 … £350' stand part of the Bill."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the object of the hon. Gentleman was simply to increase the expenditure on elections, and therefore he would not follow the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He (the Attorney General) wished to adhere to the maximum expenditure in the Bill.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. HEALYproposed, in page 40, line 30, after "£350, "to insert the words in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland." He pointed out that by the Bill the cost of elections in Ireland would be very largely increased. He desired to give the hon. and leared Attorney

        123
        General every credit for a wish to cheapen electoral expenses; but this would "be the second Bill which had increased election expenses in Ireland. A clause was put in the Act of 1875, at a late hour in the morning, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members, which had increased election expenses in Irish constituencies. The circumstances of this country were altogether different from those of Ireland. Here there was household suffrage; but in Ireland there was a £4 franchise, and there were only three boroughs—namely, Belfast, Dublin, and Cork—which had more than 2,000 electors. All the Irish constituencies had, on the average, about 600 electors. Why, therefore, should this enormous maximum be thrust upon Irish constituencies? As a matter of fact, candidates in Ireland were not required to expend £30 on an election, as a rule, so that by his Amendment he allowed an ample margin. If, as the Bill provided, they allowed a candidate to spend £100 on personal expenses, £100 for the Sheriff, and an additional £350, it was clear that in Ireland most of the money could only be spent in corruption. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not profess to know anything about electoral circumstances in Ireland, and the whole of this Bill was directed against a state of things which did not exist in Ireland. He would not argue the question over again; but he could not help pointing out that this was one of the evils of dealing with Ireland as if the state of circumstances there was the same as in England. To treat Ireland in this matter as they would treat England was just the same as putting a little boy into his father's clothes. In Ireland they had not the franchise which obtained in England, and, that being so, there were not the same number of voters to take to the poll. Even if they had the same number of voters, there were hundreds of willing and loyal volunteers only too anxious to work in the popular cause. He would give the House his experiences of three elections which had recently come under his notice. He had no desire to be egotistical; but he wished to say that his first election did not cost £20. The recent election, in Wexford, would not have cost £50, and the expenses of the three weeks' contest in Monagham, including the Sheriff's
        124
        expenses, would not have cost the national candidate £350. Now, what would this Bill allow to be spent in Monaghan? Why, £350, £100 personal expenses and £100 for the Sheriff—in all, £550, or, in other words, £300 too much. In whose favour was this Schedule brought in? Why, in favour of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member who sat for Portarlington (Mr. French-Brewster), where every vote cost as much as £15. Portarlington was one of those rotten constituencies which ought to be swept off the face of the earth. He appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the proposal into his consideration. So far as the part taken by Irish Members in the discussions on the Bill was concerned, he did not think that a single unnecessary objection had been raised, although they considered the measure, in the case of Ireland, to be uncalled for, irritating, and costly. There were, of course, one or two points to which they had felt it their duty to call attention. For these reasons, he trusted the Attorney General would meet them in the matter, and that he would not impose upon them an increased expenditure of the kind he was now objecting to.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £150 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there had been full opportunity, when the Bill was in Committee, of considering and moving Amendments to this part of the measure; but he would point out that not a single objection had been raised to the maximum sum fixed in the Schedule. Moreover, no Notice had been given of this Amendment, and the great bulk of the Members for Ireland were then absent from the House. What would be said by Gentlemen opposite if an Amendment proposed that night for the first time, and upon which they had not had an opportunity of voting, were agreed to in their absence? Under the circumstances, he must decline to accept the Amendment. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Monaghan that, at any rate, the opponent of the poor candidate would not be able to spend more

        125
        than he had spent before; and, therefore, he did not think that they were fairly open to the accusation of the hon. Member that they were increasing expenditure by this Bill.
        MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was clear to him that, by the refusal of the Attorney General to adopt a reasonable and proper Amendment like this, Irish Members on those Benches were being-made to suffer for their own virtues. Not only had they maintained an extreme reserve with regard to the Bill; but, having made their protest against its application to Ireland at the very beginning of these discussions, they had since adopted towards it a course of almost absolute silence. He had, from the first, entertained the idea that the Bill would increase expenditure. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the arguments which Irish Members most strongly urged, and which appeared in their speeches on the Motion for going into Committee, was that the scale would increase electoral expenditure in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the sum fixed by the Schedule was the maximum, and that candidates need not go in for the maximum unless they liked to do so. But how could they guard against the misuse of money by wealthy candidates against poor candidates? The hon. and learned Gentleman had more electoral experience than he possessed; but he would ask him, with his knowledge of the circumstances of electoral matters, whether it was not a fact that a rich candidate coming down to fight a poor one would not spend in the contest every farthing that the law allowed him to spend? He had in his own constituency an opponent who, in his opinion, did not contest that constituency on the ground of right; and as there were always persons who thought they must get money by some means or other, what would that candidate probably do? He would adopt the most expensive mode of proceeding, insert as many advertisements in the papers as possible, and, in short, do everything that would bring to the minds of the electors the knowledge that he was a man with money, and that his opponent was a man without it. With regard to the Amendment, the Government was, of course, bound by its own measures; but the House had perfect liberty of action
        126
        in this and in all other matters, and it was only a few minutes ago that it took up a position antagonistic to the Government, who he did not think regretted that their judgment had been overruled. The House had got into the habit of overruling the Government lately; and he trusted that if they were convinced by the argument of his hon. Friend that this Bill would increase the expenditure on electoral contests in Ireland, they would not be deterred by the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General from voting for the proposed Amendment. He hoped no weight would be attached to the argument that a number of Irish Members were absent. The only safe principle they could go upon in such cases was that each Member of the House was supposed to be in his place whenever questions relating to his constituency were brought forward. They should have little regard for the political views of hon. Members, who were so fond of their beds that they could not remain at the House to pass important measures.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite should be met by the Attorney General, because they had shown that the conditions in Ireland were altogether different from those which existed in England. He would not enter into that question, farther than to say that, in his opinion, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had made out a case. Now, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not treated the Amendment before the House as a matter of principle; and, therefore, he thought the best thing for the Government to do would be to consider what were the wishes of Irish Members. Moreover, it would be a graceful thing for English and Scotch Members to yield to those wishes. The argument that the maximum sum need not be spent had no force; because if any sum were mentioned, say, £200 or £300, that amount would always be uppermost in the minds of those who were able to spend the money. Moreover, it tended to weaken the morals of volunteers, who would say—" So much money is to be spent; I may as well have some of it." Seeing that the volunteer system obtained in Ireland, he believed that this Schedule would tend to weaken the

        127
        sound and healthy feeling which existed. He believed that if English and Scotch Members yielded, in this instance, to the wishes of Irish Representatives, their action would not be blamed, because it would be seen that its effect would be to keep down expenses at Irish elections; and he thought the Government should give way, on the principle that the Representatives of Ireland knew best what concerned the Irish people.
        MR. LEWISremarked, that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had expressed a hope that Her Majesty's Government would consider the opinions of Irish Members; but he would point out that not more than about one-third of those Members were then present in the House, and that until that evening no Notice of this Amendment had been placed upon the Paper. He believed that the House would not, for one moment, think of taking advantage of the absence of more than two-thirds of those interested in this most important question; and he could not conceive that the Government should not use the utmost influence in their power in order to prevent the proposed alteration being made at that hour, without Notice, to the vast majority of persons interested in the Bill. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had been Member for a very small constituency (Wexford), and he (Mr. Lewis) was ready to admit that £350 was too large a sum to be spent in that borough, and it was for that reason he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to limit the expenditure at elections in the case of small boroughs. But this Amendment proposed that in a constituency of 2,000 electors, or, in other words, of 30,000 inhabitants, there should only be an expenditure of £150, with regard to which he would say that anyone who suggested it as a practical proceeding could know nothing of the facts of electoral life. He did not believe there were 30 Members in the House when this most serious Amendment was proposed; and having regard to that fact, and the lateness of the hour, it appeared that the only way I in which he could protect his Colleagues in the representation of Ireland who were absent was by moving the adjournment of the House. If he did take that course, it would be because he felt most strongly, when an important question
        128
        like this was brought forward under the circumstances described, that, in accordance with the ordinary courtesies of legislation, it should not be pressed to a Division.
        MR. DAWSONsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had himself a Notice on the Paper similar to that to which he then objected. Whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was on the Paper or not, was not the point. They had to consider what was right to be done—whether the Amendment was one which the House should pass or reject. So far as the placing of an Amendment on the Paper was concerned, he was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had that evening proposed one that was not on the Paper. Why, then, had not the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Londonderry put in their objection to that à fortiori, because its principle had been refuted in a former debate in the House? The hon. Member was inconsistent in his objection, because his own Amendment was placed on the Paper in the same way as that of the hon. Member for Monaghan. His hon. Friend said that some of the boroughs in Ireland should be treated differently to English and Scotch boroughs on account of the small number of electors which they contained, and it appeared to him that that was a most reasonable proposal. He (Mr. Dawson) represented the borough of Carlow, which had 8,000 inhabitants and only 300 electors; the number of electors was so small that to require him to expend in contesting the constituency the same amount as would be spent on an English borough of 2,000 electors was out of all proportion to the necessities of the case. The amount spent on the Carlow Election ought not to exceed £50; and yet, as the hon. Member for Monaghan had pointed out, a rich candidate could go there and spend the maximum sum allowed by the Bill—namely, £350. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would withdraw his objection to the Amendment of his hon. Friend, who had simply asked the House to do what was just in fixing the amount of expenditure in the case of Irish boroughs at £150.
        DR. LYONSwas understood to say there was some force in the argument of

        129
        he hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), that two-thirds of the Irish Members were absent, and that, in those circumstances, the Amendment ought not to be pressed. There had been ample opportunities of raising this question before, which had not been availed of. He suggested that £'200 should be substituted for £150.
        MR. HEALYconsented to this alteration.
        MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, before a Division was taken, the House ought to have the opinion of the Irish Attorney General on this purely Irish question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had had a large experience, not only in regard to his own election, but in other elections; and the House had been told by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that in the borough he previously represented the cost was £500, and in his present seat it was only £350. The Attorney General for England said he knew nothing about the matter, and he had had no time to consult anybody; but surely he had had time to consult the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland. There had been no opinion given by the responsible officials, and he thought that before a Division was taken that opinion ought to be given.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. They did not believe the effect of the clause would be to increase expenses; and what they desired was not to produce uniformity, but to fix a maximum for future expenses.
        MR. FINDLATERsaid, nobody was more desirous than he was to reduce expenditure in elections. He had to pay a great deal for his own election; but he did not see his way to fixing £200 as a sufficient amount for a candidate's expenses.
        MR. HEALYsaid, his Amendment only referred to boroughs.
        MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the purport and object of this Bill was to reduce the expenditure at elections, and, unquestionably, it would have that effect in England; but there was good reason to believe that it would have the contrary effect in Ireland, and this was just another proof of the truth of the statement that had often been made, that mere identity of legislation for the two countries would not act equally, but unfairly. In
        130
        this matter, as also in the matter of taxation, the even disposition of burdens on the two countries would act disproportionately and unequally. It was unconstitutional to enter into the question of how many Members there were in the House if there were a quorum; and a quorum was sufficient to legislate. There was now a sufficient House, and he appealed to the House to consent to what was a clear act of justice. This clause would act unequally; it would give relief to England, but not to Ireland; but in Ireland it would increase the burden in this particular matter. He therefore appealed to the House, and to its sense of fair play, if this was likely to be the result, to give Ireland the benefit of the Bill, not by imposing on Ireland the same terms as on England, but by giving it the principle and purpose of the Bill, which was to reduce the expense of elections, and contribute to their purity. It seemed to him that the case for the Amendment was unanswerable, and he hoped the Government would so regard it.
        MR. BLENNERHASSETTsaid, he intended to vote for the Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons), and, as he understood, was accepted by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). It was, he thought, quite desirable that the House should hear the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he was willing to substitute £200 for £250.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would willingly accept any suggestion for consideration.
        MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the only opposition to this Amendment from Irish Members came from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis); and it would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member had been that evening very loud in his protestations of the purity of his borough. He stated that he was not afraid of the result of the Bill, and twitted other hon. Members insultingly. The speech of the hon. Member, he thought, made it clear that the hon. Member, at all events, could not be affected by the Amendment; and, considering that no opposition to it came from any other Irish Members, he thought the Attorney Ge-

        131
        neral was not justified in maintaining his opposition.
        MR. WARTONwished to point out that the difficulty the House was now in arose entirely from the coarse and clumsy way in which this scale had been drawn. The idea of drawing a line at £2,000 and making no gradations was perfectly absurd and ridiculous. If there had been a graduated scale, there would have been something like common sense in the Schedule.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 40, line 36, after "£350," to insert the words "in England and Scotland, and £200 in Ireland."—(Mr. Healy.)
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 72: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 279.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the ground taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been against altering the Schedule, therefore he would not touch Ireland at all. The maximum would be £600 in England and Scotland, and in Ireland £500.
        Amendment proposed,
        In page 41, line 6, after the word "he," to insert the words "£650 in England or Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir S. Assheton Cross.)
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 40: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 280.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his next Motion would, be to amend the Bill, so as to bring up the scale as nearly as possible to what it was when the Bill was first introduced, a quarter having been taken off by the Attorney General's proposal.
        Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, to leave out "£540," and insert "£710."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment proposed, in page 41, line 8, after "2,000," to insert the words "in England, Scotland, and in Ireland."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. BUCHANANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said he did not wish to increase expenditure. Well, there was no county in Scotland which returned two Members, all the county constituencies returning only one Member; therefore this Amendment would very largely increase the expenditure in every county in Scotland. They had heard what the Irish Members wanted—namely, a diminution of these expenses; but there was not a single Scotch county Member who desired this Amendment. If they were to be expected to vote on this proposal without hearing a word of explanation from the Attorney General, he thought they would have a very good reason to complain.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if hon. Gentlemen knew the difficulty there was in meeting the views of all Members, they would be more prepared to make allowances for the Government. He could not make a concession in the case of a two candidate constituency, unless he did it also in that of a one candidate constituency. The county Members had thought the amount somewhat small; but there would be, even with that, far less expenditure than had occurred in nearly every county election. He thought the hon. Member had mentioned one case where the expenditure was less than it would be under the Bill; but as he was familiar with the opinions of Scotch Members, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) whether he would put Scotland in the same position as Ireland? If any hon. Member would rise to move that, no doubt the House would consider it. It was mentioned in Committee that the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment; and he, for one, would vote with the right hon. Gentleman.
        MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was present when that arrangement was made, and he had understood that 25 per cent was to be taken off when two Members stood together. The expenses of the two, if each candidate stood singly, might amount to £1,000; but where they stood together they would only be allowed to spend £750. As far as his understanding went, it certainly was not intended that when a man stood alone he might spend 50 per cent more than was put down in the Schedule.

        133
        He did not know whether the feeling was shared by hon. Members around him; but he certainly felt that they had a right to complain that, without Notice, such a large percentage had been put upon the possible expenditure of a single candidate. He must say that this proposal was quite new to him. He understood the argument as to hon. Members standing together; and, as far as he recollected, there was an understanding at that time as to the Schedule.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, a proposal was put upon the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to increase the expenditure to £500; and when the right hon. Gentleman brought it forward, he stated that he did so in consequence of a proposal that he had made, or was about to make, relating to the case of the election of one candidate. It was in connection with this that increase took place, and some discussion had occurred with regard to it, the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) stating that he was prepared to accept that increase. No Division was, therefore, taken upon it. Later on the Amendment was withdrawn, and the Attorney General was asked by the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to stand by what he had said, and he had replied that he was. It was impossible to depart from the line taken in Committee.
        DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that this increasing expenditure in counties would be very unpopular in Scotland in at least three counties, of which Linlithgowshire was one. It would very largely increase expenditure, and would increase his own expenditure, for instance, by at least £140 at the next election if this Amendment were carried.
        MR. DICK-PEDDIE: I move to alter the proposed Amendment by the omission of the words "and Scotland."
        Amendment proposed to amend the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the words "and Scotland."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
        MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment will not apply, as moved by the hon. Member. To carry out the hon. Member's intention the folio wing should be the Motion:—To amend the said proposed
        134
        Amendment by inserting, before "Scotland," the word "in,"
        MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he should be happy to adopt the suggestion of Mr. Speaker.
        Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, before the word "Scotland," to insert the word "in."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'in' be there inserted."
        MR. EVANS WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the Amendment was an extremely objectionable one. It seemed to him that the same objection applied to this Amendment as to the Amendment that had been moved just now by the Irish Members. Many hon. Members had loft the House knowing that this proposal was to be made, and that this concession was to be granted. The Attorney General had said that he did not know of any county in Scotland which spent less money than this maximum. Well; but the hon. and learned Gentleman knew a county in England where the expenditure was only £500. True, this figure did not include the cost of conveyances; but these were not to be paid for under this Bill. The fact was that the House was taken by surprise in the Division which had just been taken. He himself attached no importance to the fact that a conversation had taken place in Committee across the Table between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and the Attorney General. He had heard all that had been said with regard to the Sehedules in Committee; and he was quite sure that the House would not endorse this proposal of raising the scale in counties. As he protested against the measure being converted into one for the promotion of corrupt practices, instead of one for their prevention, he begged to move to add to the proposed Amendment "and in Wales," the greater number of Welsh counties being in the position described by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan).
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was a great distinction to be drawn between Irish and English constituencies. That which was in the Bill had been adhered to with regard to Ireland.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 58: Majority 13.—(Div. List, No. 281.)
        Words inserted.
        MR. HEALYsaid, it was an extremely unsatisfactory state of things that the House of Commons, at that hour of the morning (2.50), should be engaged in the consideration of such an important Bill as this. He thought it would be wise if the Bill were re-committed in respect of the Schedule, so that it might be discussed reasonably. The Scotch Members were not satisfied, the Welsh Members were not satisfied, and certainly the Irish Members were not satisfied.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 45, line 15, at end of Schedule, to insert as a fresh sub-section—
        "For the purposes of this Schedule the number of electors shall he taken according to the enumeration of the electors in the register of electors."
        Amendment agreed to.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)proposed, in page 41, line 15, at end of Schedule, to add—
        "Where there are two or more joint candidates at an election the maximum amount of expenses mentioned in Parts Three or Four of this Schedule shall, for each of such joint candidates, he reduced by one-fourth, or, if there are more than two joint candidates, by one-third.
        "Where the same election agent is appointed by or on behalf of two or more candidates at an election, or where two or more candidates by themselves or any agent or agents, hire or use the same committee rooms for such election, or employ or use the services of the same sub-agents, clerks, messengers, or polling agents, at such election, or publish a joint address or joint circular or notice at such election, those candidates shall be deemed for the purposes of this enactment to be joint candidates at such election.
        "Provided that—

        (a.) The employment and use of the same committee room, sub-agent, clerk, messenger, or polling agent, if accidental or casual, or of a trivial and unimportant character, shall not be deemed of itself to constitute persons joint candidates.

        (b.) Nothing in this enactment shall prevent candidates from ceasing to be joint candidates,

        (c.) Where any excess of expenses above the maximum allowed for one of two or more joint candidates has arisen owing to his having ceased to he a joint candidate, or to his having become a joint candidate after having begun his election as a
        136
        separate candidate, and such ceasing or beginning was in good faith, and such excess is not more than under the circumstances is reasonable, and the total expenses of such candidate do not exceed the maximum amount allowed for a separate candidate, such excess shall be deemed to have arisen from a reasonable cause within the meaning of the enactments respecting the allowance by the High Court or election court of an exception from the provisions of this Act which would otherwise make an act an illegal practice, and the candidate and his election agent may be relieved accordingly from the consequences of having incurred such excess of expenses."

        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was satisfied it would have been much better if the Schedule had been left as it originally stood. He was satisfied that the Maximum Schedule was not more than would be required in the case of his own city. The new proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General was to decrease the amount one-fourth for a double candidature. Now, the effect of that would be different from what the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed—there would not be any joint candidatures. He did not, at that time of the morning, mean to divide the House upon this matter, but would simply content himself by protesting against the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Whitley) believed that the expenses of elections in boroughs would be greatly increased, as every candidate would fight separately, in order to get the higher scale.
        Amendment agreed to.

        SECOND SCHEDULE.
        On the Motion of Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Mr. W. H. SMITH), the following consequential Amendments were agreed to:—Page 41, line 30, leave out "on my behalf," and insert "by my authority, or with my knowledge or consent; "line 30, after "person," insert "nor any club, society, or association has;" line 30, leave out "has;" page 42, line 34, after "person," insert "nor any club, society, or association has;" line 34, leave out "has;" page 43, line 32, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" line 37, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" page 46, line 12, after "person," insert "club, society, or association;" line 20,

        137
        after "person," insert "club, society, or association."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had to make a request to the House in respect of a technical matter in relation to the Bill—namely, that it should be re-committed in respect of Clause 34, in order to take power to charge certain expenses upon the Imperial Fund in cases where the Election Judge sat as an Appeal Court from the decision of the Commissioner. He would point out to the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) that having gone through the Schedules very fully in Committee, they could not be expected to go through them again. At the same time, there was a disposition to deal with some of the smaller Irish boroughs—Portarlington, for instance—which did not contain more than about 150 electors, in the sense indicated by the hon. Member.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 34."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        MR. BUCHANANasked the Attorney General to take into consideration the case of the Scotch counties, which were very materially affected by the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the few remarks which he made, had simply repeated the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but there was no reference to any Scotch county.
        MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a very fair one, and he thanked him for having made it. Of course, he should offer no objection of the kind suggested; but the Attorney General having spoken of consulting the feeling of Members from Ireland, he trusted he would be guided by the numerical strength of those present. He pointed out that they had just had a large body on their side—namely, 23, the Government numbering only three in the Lobby.
        COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan). Seeing
        138
        that the hon. Member was a borough Member, he was unable to understand why he was so interested in respect of the Scotch counties.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 34.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Amendment proposed, Clause 34, page 17, to insert, in Sub-section 4, after the word "Court," the words "and the expenses of the Election Court, and of receiving and accommodating the Election Court."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        Amendment agreed to.
        Bill reported; as amended, considered.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I have to congratulate hon. Members on having reached this stage of the Bill, the discussion of which has engaged our attention for a very long period. I have also to make a particular request—namely, that the House will now consent to the Bill being read the third time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I concur with the remarks of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and also express my hope that the House will agree to the Motion for the third reading.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.

      EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      (Mr. Mundella, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
      EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

        [BILL 226.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mundella.)
        COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he had no objection to this Bill, which he believed to be a good one; but he did object to its being considered in Committee at a quarter past 3 o'clock in the morning. He thought, when the House had sat for 11 hours, it might fairly be said that the limit of human endurance had

        139
        been reached. He might, perhaps, have yielded his assent to the Motion, had the House not been going to sit again until Monday; but seeing that they were to meet again to-morrow at 12 o'clock, and that Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House must be worn out, he begged to move that the House do adjourn.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Colonel Alexander.)
        MR. MUNDELLAregretted that the consideration of the preceding Business of the day had occupied so long; and, for his own part, he was loth to make any further demand upon the time of hon. Members than was absolutely necessary. He had only brought on the Bill at that late hour, because he was aware that several of the Scotch Members had remained in town on purpose to pass it. Those Gentlemen had urged him to bring on the Bill that evening; and as he believed its provisions were agreed to on all sides, and that it would be passed through Committee in a very short time, he would appeal to the House to allow this stage to be taken pro formâ, on the understanding that Progress would be at once reported, and the Bill considered again in Committee on Monday next.
        SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, notwithstanding the New Rules that had been passed for the purpose of facilitating the Business of the House, they had been harder worked during that Session than in any previous year. Hon. Members had sat with so much patience that the Government were inclined, if they were allowed, to keep the House sitting all night. He protested that it was not right to allow the Government to take a single Order after the present had been disposed of. Out of deference to their Speaker they ought not to prolong the Sitting one moment beyond that.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend would not be pressed. The remaining Motions ought to be very quickly disposed of; and with regard to the Education (Scotland) Bill he pointed out that unless it was taken then it could not be put down on Monday.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
        Original Question again proposed.
        MR. HENDERSONsaid, he had protested against the second reading of the Bill being taken at a late hour, and he protested against the Committee stage being taken after 3 o'clock in the morning; but as he was anxious not to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill at that period of the Session, and as the measure contained many valuable provisions, he supposed they must allow it to go into Committee. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council of Education to say that if that stage were taken he would put down the Bill for Monday for further consideration in Committee. That being so, he should not oppose the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
        Original Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mundella.)
        Motion agreed to.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 268.]
      (Mr. Hibbert, Mr. George Russell, Mr. Ashley, Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
      ISLE OF WIGHT HIGHWAYS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 268.]

        COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        MR. HIBBERTappealed to the House to allow this Bill to be considered in Committee. It was necessary that the Bill should go to the House of Lords on Monday; and he regretted to state that, owing to a misunderstanding which had occurred in connection with it, a considerable amount of time had been lost. The Bill had been before a Select Committee; and as its provisions had been accepted by all parties interested in it, he believed it would be disposed of in five minutes.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he coincided with the suggestion made by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B.

        141
        Barttelot) that no more Business should be taken at that Sitting.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 26: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
        Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

      LEASEHOLDERS (FACILITIES FOR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
      (Mr. Broadhnrst, Mr. Burt, Mr. R. T. Reid, Mr. Passmore Edwards.)
      LEASEHOLDERS (FACILITIES FOR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.

        [BILL 134.] SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow."
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "upon Monday next,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
        Question put, "That the word 'Tomorrow 'stand part of the Question."
        The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 59: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 283.)
        Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
        Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
      (Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Lamb-ton, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Thomas Richardson, Mr. Gourley, Mr. James Thompson.)
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.

        [BILL 21.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Theodore Fry.)
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should propose to substitute Monday for to-morrow.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," in order to insert the words "Monday next,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
        MR. ANDERSONsaid, it used to be the admitted privilege of an hon. Member to put down his Bill for the next day, or any other day he pleased, on which the House was to sit, and when the Order was called it rested with the House to decide whether it should be proceeded with then or not; but the system now was to endeavour to make it an absolute rule that private Members should not be allowed, without opposition, to name the day for their Bills; and the Government had, in this case, given a most improper pledge, and it would be absolutely necessary for private Members to unite against this practice. By the Rules of the House it was practically impossible for a private Member to got a place for any stage beyond the second reading of a Bill.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 47: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 284.)
        MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, that after this vote of the House he begged to move that the Order be discharged.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for Committee be read and discharged."—(Mr. Theodore Fry.)
        Motion agreed to.
        Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

      CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
      (Colonel Nolan, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Findlater, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Macfarlane.)
      CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.

        [BILL 282.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the House would allow this Bill to go into Committee. It would not take a minute to dispose of it, because there was no difference of opinion with regard to it amongst the Irish Members, and he did not think that opposition was likely to come from any other quarter.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 1 (Sanitary authority may take possession of site).
        MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he had an Amendment to propose; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have any difficulty in accepting it.
        Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 5, after the word "officer," to insert the words "of a Union."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
        Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to.
        Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

      MOTION.

        SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).—RESOLUTION.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature, 1883. may be annulled."—(Sir. R Assheton Cross.)
        Debate arising.
        Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
        House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Friendly, &c. Socioties (Nominations) * (166).
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (England) (171–186); Parochial Charities (London)* (168–187); Patents for Inventions * (179–188).
Committee—Report—Statute Law Revision * (176).
Report—Trial of Lunatics* (184).
Third Reading—Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* (177), and passed.

MADAGASCAR—ACTION OF THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE—INSULT TO THE BRITISH FLAG.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl opposite the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House how
  2
  far the information recently received from Madagascar corresponds with the telegraphic information which created such a sensation in this country some time ago? I ask the Question, because, in a recent speech at a dinner in the City, the Prime Minister used language with respect to this information of so ambiguous a character that I am afraid much misconception may be caused by it. His language was open to the interpretation either that the information originally received was true, but that the French Government had made suitable apology or reparation, or that the information received some time ago was false or exaggerated. I should be very glad if the noble Earl found it consistent with his duty and with the public interests to give us some information on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, voluminous despatches have been received from Madagascar, and are being considered by the Departments and by Her Majesty's Government. The French Government are in daily expectation

  3
  of receiving their despatches. I have agreed with M. Waddington that, as soon as these arrive, there shall be no delay in the intercommunication of the information both Governments have received. I believe both Governments are animated by the same feelings of self-respect and of friendly feeling towards one another; and it is, therefore, reasonable to expect that a perfectly satisfactory solution of the question may be arrived at. It might not contribute to this result if I gave any premature opinion on the Papers which have arrived, even if I was prepared, which I am not, at this moment, to do so. I quite understand the desire of the noble Marquess for information on so delicate a question; but I trust he will not press at present for it under the circumstances which I have mentioned.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND—THE VACANT ANGLICAN BISHOPRIC OF JERUSALEM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any communication from the Prussian Government respecting the filling up of the Anglican Bishopric of Jerusalem? The appointment now rested with the Prussian Government, and the See had been vacant for 18 months, and some £15,000 was collected by private subscription and placed in the hands of Trustees. Those Trustees were five in number, of whom four were Members of their Lordships' House; and he ventured to ask the noble Earl, as one of those Trustees, whether he could give any information from the Prussian Government as to the speedy filling up of the vacancy? There was a considerable number of people in the country who felt that much advantage would accrue from the See being occupied. He (the Bishop of Rochester) felt that, in this matter, he was to a certain extent upon his honour; for, in the autumn, when the late Archbishop of Canterbury was on his sick bed, which he never afterwards left, he begged him to spare no pains to procure the filling up of this See. In Jerusalem there were many schools and an admirable hospital. Many of the Churches had representatives there, and he thought their
  4
  Church should not be left out. He had himself, in the course of frequent visits to the East, twice visited the Holy City, and he believed much good would result from the appointment he pressed for.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in reply, said, that the matter was one not entirely of a political character; but he was desirous of bringing it to a satisfactory issue. He had been in communication with the German Ambassador on the subject, and had expressed his willingness to act as an intermediary. He had, however, not received any answer to his communication; but he would renew his endeavours to obtain one, and he was not without hope that the matter would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

  SCOTLAND—THE QUEEN'S PARK, EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thurlow) a Question of which he had given private Notice, As to what decision the Office of Works has arrived at with reference to Memorials received from Edinburgh, asking that a portion of the Queen's Park there might be set apart for the purpose of playing football?
  LORD THURLOW: In reply to the Question which has been asked by the noble Earl, I beg to say, on behalf of the Office of Works, that the general question of devoting a portion of a public park to a special use, like that of football, as in the case of the Queen's Park, is one which has frequently received their consideration; and it is their opinion that there are great difficulties in the way of complying with such a request as being, of course, more or less inconsistent with the general enjoyment of the park by the public at large. The Office of Works fear that they are unable at present to depart from that principle.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 171.)
(The Lord President.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.—(No. 171.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  In reply to Lord LOVAT,
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Bill did

  5
  not propose any interference with freedom of contract, nor prevent any mode of agreement as to permanent improvements in Part I. of the 1st Schedule. The tenant, under the Bill, could make no claim whatever for compensation with respect to such improvements, unless he had before their execution obtained the consent of the landlord. The landlord could, of course, make any agreement that he pleased with the tenant; but, without agreement, the mere refusal of consent on the part of the landlord was a bar to any claim on the part of the tenant.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he was ashamed to find, when he saw his Question in print, that it was not in as good English as it ought to have been. [Laughter.] He would ask his noble Friend, who knew what it meant, to imagine the Question put in better language than it now stood in—namely. Whether the Government, will consider the practicability of introducing into the Bill some provision for alleviating the great hardship now suffered by the family of any clergyman if he dies while occupying his glebe, as many clergymen have lately found themselves reluctantly compelled to do?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, the noble Earl had asked him a Question, the wording of which he could not undertake to correct, but which he would read to the House. The noble Lord having done so, resumed, by saying that its language was rather confusing; but he would answer it as well as he could. He thought he quite understood the nature of the hardship referred to and the reluctance. Indeed, some cases of the sort that he knew of had been very distressing; but they could not undertake in this Bill to deal with a question of that kind, as clergymen in occupation were their own landlords, and not tenants. If such cases were to be dealt with it must be by a distinct measure.
  House in Committee accordingly.

PART I.

  IMPROVEMENTS.
  Compensation for Improvements.
  Clause 1 (General right of tenant to compensation).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving an Amendment to limit the right
  6
  of compensation to such improvements as were "suitable to the agricultural requirements of the holding," by inserting those words in the clause, said, the proposal was more than verbal. It was necessary to surround the concession to the tenant with every reasonable safeguard. It would be only fair, for example, to prevent drains being put in and paid for, and valued for, that were not required for the holding. It was well known that drainage of some lands would do more harm than good.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 9, after ("improvement") insert ("suitable to the agricultural requirements of the holding.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not think that the Amendment was at all necessary; and, if adopted, it might give rise to costly disputes. He did not see how improvements not suitable to the holding could produce any result; and if they did not produce any result there could be no question of value, and the tenant could not receive any compensation for them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that they were addressing referees, who were not so acute as lawyers; and they ought to give those persons clearly and distinctly to understand that they were not to give the tenant something merely because he had spent a good deal of money. Therefore, he thought his Amendment would provide a safeguard; but he would not divide upon it.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that it might have been a very useful one in the Act of 1875; but they did not here make the outlay the standard, but the result.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the clause allowed the improvements in the first two Farts of the Schedule to be estimated on the principle that the inherent capabilities of the soil were not to be taken into account as part of the improvement. He thought that principle should apply to the 3rd Part of the Schedule also; and he would, therefore, move an Amendment to that effect.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out ("Parts I. and II. of.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PREIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not believe that he differed in principle from the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon); but he had a considerable amount of objection to the extension to Part III. of the Proviso that what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil was not to be taken into account as part of the improvement in estimating its value. It was originally confined to Part I., and then it was extended to Part II.; but he did not think it would be advisable to extend it to Part III., which would go beyond the intentions of those who introduced it in the other House. It was not originally in the Bill, but was avowedly introduced for the purpose of protecting the landlord against possible danger in the case of some of the greater improvements making a material and a permanent change in the condition of the holding. Cases were put such as that of the reclamation of a large tract which' might have been brought about by a comparatively small operation—for example, by the turning of a stream; and it was thought that without that Proviso and caution the valuers might fancy themselves required to give the tenant the whole of the increased value produced by that small operation. The result of the Amendment being carried would be seriously to embarrass the valuers, and might prevent them from giving the tenant that which he might be fairly entitled to. He did not believe landlords would gain by the extension of the Proviso to Part III.; and he must, on those grounds, adhere to the clause as it stood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that as none of the improvements in Parts I. and II. could be carried on without the consent of the landlord he could then make his own terms; but, in the case of the 3rd Part of the Schedule, improvements could be done without his consent; and as he felt very strongly on the point, thinking the Proviso more necessary for Part III. than the other parts of the Schedule, he would take the opinion of their Lordships on his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the matter involved the whole question to whom the latent qualities of the soil were to belong—whether they were to belong to the landlord, as at present, or to be alienated to the tenant? A tenant might put a quantity of lime on the top of the clay, and the result might be an additional crop; but that additional crop was the result, not of the lime only, but of both the clay and the lime; and the tenant had no more right to the clay than the landlord had to the lime. Therefore there should be no compensation for it. There was a tendency in the Government to ask them to rely on valuers. Let their Lordships carry their minds back to the discussions on the Irish Land Act; and they would remember, when they wanted to have anything made definite in the Irish Land Act, that they were always told to trust to the Commissioners. In too many instances they followed that advice, and they knew what the consequences had been.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he could not help thinking that the Proviso was a dangerous one, and that it would be much better to leave it out altogether.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that that was not the proper time to discuss that question.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 51; Non-Contents 82: Majority 31.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD LECONFIELD LORD LECONFIELD moved an Amendment to the effect that the tenant's claim for compensation should exclude what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, "or the advantages of the situation." He was quite willing to add to the Amendment the words "or the advantages of the situation," as proposed in an Amendment of his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue).
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, leave out ("soil") and insert ("holding.")—(The Lord Leconfield.)
  EARL FORTESCUEthereupon proposed to add to the Amendment words providing that compensation should not be given for the "advantages of situa-

  9
  tion" —such as, for instance, proximity to a railway station newly opened.
  Amendment moved, to said proposed Amendment, to add the words ("or the advantages of situation.")—(The Earl Fortescue.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he thought that Clause 1, and particularly the Proviso, might possibly lead to a mischievous result; for the clause, as it stood, would give rise to the inference that although, in estimating the value of an improvement, what was attributable to the inherent value of the soil was not to be taken into account, there was something that might be taken into account which was not the outlay of the outgoing tenant. That was a plausible argument, which might in some cases be used, and used successfully. He would suggest that, in assessing the compensation payable to an outgoing tenant, in respect of his outlay, the incoming tenant ought not to pay more than the sum he could himself have got the work done for; and that, if the improvement did not remain, the sum expended on it by the outgoing tenant ought to be deducted from the sum payable by the incoming tenant. He supposed, also, that if the work could be done, for instance, for £100, the outgoing tenant ought not to have more than that sum, and that when the so-called improvement was not worth its cost—in other words, was an improvident outlay—the outgoing tenant ought to have nothing; and further, that, if a portion only of the benefit of the improvement remained, the outgoing tenant ought not to be paid more than the value of that portion. He thought it reasonable that the claim of the outgoing tenant should be calculated on that footing; and the principle did not differ from that accepted by the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council), and those who supported the Bill. The right mode of accomplishing that would be by substituting another Proviso to the effect he (Lord Bramwell) had stated. He would not, however, move it as an Amendment, but would throw it out as a suggestion to the noble Lord.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) would make the clause more simple; but he considered that such a Proviso as the noble and learned Lord
  10
  (Lord Bramwell) had suggested would only make the clause more complicated. He looked upon it as a most extraordinary measure of compensation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he hoped the Government would not substitute the Proviso suggested by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell). He (the Duke of Argyll) thought it was perfectly true that the Proviso of the Government did involve the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, a power to the valuers to give to tenants something more than their mere outlay; and there were certain cases in which the value of the improvement might exceed the sum expended, and could not be included in that outlay. That, he thought, was the intention of the Government, and he did not want to evade that principle; and he objected to the proposition of his noble and learned Friend, because it was giving to the tenant the unearned increment of other men's labour, due to the rise of wages and so forth.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he entirely agreed with what had been said by both his noble Friends (the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) as to the noble and learned Lord's (Lord Bramwell's) proposal. He (Lord Carling ford) thought his noble and learned Friend could not have seen how entirely his Amendment ran counter to the principle of the Bill. The effect of his proposal would be that the outgoing tenant, who might have executed work years before, would find his compensation governed by the state of prices and things existing at the time when he quitted the holding. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was better than if either of the proposals before their Lordships was adopted.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that the real thing a man ought to pay was not that which might have been improvidently spent by the outgoing tenant; but that which the improvement was to the incoming tenant—that was, the price at which he could get it done. If they left the question to be what it cost the outgoing tenant, there would always be a conflict of testimony as to that.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he must call the attention of noble Lords to the Question before the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, they could not discuss these individual proposals without wandering sometimes slightly from the Question; and, therefore, he thought it was hardly fair that their Lordships should be called to Order. He sympathized with the object of the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue); but really he believed a more suitable Amendment would be to insert the words "or to any cause other than the skill or outlay of the tenant." The intention was that everything that proceeded from the tenant's own acts and skill should belong to him, and that that which was contributed by other causes to swell the value of the land should belong to the landlord. He, therefore, wished to exclude from the compensation that the tenant received anything not the result of what the tenant himself had done. They were agreed that they should not press what was known as Mr. Balfour's Amendment, limiting the compensation to the original outlay; but he thought it was fair to limit it to that which resulted from the original outlay. He would move to substitute those words for those in the Amendment before their Lordships.
  Amendment moved, to substitute for said proposed Amendment (Earl Fortescue) the words ("or to any cause other than the skill or outlay of the tenant.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he greatly preferred the words of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to his own; but thought it would not do to leave the words "inherent capabilities of the soil" alone.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsupported the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, it would be impossible to add such words as "the advantages of the situation," as they would include the nearness of the railway station, and a vast number of extraneous circumstances. He could not conceive that any competent or honest valuer would take anything into account beyond the fair effects of the outlay of the tenant. That was perfectly understood.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as he understood the clause, it would be competent for a valuer to form an opi-
  12
  nion as to what the holding would let to an incoming tenant for, if the improvements of the outgoing tenant were not there.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) did not recognize that there were a number of causes of the value of an improvement in the mind of the valuer. The condition they wished to insert was, that the contributory element which came from other causes of the value to the incoming tenant should not be taken into consideration.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Government could not accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). It was very much like the Amendment moved by Mr. Balfour in the other House, and which had been rejected, differing, as it did, from it only by the addition of the word "skill." He did not think the words were necessary—indeed, they might be dangerous; and he would appeal to their Lordships not to press jealous and narrow points. He believed the clause would be narrowed lower than the Government wished. The contention of the Government was, that if a tenant should make a judicious outlay, and so create something of greater value than the actual sums spent, he ought to be entitled to reap advantage from his action. If no more were given to the outgoing tenant than that which represented the value of what he had himself created, no damage would be done to the landlord. On the other hand, if the valuers were bound down by the words which it was proposed to introduce into the clause, outgoing tenants would run a considerable risk of being deprived of something which they ought to have.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Kimberley) was the most dangerous that had yet been delivered on either side of the House. Their Lordships had agreed that there were two distinct things to be dealt with in this clause; one, the value proceeding from the inherent qualities of the land, which should clearly belong to the landlord; the other, a value created by the skill and capital of the tenant, which should as clearly be the property of the tenant. But now the noble Earl stepped

  13
  in, and said that there was an indefinite something beyond these two, which, by some peculiar process, valuers would be able to discover, and which would add to the value which the tenant could fairly claim. If that indefinite and indescribable something were recognized by their Lordships, the whole Bill would be in confusion, and a door would be opened to an enormous and mischievous amount of litigation. Let them, at all events, state, in definite terms, what was to be valued and what was not, for these indefinite somethings would lead to that kind of confusion which had been caused by the Irish legislation of the Government, and which, above all things, their Lordships should be anxious to avoid. He (Lord Brabourne) preferred the words suggested by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and hoped they would be added to the clause.
  LORD NORTONalso supported the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he did not think that it would be wise to insist upon its acceptance.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not think that the addition of the words suggested by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) brought them any nearer the point, and hoped that he would not press them. In his opinion, they were aiming at a sharp definition of that which, in itself, was undefinable.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he was afraid the result of the course taken by the Government in not accepting his Amendment would be the achievement of the very opposite of that at which they aimed by the Bill. It appeared to him that the improving tenant would henceforth be looked upon as a perfect plague, and a person to be avoided by every prudent landlord, for no landlord would ever derive benefit from any improvements, or from any increase in the value of a farm. He should not, however, press the Amendment to a Division, and he begged to withdraw it.
  Amendment (The Marquess of Salisbury) (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment (The Earl Fortescue) negatived.
  Amendment (The Lord Leconfield) (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.
  Clause 2 (Restrictions as to improvements before Act).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONproposed an Amendment, which provided that compensation under the Act should not be payable in respect of improvements executed before the commencement of the Act, except in cases "where a tenant has, before the commencement of the Act," made certain specified improvements, by inserting, after "where a tenant has," the words "within seven years."
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 22, after ("has") insert ("within seven years.")—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he did not think that the Amendment was advisable or necessary. In ordinary cases, no hardship would arise; but there might be instances in which the limit of time would work injustice. The result would be that it would only lead to hardships and heart burnings; and he thought that, on the whole, it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council) had hardly understood the purport of the Amendment. What he complained of was that there was no limit at all fixed in the Bill. If the clause were to stand as it was, there would be nothing to prevent a tenant from going to the landlord, and asking compensation for that which he knew had been paid over and over again. He would give an instance from his own experience. A valuer had told him that he had clay-burned some land 35 years ago. He had reaped the benefit of the improvement over and over again, but there was nothing in the Bill to prevent its being charged for again.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought that seven years was too short a period, and that it would really exclude certain improvements which his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond

  15
  and Gordon) himself would be anxious to include. He was informed that the improvement of chalking lasted much longer.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsuggested 10 years as a limit.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not commit the Government absolutely on the point; but if his noble Friend would alter it to 10 years as he had suggested, the Government would not divide against it.
  Amendment amended, by substituting for the word ("seven") the word ("ten"), and agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 22, leave out ("this exception that") and insert ("the exceptions following that (1)"); line 26, after ("or") insert ("(2)"); line 27, leave out ("when") and insert ("where"); page 2, line 5, leave out ("the") at end of line and insert ("this"); line 6, after ("then") insert ("such tenant"); line 8, leave out ("he.")
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this clause in contravention of any specific agreement existing at the time of the passing of this Act between the parties in reference thereto,"
  said, the Amendment raised the question whether or not there was to be any confiscation element in the Act; for he contended that if they said that, when there was a specific agreement that compensation should not be paid, they would, nevertheless, vitiate and annul that contract, and determine that compensation should nevertheless be paid, he did not see how their action could be called by any other name than confiscation. Such agreements might have been made for a consideration to the tenant of equal value to that which he gave, such as buildings, a longer lease, improvements to be carried out by the landlord, or a lower rent; and, consequently, great injustice might be done if the Proviso were not accepted. He hoped, however, the Government would see their way to do so.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, at end of clause, to add—("Provided that no compensation shall he claimed under this clause in contravention of any-specific agreement existing between the parties in reference thereto.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was surprised that the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had thought it necessary to move this Proviso. Even if such an agreement as that contemplated by the Amendment should have been made for any consideration whatever—which he (Lord Carlingford) very much doubted—the matter of compensation would be taken into account under Clause 6, by the valuer. He did not think it necessary or advisable to provide by the Bill for such cases as the noble Marquess imagined. The only possible cases which would come within the noble Marquess's Proviso would be those in which the landlord had somehow or other induced the tenant to make an agreement/depriving himself of the right to compensation, without receiving any consideration on the other side. It was not wise, in passing that Bill, which appeared to be accepted by both sides of the House, to imagine every possible danger that could arise from one tenant out of 100,000. They ought not, by these suspicious, and what would, by many, be considered jealous and selfish precautions, to give the Bill a bad name and a bad aspect in the eyes of those for whose benefit it was intended, while adding nothing that was worth speaking of to the protection of the landlord.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought the noble Lord opposite (the Lord President of the Council) had forgotten the doctrine of the thin end of the wedge. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) thought it very wise to take into consideration the doctrine of germs, and to remember that any admission, however small its application or practical result, by Parliament, of a dangerous principle, would probably on some future day be appealed to by a Liberal Ministry desirous of gaining the vote of the constituencies; and when Conservatives or Constitutionalists wished to oppose its extension, they would, no doubt, be told that the thing had already been conceded in principle, and that it ought

  17
  to be more widely acted upon. If their Lordships inserted in that Bill a provision which admitted the principle that contracts might be destroyed without compensation, they would lay down a dangerous precedent. He could not admit the argument that tenants should be allowed to tear up all existing contracts. If contracts existed, they should be protected.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had argued the case on what seemed to him (the Earl of Kimberley) somewhat high grounds. He believed that the specific contracts contemplated by the noble Marquess either did not exist at all, or had only a very shadowy existence; and he, therefore, held that it was neither good policy nor very generous to put into the clause a cavilling Proviso to meet so remote and infinitesimal a possible contingency. He would ask if it was worth while to provide for extremely improbable cases?
  THE DUKE OF MANCHESTERsaid, he thought that the Proviso was necessary, as in some cases those who drained land did it badly, cheaply, and with tiles which were too small.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would point out that the Bill respected specific agreements and nothing else; but it might be that, in many cases, the landlord might have let his farm at a certain rent, on the understanding that there should be no claim for compensation for improvements, and the equivalent to the tenant was the cheapness of his rent. Of course, that would not be taken into consideration by the valuer; and, believing that that was the intention of the Government, it should be made clear. He, however, thought they should respect the arrangement where a specific agreement had been entered into in the past. Their Lordships were told not to look at the matter in a narrow or jealous spirit, and he responded to that appeal. They were accepting a great deal in adopting that Bill. But he could not believe that the tenants of England or of Scotland, as honest men, would not approve of a Proviso which exempted from the operation of the Bill any agreement made under a specific existing contract. He frankly confessed that he considered it due to public honesty and honour that such contracts should be respected; and unless his noble Friend
  18
  (the Lord President of the Council) would assure him that, on the Report, words would be introduced securing that such contracts should be respected, he would certainly vote for the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that, in his opinion, the acceptance of the Proviso of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would in no way interfere with the principle of the Bill. The clause under notice dealt with the past, but the principle of the Bill dealt with the future; and he thought that, while legislating for the future, it was very desirable that they should show they did not intend to interfere with contracts made in the past.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the principle of the legislation contained in the Bill, and which had been lost sight of during the discussion, was that the tenant was not on equal terms in making a bargain with his landlord. ["Oh, oh!"] The only reason by which Parliament could interfere with the perfectly sound principle of free contract was, that the tenant was not on the terms he had mentioned. If that was not so, no legislation at all was required. Both sides of the House had accepted the principle of the measure. He, himself, had never known a case of a tenant contracting that he should be debarred from claiming compensation; but, if that were done, it was to be presumed that it was done in consideration of some advantage which the tenant was to receive for waiving his claim; and it seemed to him that such a case would be covered by the provision in Clause 6, which said that any consideration that had been received from the landlord was to be taken into account in reduction of the compensation.
  After some remarks from Lord ELLEN-BOROUGH,
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the last part of Clause 1 met the objections of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), and the Proviso was not necessary.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that he always listened with attention to any thing that fell from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), whose knowledge was great, and his caution proverbial. The noble Earl stated that a tenant was not upon an equal footing

  19
  with a landlord in making a bargain as to hiring a farm; and upon that ground he opposed the addition of the Proviso of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). He (Lord Brabourne) merely rose to ask the noble Earl this one question—did he mean to argue, from his premisses, that because landlord and tenant did not, in his opinion, stand upon an equal footing in making their bargains, therefore such bargains made in the past ought to be broken under the provisions of the present Bill? If he did not think so, what objection could there be to a Proviso which simply secured that faith should be kept in these matters?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that when the Hares and Rabbits Bill was before the other House, the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) proposed that the provisions of that Bill should apply to existing contracts, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed indignant surprise that he should do so; but now the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies came forward to support a similar proposal with regard to this measure. He (the Earl of Wemyss) hoped his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) would persevere in his Amendment, for it was only right that provision should be made preventing contracts in leases being interfered with.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he did not see why any distinction should be made between two men contracting as to money, and two men contracting as to money's worth. He considered that nothing was more absurd than to say that, at the present moment, there was not equality between landlord and tenant in these transactions, and supposed that the next thing that would be upset would be contracts for rent.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 116; Not-Contents 46: Majority 70.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bristol, M.

  Exeter, M.

  Manchester, D.

  Salisbury, M.

  Northumberland, D.

  Winchester, M.

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Amherst, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  20

  Brownlow, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Chichester, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Coventry, E.

  Cowper, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Crofton, L.

  de Clifford, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Digby, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Harewood, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Haldon, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Milltown, E.

  Minto, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Romney, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Norton, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.(E. Galloway.)

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Hood, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Lifford, V.

  Melville, V.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strathspey, L. [E. Seafield.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Templemore, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Alington, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Watson, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Belper, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Sydney, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  21

  Torrington, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Aleester, L.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Braye, L.

  Reay, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Emly, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Erskine, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Greville, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he would urge on the Government, before Report, to consider the question of introducing some provision specifying the time within which the outgoing tenant must send in his claim for compensation. In many cases, where the leases or tenancies expired within the next 12 months, it was impossible to get incoming tenants to bid, as they did not know what compensation might be claimed under the Bill. The case was especially serious in Scotland, where the system of leases prevailed.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would consider the matter before Report.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  As to Improvements executed after the Commencement of Act.
  Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvement in first part of Schedule).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Amendment made, in page 2, line 16, after ("previously") insert ("to the execution of the improvement and after the passing of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of Schedule).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved an Amendment, requiring a tenant to give his landlord not less than two months' notice of his intention to make any improvement mentioned in the 2nd Part of the First Schedule of the Bill.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS, in moving an Amendment, requiring that drainage work executed by a tenant should be carried out under the inspection and with the approval of an Inspector appointed by the Enclosure Commissioners, said, his object was to prevent drainage being done in an imperfect manner. He believed the supervision he proposed would be acceptable, and satisfactory both to landlords and tenants.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 30, after ("work") insert ("and unless the work shall he carried out under the inspection of, and with the approval of, an Inspector appointed by the Enclosure Commissioners.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he hoped the noble Duke would not press the Amendment. If it were agreed to, it would make the clause a dead letter. It would be far better, in his opinion, to refuse the right altogether, which the Bill proposed to give to the tenant, of executing drainage where the landlord would not do it, rather than, in 99 cases out of 100, to make it absolutely impossible that the tenant should undertake the work himself. If inspection of this kind were to be imposed in all cases, needless expense and interference would be brought about; and he did not know if the noble Duke provided for any payment of those Inspectors of the Enclosure Commissioners, as it was quite hopeless to expect the tenant to go to the expense and trouble of an inspection.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he fully agreed in what had been said by the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council). He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) wished to point out that if much drainage were done, there would be a great demand upon the Enclosure Commissioners for Inspectors. His experience of drainage was that it was by no means an inexpensive operation; and that, where it was worth doing, landlords preferred to do the draining themselves,

  23
  either with their own money or with money borrowed. He hoped his noble Friend (the Duke of Buckingham) would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on the subject.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he was of opinion that tenants, in executing drainage, would endeavour to do it in the cheapest manner, and in most cases would make it shallow. Drainage work, unless it was done practically, rendered the doing of the work over again necessary; in fact, he himself was obliged, at the present time, to drain over again land that had been drained by his tenants. If the tenants were not supervised in their draining operations they would do more harm than good, for they would generally do it with tiles of so small a size that the process would soon have to be repeated.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he felt the force of the objection taken by the Government. It would be inexpedient, in all cases, to call in the Enclosure Commissioners, especially in cases where the work to be done was inconsiderable; but, on the other hand, in cases of large drainage works, it would be advisable that the tenant should be supervised. He wished to ask the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack a question. The clause said the tenant was to give notice to the landlord of his intention to drain, and also to give him a specification of the work intended. But it went on to speak of "the improvement," and he apprehended that the legal interpretation of that would be that "the improvement" was the work as "specified. He wished to know then, whether, if the landlord should exercise his option to carry out the improvement, he would be required to carry it out according to the specification? Further, supposing a tenant furnished a specification for certain work, and drained a depth, Bay, of only 18 inches, was the landlord to have no means of checking that kind of operation, except by doing the work himself? There seemed to be no end of pitfalls, and no end of opportunities for litigation in the clause; and, in his opinion, as he read it, a more inequitable, more unjust, and more immoral condition could not be placed in an Act of Parliament. It was a clause in derogation of public policy, as public policy was that the drainage should be thoroughly and perfectly done. He wished
  24
  to ask the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) whether the "specification" meant "the improvement? "
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that he did not think, as at present advised, the word "specification" would apply to "the improvement," further than being merely a description of it. Therefore, in the case of a landlord electing to carry out the improvement himself, he would not be bound to keep to the specification of a tenant. His impression was, that the landlord would be allowed to improve upon the tenant's specification, so long as he executed the work in a proper and reasonable manner, without needless expense, and still charge a percentage on the whole outlay. He considered that if a landlord allowed a tenant to do any drainage, he would send an agent to see how the work was going on; and if it were done too cheaply and badly there would be no improvement made.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he was of opinion that in that ease "specification" was not the right word to use.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that if the drains were improperly made, and did not produce any effect on the land, the man would get no compensation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it would be a decidedly unfair and unjust provision that a landlord should be bound by a bad and imperfect specification put forward by an ignorant tenant. He would, therefore, move an Amendment later on to provide that "the landlord may object to the specification, and may execute the drainage himself."
  THE EARL of KIMBERLEYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Duke behind him (the Duke of Argyll) that it would never do to allow an ignorant tenant to bind his landlord by a bad specification. He thought that the landlord should, in the alternative, be placed in a position to execute the drainage works himself, and would suggest that the word "description" of the work intended would meet the case better. The matter should be considered on Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the landlord should have power to stop the execution of drainage injurious to the land; and, as he read the clause, there was nothing in it to prevent a

  25
  landlord from binding his tenants not to drain. Of course, if the tenant did drain, he could claim compensation for it; but he could be bound not to do so, under such penalties as could be put in the agreement. In those circumstances, he did not think the clause would really be found to be so injurious in practice to landlords as it appeared at first sight. He thought the most convenient course would be for the Government to bring up some appropriate language on Report.
  LORD WATSONsuggested that the clause as drawn did not carry out the object of its framers.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOSsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the matter would be considered on Report.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 37, to omit from the word "sum" to "not" in line 38, said, the words he proposed to strike out provided that the landlord who executed an improvement himself might charge the tenant a sum not exceeding 5 per cent per annum on the outlay incurred in executing it. Those words, he maintained, were quite unnecessary, and he objected in principle to any interference between landlord and tenant that was not necessary for the purposes of the Act. If, however, that part of the clause was to be retained, 6½ or 7 should, he thought, be substituted for 5 per cent.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from ("sum") to ("not") in line 38.—(The Lord Egerton of Tatton.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the clause gave to a landlord who himself executed works of drainage two alternatives as to the mode of charging the tenant for them. He might charge either a sum not exceeding 5 per cent on the outlay, or such annual sum, payable for a period of 25 years, as would repay such outlay with interest at 3 per cent. He understood the noble Lord opposite (Lord Egerton of Tatton) to desire to remove the first alternative from the clause, and to leave the landlord only the second alternative. He
  26
  did not see the advantage of such a change.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND CHANDOS moved, as an Amendment, to substitute 4 per cent for 3 per cent at line 40. He thought the two alternatives given in the clause should be retained; but he thought the rate of interest in the latter was put at so low a figure in the clause as to render it impossible, according to all experience, for the landlord to borrow money. It seemed to him it should be raised from 3 to 4 per cent.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 40, to leave out ("three") and insert ("four.")—(The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought the terms fixed by the clause were not unreasonable, and there was no sufficient ground for raising the figure.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he thought the rate of interest ought to be increased; for the landlord would, in many cases, have himself to borrow the money to execute the improvements.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government would not accept the Amendment. Landlords had seldom any money at command to enable them to execute improvements, and, therefore, had to borrow for the purpose; and they could not borrow at less than 4 per cent. This usury clause was simply going back to barbarous principles. The principle of the Bill was that it was in the interests of public policy that every tenant should be free to drain his land, or call on his landlord to do so. He did not deny that there was much to be said in favour of that principle; but surely that compelled the Government to fix the interest at such a rate as they knew the landlord would be able to borrow at. In that case, it was only just, if the landlord was to execute the work, and had to borrow money for the purpose, to fix the higher rate rather than the lower. He had himself drained at 5 per cent. and also very largely at 6½ per cent; and he had found that, in many cases, his tenants were willing to pay 6½, because they themselves got 13 or 14 per

  27
  cent for the outlay. The rate fixed ought to be the market rate.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that the clause, obliging, as it did, landlords to lay out their money at less than the market rate of interest, was nothing less than confiscation.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 4, as amended."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  On Question? Resolved in the negative. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
  THE EARL OF FIFE, in moving an Amendment, stating that in the consideration of what should constitute such fair and reasonable compensation as would oust compensation under the Act, regard should be had to the time when, and the circumstances in which the improvements were made, said, he wished to point out that a perfectly bonâ fide agreement might be entered into between a landlord and his tenant with regard to the compensation which the latter ought to receive for his outlay on improvements, and that such compensation, though perfectly fair in the circumstances in which the contract was originally made, might, as the Bill stood, be set aside on an application to a valuer by the tenant, such application being made years afterwards when the conditions of the locality might have undergone a complete change. His Amendment was intended to obviate that state of things.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 22, after ("reasonable compensation") insert ("having regard to the circumstances existing at the time of making such agreement.")—(The Earl of Fife.)
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONasked that the words of the Amendment he had on the Paper, having regard to the custom of the country, should also be included. He held that agreements ought to be considered fair and reasonable when they were in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1875, and when they were thought to be fair and reasonable in the locality to which they applied.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he would point out that the Amendment had nothing to do with existing contracts of tenancies; but he objected to the addition of the words "and custom of the country, if any." It was impossible to accept those words; but he was prepared to accept the words moved by the noble Earl on that side of the House.
  After a few remarks from Lord EGERTON Of TATTON,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was clear that a certain amount of litigation would have to be gone through before the precise meaning of the Bill could be settled; and he certainly commiserated those who would have to undertake such litigation. Not until the decisions of the Courts of Law had been given would their Lordships know what this measure meant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 25, insert at the end of the clause as a separate paragraph—
  "The last-mentioned pro vision of this section relating to a particular agreement shall apply in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act in respect of an improvement mentioned in the third part of the first schedule hereto, specific compensation for which is not provided by any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Moved, To insert the following New Clause (5a):—
  "A tenant shall, if required by his landlord, send him vouchers of his outlay on improvements mentioned in the third part of the First Schedule hereto within six months after their execution; and compensation under this Act shall not he paid unless the tenant, if so required, has within such period produced the said vouchers."—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the Government could see no necessity for the proposed Amendment. It was true it was the most moderate of its class; but it was one of several of the same kind on the Paper which tended very much to harass the tenant with unnecessary restrictions, and he must therefore decline to accept it. He thought it would be very unwise to require the tenant to submit

  29
  to conditions of this kind. They must remember that the Bill went upon the principle of value. By adopting that principle, they were saved the necessity of surrounding those operations of the tenant with all those precautions which would inevitably have the result of preventing him from executing the improvements at all, or of depriving him of his compensation, however good his manuring might have been.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to which he might refer at this stage. Its object was to secure both the landlord and the tenant against fraud, by providing that, in the large majority of cases, where artificial manures were applied to the land, analyses of them should be made. It was impossible to find out, in many cases, the results of manures, unless analyzed before they were put on the land, for great frauds were committed by artificial manure manufacturers; and therefore there was a strong reason for providing against them by insisting upon analyses, and their proper application. He could claim the authority of the Government for the principle of his Amendment. Clause 13 provided that samples and vouchers might be called for; but, as there was no penalty attaching to their destruction, the unscrupulous man who destroyed such evidence as made against him would be in a better position than a scrupulous one. Unless some greater security in this respect were given to both landlord and tenant, the Government ran considerable risk of inflicting much harm on both. This was not an Amendment particularly in the interest of the landlord. As soon as he got the Scottish Bill, he had sent it to the committee of the local agricultural society in his district; and the Amendment which he had to propose was recommended by practical men, who knew the dangers that existed.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he fully agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Balfour). He thought it was impossible to exaggerate the danger of fraud in regard to artificial manures that was likely to arise under the Bill; and he hoped that the Government would pledge themselves to bring up, at a future stage, some provision which would protect the interests, not only of the landlord, but also of the incoming tenant, upon whose shoulders
  30
  the deficiency in respect to the quality of those manures often fell.
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, he considered it would be wrong to put such conditions into an Act of Parliament as those proposed by the Amendment, as all those arrangements could be embodied in agreements between landlord and tenant. In fact, it had been his practice to make such arrangements as were requisite with his tenants. He approved, however, of the practice of taking an analysis of the artificial manures that were put into the soil.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that, with reference to the remarks of the noble Earl (the Earl of Fife), he would refer him to Clause 54, and would suggest to him that such agreements might be held to be illegal were the Bill to pass as it stood.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he could confirm, to the fullest extent, what had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Balfour) as to the frauds and abuses existing in regard to artificial manures. Many instances had come before him, showing that those manures were adulterated by the merchants to such an extent as to render them almost absolutely valueless. He knew of a case, of which he had good proof, where a man he knew well—the son of a builder who hired a gravel pit—had seen the process of making guano. There was a vein of yellow clay, which was useless for any other purpose, in this gravel pit. It was sold by cart-loads to a manure manufacturer. This young man used to take this clay every now and then, and have it mixed up into a sort of pea-soup, with bones, offal, and so on; at the proper time chemicals were added, and the result was the production of the most perfect-looking guano possible. Again, a friend of his had, some 21 or 22 years ago, gone out to Peru to buy up all the guano there for one of the largest firms in London. He had succeeded in doing so, and he told him at the time that the produce of these guano islands—the accumulations of centuries—could not last—he was not quite sure—but his recollection was from seven to ten years. Of course, there might be guano elsewhere; but this fact would show their Lordships the difficulty of the question. When the greatest stock of real guano could be used up in such a short time, how could what was now sold be genuine,

  31
  and worth putting on the land? There was, he thought, a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of his noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch); and he trusted that it would not be withdrawn, unless an assurance were given by the Government that the matter which it involved would be satisfactorily dealt with.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. He fully agreed with his noble Friend (the Earl of Fife) that it would be inexpedient to include in the Bill any such minute regulations in regard to fertilizing substances and feeding stuffs as those now proposed. The present Bill applied to that matter precisely the same principle as was contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875—namely, that the sum to be paid to the outgoing tenant should be the value to the incoming tenant.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would point out that there was nothing in Clause 54 making it unlawful for a landlord and tenant to come to an agreement as to the verification, by any reasonable and proper means, of the character and quality of manures and feeding stuffs, and of keeping a record of them. The clause only voided an agreement depriving a tenant of his right to compensation.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the statement of the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) brought great relief to his mind. If the view of the noble and learned Earl was correct that it was competent under the Bill to make these agreements, there was no need for the Amendment of the noble Duke opposite. In that case, he (the Duke of Argyll) would fully admit that it was inexpedient to put such minute regulations into an Act of Parliament; but he thought that, in respect of any manures for which the tenant was to claim, the tenant ought to give vouchers to his landlord, without which they could not prevent the greatest possible frauds from taking place, because great frauds were committed with regard to manures and feeding stuffs.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, he should like, in order to make assurance doubly sure, and to guard against uncertainty of the law, and to give some
  32
  better assurance of protection, to see an Amendment inserted to the effect that a landlord and tenant should be able to make an agreement for the purpose of insuring a record being kept both as to the quality and quantity of the manures which were to be put into the soil. If some such words were introduced, the clause would then be deemed satisfactory, and it would protect all parties against fraud.
  LORD HARRISsupported the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, what they wanted to do was to make assurance doubly sure, so that when the question as to compensation came to be tried the opinion given by the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack should be the law, and not merely an opinion.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
  Clause 6 (Set-off of benefit to tenant).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 40, after ("therefrom") insert ("and.")
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYproposed, as an Amendment, that the landlord should have the right to claim compensation from the tenant for waste or breach of husbandry committed at any time within seven years before the determination of the tenancy. The Bill limited the claim of the landlord to a period of four years before the end of the tenancy. He thought that, as the tenant could claim for improvements made within 10 years, it was only fair that the landlords' rights should extend back for seven years.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 16, to leave out ("four") and insert ("seven.")—(The Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that this was in reality an Amendment on the Act of 1875. He did not know that anything had happened since the passing of that Act to lead to the conclusion that that was an improper enactment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he thought it was unfair, where the tenant

  33
  could claim for the whole 19 years of a lease, that the landlord's counter-claim for that part should extend to only four years back.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 75; Not-Contents 48: Majority 27.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in moving, as an Amendment, after Clause 6, the insertion of a new clause, providing that, with respect to the application of artificial manures, there should not be taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy, or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured, said, he wished to point out that it was quite possible that, in the last year of his tenancy, a farmer might lay out an enormous sum of money in feeding stuffs in respect of which he would get compensation, although he had previously expended nothing.
  Amendment moved,
  After Clause 6, page 4, line 17, insert as a separate clause: Provided always, as regards 22 and 23 of Part III. of First Schedule," There shall not he taken into account any larger outlay during the last year of the tenancy than the average amount of the tenant's outlay for like purposes during the three next preceding years of the tenancy or other less number of years for which the tenancy has endured."—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he was sorry he could not accept this Amendment, coming from the noble Duke, though it would be far more agreeable to him to do so. But the principle of the Bill was that judgment was to be formed in accordance with results; and he must therefore be consistent, and decline to accept it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the object of the Bill was to secure good farming. The Amendment had a distinet tendency in this direction, and the Government should therefore accept it. To his great regret, however, they had declined to do so.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEhoped that the noble Duke (the Duke of Rich-
  34
  mond and Gordon) would not press the Amendment, which was not necessary to the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that that proposal was very analogous to a stipulation contained in almost every Scotch lease, to the effect that the farmer should not, during the last few years of the lease, bring upon the farm a larger amount of stock than it usually or legitimately carried. It was one of the commonest tricks for the farmer to do that, in order to swell his claim; and, therefore, a distinct condition was inserted in Scotch leases to guard against it. He, for one, earnestly hoped that under that Bill they would be free to make their own contracts in reference to that matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the question would be, whether the existence of such a condition as this in an agreement would make the agreement unfair and unreasonable? All that was desired by it could be obtained by such an agreement as was contemplated in the 5th clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would contrast the observation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack with the frequent assurances they had received that the words "fair and reasonable" in relation to those matters were incapable of statutory definition. In respect to what was done in the last year of the tenancy, no valuer, however infallible his instincts, could possibly tell what was the value of an outlay the results of which were not yet above the ground. In regard to the last year, they must, therefore, proceed by outlay, and could not possibly proceed by value, because the value would not then have shown itself. No answer had been given to the contention that, unless they inserted in the Bill some clause of that kind, the opportunities for fraud would be so great that they were certain to be taken advantage of.
  Amendment agreed to; Clause inserted.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving the insertion of a clause to follow Clause 6, with the object of providing that where a tenant proposed to claim compensation under the Act as to manures, he should afford the landlord an opportunity of taking samples as to the fertilizing substances or feeding stuffs for which the claim was made, said, he wished to ask

  35
  whether it would be possible for him, under that Bill, to make a contract providing that, if some artificial manure that was universally acknowledged to be prejudicial to the soil—for example, nitrate of soda, which had a stimulating effect in the first year after it was applied, but was unduly exhausting to the land—he should be entitled to receive a certain sum of money.
  Amendment moved,
  In Page 4, after Clause 6, insert as a new clause:—" In all cases where a tenant proposes to claim compensation under Part III. of the First Schedule of this Act he shall—

  (1.) Afford the landlord or any person duly authorised by him an opportunity of taking samples of any fertilising substance or feeding stuffs for the application' or use of which he proposes to claim compensation:

  (2.) Give at least seven days notice in writing to the landlord or his duly authorised agent of his intention to apply any fertilising substance to any crop upon the holding during the last year of the tenancy:

  (3.) Cause analyses to be made of all such fertilising substances and feeding stuffs:

  And in ascertaining the amount to be paid to a tenant for compensation in respect of the application or use of fertilising substances and feeding stuffs any referee or umpire shall have regard to—

  (a.) The state and condition of the holding;

  (b.) The quantity, cost, and quality as ascertained by analysis of the fertilising substances and feeding stuffs used, and the time and mode of their application and use;

  (c.) Any special circumstance by which the interest of the landlord, the tenant, or his successor in the farm, may be affected."—(The Lord Balfour.)

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that an agreement for a fair and reasonable compensation would not be inconsistent with the Bill.
  LORD HARRIS, who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In Page 4, after Clause 6, insert the following clause:—
  (Right of landlord to have analysis of artificial manures, feeding stuffs, &c. for which compensation claimed.)
  "The landlord shall be entitled to take from a certified analytical chemist an analysis and statement of the money value of any artificial manures, feeding stuffs, and permanent grass seeds bought and used by the tenant on his holding during the last year of his tenancy, and for which compensation is claimed under this Act,"
  36
  said, he should not move it, as he was quite willing to give way to the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) now before the Committee.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYhoped the Committee would agree to one or other of the Amendments. This was a tenant's question, rather than a landlord's.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, in his opinion, if all these minute obligations as to notices, &c, were cast upon the tenant, the Act would be useless; for the tenant would be inclined rather to forego his compensation than comply with them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he must admit that the proposals of his noble Friend behind him (Lord Balfour) were open to the objection of being too minute. He also thought their Lordships might accept the explanation of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that the question of manures might be dealt with by agreement. It was, moreover, preferable that these matters should be the subject of mutual agreement, rather than laid down in the iron form of an Act of Parliament.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdraivn.
  Procedure.
  Clause 7 (Notice of intended claim) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference).
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 32, to leave out ("the difference") and insert ("any difference as to the amount of compensation, and as to whether any agreement is fair and reasonable, and as to any matter to be taken into account in reduction or augmentation of the tenant's claim for compensation, and as to all other matters incidental to settling the account between landlord and tenant in respect of compensation under this Act.")—(The Lord President.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he objected to the Amendment, because, under it, the noble Lord (the Lord President of the Council) would take away from the Courts of Law the right of deciding what constituted a fair and reasonable agreement, and hand that right over to a valuer or referee sent down from the Land Commission Office. When a question was brought before a Court of Law, one knew that the old principles of the Common Law would be

  37
  applied as far as possible to existing Acts of Parliament; but no such certainty could be felt when matters were referred to valuers who possessed no legal experience, and who might be prejudiced this way or that. He repeated that the question what was fair and reasonable was not to be decided by a Court of Law, but by a referee. That seemed to him a most objectionable proposal. He would only ask them to remember a very striking instance of what he said. Remember their experience of the Sub-Commissioners under the Irish Land Act. The Courts of Law had saved what little remained to be saved to the Irish landlord; and he did not wish the Courts of Law to be prevented from saving what little there was left to the English landlord. Their experience ought to teach them to trust in the old Courts of Law in preference to new tribunals.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he thought that the effect of the noble Marquess's observation would be that everyone was to be driven into litigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, in his opinion, it would be well for landlords and tenants to refer their differences to a referee in the first instance, and only in case of disagreement to have recourse to litigation.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, it seemed to him that the question whether an agreement was fair and reasonable ought to be settled by a higher authority than a referee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, with regard to the objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), he should like to know if it was not the fact that referees were accustomed to deal with disputes in which the question of compensation was involved? In all cases in which no more than £100 was at stake, it would be wise to accept the decision of a referee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that there was another reason why a decision of a Court of Law should be taken. They had seen what difficulty there was in ascertaining what "fair and reasonable" was; and yet on the decision of the meaning of those words depended the comfort of every landlord and every tenant. He considered that it was a matter of vital importance to have it decided as early as possible what
  38
  was the meaning of those words, for that it was a matter which should rest with valuers up and down the country was more than they could contemplate with satisfaction. If those words were decided by a valuer here and a valuer there, it established nothing; but once a thing had been decided by a Court of Law, the decision became law, and was recognized all over the country. There could be no doubt the effect of the clause must be to enlarge the powers of the referee. He considered the referee the weakest part of the Bill, and he had no confidence in him, and, therefore, objected to any enlargement of the powers vested in him.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the objection he took to the clause was, that it mixed up two things that should be entirely separate—namely, the amount of the compensation, and the question of what was fair and reasonable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would point out that if a tenant claimed compensation under the Act, and not under the agreement, in cases where an agreement for compensation had been entered into, he would have to go to the referee; and how was the referee to ascertain whether his jurisdiction was excluded or not without ascertaining whether the compensation under the agreement was fair and reasonable or not?
  On Question, "That the words ('the difference ') stand part of the Clause? "
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 85; Not-Contents 40: Majority 45.

  CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Doncaster, E, (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Manchester, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Feversham, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Haddington, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercom.)

  Harewood, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Manvers, E.

  Exeter, M.

  Milltown, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Winchester, M.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Powis, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Romney, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Sandwich, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E

  Camperdown, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Verulam, E.

  39

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Tetter.]

  Hopetoun, L.(E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Lifford, V.

  Melville, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Alington, E.

  Lovat, E.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury)

  Norton, L.

  Bagot, E.

  O'Neill, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Brabourne, L.

  Brancepeth, E. (V. Boyne.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Crofton, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Digby, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Ventry, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Forbes, L.

  Gerard, E.

  Westbury, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Harris, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Carrington, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Dacre, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Derby, E.

  Kenmare, E. (E. Kenmare.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Powerscourt, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Belper, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Wrottesley, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he desired to amend the clause at page 4, line 36, by inserting the words "or if they have, by agreement, already made
  40
  such an appointment." Under the Bill, the parties might agree in appointing a referee; and he desired to provide for the case in which the parties might, at the commencement of the tenancy, or any other period, provide for a possible disagreement and select their umpire.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, line 36, after ("concur") insert ("or if they have, by agreement, already made such an appointment.")—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought the balance of convenience against the Amendment, which would be open to abuse. It was undesirable that such an appointment should be made before the occasion for it arose; and he should prefer the clause to be as it stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he regretted that the Government had refused to accept an Amendment proposed solely to check litigation. The danger of the clause, as it stood, was this—that, unlike the Act of 1875, this Bill was compulsory, and the tenant, under it, would have a right to insist that a referee should be sent down by the Land Commission; and thus a class of men, whom he might call Sub-Commissioners, might come into existence, who would act as the Irish Sub-Commissioners had acted. Who were the Land Commissioners? They consisted of three gentlemen—one of them was an old Member of that House, of Liberal opinions, and another of them was Sir James Caird, who was well known to be a man of the most extreme views. ["Oh, oh!"] He would practically have the nomination of the Sub-Commissioners; and great danger might arise from the circumstance. ["Oh, oh!"] Was it, then, perfectly impossible that he should allow those extreme views to be visible in the choice of the men he should send down to decide these arbitrations? He considered that the Amendment would not only tend to diminish litigation, and to keep up the good relations that subsisted between landlord and tenant, but would have the effect of keeping up a more independent and local decision upon these questions.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must confess that he was lost in astonishment at the extraordinary language used

  41
  by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), in objecting to a provision so simple as the one under notice, and which was copied from the Act of 1875.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in moving an Amendment, with the object of providing that, if either party objected to the umpire appointed by the Land Commissioners, then the umpire or his successor should be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors, said, that the object of his Amendment was to provide that the appointment of such officials should not be left absolutely to a person who had strong political views, as had been the case in Ireland. After their experience in that country, they could not safely trust men of extreme opinions in those matters. He thought, if the Government wished to relieve their Bill of any suspicion of partiality, they would adopt the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 32, after ("Commissioners") insert ("but if either party shall in writing object to such appointment, then the umpire, or any successor to him, shall be appointed by the President and Council of the Institute of Surveyors.")—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  In reply to The LORD CHANCELLOR,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Institute of Surveyors was a body which received a Royal Charter in the year 1881, and which was previously recognized by Parliament in the Metropolis Management Act.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Government must decline to accept the Amendment. It cast a reflection upon the Land Commissioners, and treated them in a manner which they did not deserve.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had cast no reflection whatever on the Land Commissioners. He only said that they were—what their Lordships had seen the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners in Ireland to have been
  42
  —perfectly honourable men intending to do justice, but yet led by that impulse, which few public men could resist, to leave impressed on their acts some trace of Party bias.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 74; Not-Contents 46: Majority 28.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agrted to.
  Clauses 11 to 17, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Award to give particulars).
  On the Motion of The Lord LECONFIELD, the following Amendments made:—In page 7, line 12, leave out from ("and") to the second ("the") in line 14; and in line 15, leave out ("for the purposes of such charge").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 19 to 21, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 22 (Appeal to County Court).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 7, line 42, insert as a separate sub-section:—
  ("That the award proceeds wholly or in part upon an improper application of or upon the omission properly to apply the special provisions of section 5 or any other part of this Act")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 23 and 24 severally agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Provisions respecting married women).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 8, line 32, leave out ("the county court may appoint") and insert ("where the appointment of"); line 33, after ("woman") insert ("is required"), and after ("Act") insert ("the county court may make such appointment"); line 35, leave out ("a married woman") and insert ("a woman married before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882"), and after ("use") insert ("to land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid); line 38, leave out ("married women") and insert ("woman married

  43
  before the commencement of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882"); and in line 39, after ("Act") insert ("in respect of land her title to which accrued before such commencement as aforesaid").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Provision in case of trustee).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Clause transposed to follow Clause 30.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 27 and 28 severally agreed to.
  Charge for Tenants' Compensation.
  Clause 29 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 10, line 12, leave out ("section four of") and insert as separate paragraph at end of the clause:—
  ("The estate or interest of any landlord holding for an estate or interest determinable or liable to forfeiture by reason of his creating or suffering any charge thereon shall not be determined or forfeited by reason of his obtaining a charge under this Act, anything in any deed, will, or other instrument to the contrary thereof notwithstanding.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 30 and 31 severally agreed to.
  Notice to Quit.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Fixtures.
  Clause 33 (Tenants' property in fixtures, machinery, &c.)
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 11, line 21, leave out ("buildings") and insert ("building.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Crown and Duchy Lands.
  Clauses 34 to 36, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Ecclesiastical and Charity Lands.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Landlord, incumbent of benefice).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following
  44
  Amendment made:—In page 14, line 1, after ("writing") insert—
  ("Of the patron of the benefice, that is, the person, officer, or authority who, in case the benefice were vacant, would be entitled to present thereto, or").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Landlord, charity trustee).
  On the Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, the following Amendment made:—In page 14, line 18, after "landlord") insert ("in respect of charging the land.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Resumption for Improvements.
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, Reading amended' by the addition of the words ("and Miscellaneous.")
  Clause 40 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.)
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON LORD EGERTON OF TATTON moved, as an Amendment, to omit the two last paragraphs of the clause, which provide, first, that where a tenant got notice from his landlord of a resumption of part of his holding, he should be entitled to claim a proportionate reduction of rent; and, second, that the tenant might, if he pleased, treat the notice of resumption as a ground for giving up his holding.
  Amendment moved, in page 15, line 5, to leave out from ("holding") to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Egerton of Tatton.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONopposed the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not like the clause. It was a source of disadvantage to the landlord, and he should prefer to see it struck out of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause was a direct privilege to the landlord, instead of being any disadvantage to him.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 41 and 42 severally agreed to.

PART II.

  DISTRESS.
  Clause 43 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 16, line 2, after ("distress") insert—
  ("Except in the case of arrears of rent in respect of a holding to which this Act applies existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which arrears shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five to the same extent as if this Act had not passed.")
  THE MARQUESS OF EXETER THE MARQUESS OF EXETER moved an Amendment, to the effect that the period for which a distress for rent might be made should be two years instead of one.
  Amendment moved, in page 16, line 2, to leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years.")—(The Marquess of Exeter.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he must decline to accept the Amendment, believing that the limitation of the power of distress to one year was the proposal most acceptable to the tenant, and sufficient for the protection of the landlord. The period of one year was fixed on the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which recently sat upon the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in supporting the Amendment, said, that, as far as he knew, the feeling of the tenantry was the other way. It would be unfortunate for poor tenants, who required indulgence from their landlords at present, if the landlord's security through the power of distraint was to be so limited. In this time of sore distress, it would force many landlords to eject their tenants, who did not desire to do so, and it would operate cruelly on poorer tenants. The result would be that it would produce ill-feeling in many districts where good feeling now existed.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he thought it would be a great pity to interfere with the compromise on that subject embodied in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONheld that the limit of two years would form a better compromise than one year.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of many other people, there was a good deal to be said in favour of the abolition of the Law of Distress. There was no-
  46
  thing more prejudicial than for land to be in the hands of men without means. Yet the Law of Distress had been in existence for many years, and there were at present many tenants who were behind in their rent; accordingly, he did not think their Lordships should go further than the Committee of the House of Commons had recommended, but that they should limit the right of distress to one year. That seemed a reasonable proposition. He was not prepared to say that there was an extraordinary virtue in one year, as compared with two years; but he thought one year was enough to meet all the requirements of the case; and, moreover, that limit had been recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons after careful consideration.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he did not agree with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) in thinking it would be advantageous to abolish the Law of Distress altogether. It had been abolished in Scotland; and his (the Earl of Camperdown's) experience was that tenants were regretting the course which had been taken. At the same time, he should regret if the Government consented to adopt two years instead of one, seeing that the latter period was ample enough. The question had been very much discussed at the various Chambers of Agriculture, and the general opinion was in favour of one year.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would remind their Lordships that the relation between landlord and tenant was very different to other creditors and debtors. Further than that, the persons who would suffer most by the abolition of the Law of Distress were the small and struggling tenants.
  On Question, "That (' one year ') stand part of the Clause?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 47; Not-Contents 56: Majority 9.

  CONTENTS.

  Solborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Cowper, E.

  Derby, E.

  Granville, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  47

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Lyttelton, L. Methuen, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Ramsay, E. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Reay, L.

  Abordare, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Belper, L.

  Rosebory, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Blachford, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Breadalbane, L, (E. Breadalbdne.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Emly, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

  Exeter, M. [Teller.]

  Clinton, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Crofton, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Delamere, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Digby, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Haldon, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Harris, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Harrington, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.) [Teller.]

  Milltown, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Lcconfield, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Ronmey, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L, (E. Galloway.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Tankerville, E.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Tredegar, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Melville, V.

  Zouehe of Haryngworth, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Words substituted.
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 61, line 11, leave out from ("except") to the end of the Clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Limitation of distress in respect of things to be distrained).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendment made:—In page 16, line 23, after ("feeding") insert ("or if any part of such price has been paid exceeding the amount so paid.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Remedy for wrongful distress under this Act).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 17, line 9, leave out from ("and shall") to ("Summary Jurisdiction Acts") in line 11, both inclusive; line 12, leave out ("court") and insert ("county court or court of summary jurisdiction"), and leave out ("summary"); and in line 16, after ("requires") insert—
  ("Any such dispute as mentioned in this section shall be deemed to be a matter in which a court of summary jurisdiction has authority by law to make an order on complaint in pursuance of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 51, inclusive, severally agreed to.

  PART III.
  General Provisions.
  Clause 52 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Exception of non-agricultural and small holdings).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved an Amendment, to insert words to provide that nothing in the Bill should apply to holdings "less than two acres in extent."
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 38, after ("holding") insert ("less than two acres in extent.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, he hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Camper-down) would press his Amendment. It was most important to the small holder of land. It had been said in the other House that small holder had no compensation for improvements when he left. His father was one of the first to establish the allotment system

  49
  in his own county, and he had a great many allotments on his property. All he would say was, that he knew of no case where there had not been a fair compensation given. It had been well remarked in the House of Commons that some provision ought to be made that the compensation should in no case case exceed half the value of the land. To let all these small holdings come under the Bill would be to discourage landlords from letting small plots of land, and to discourage the allotment system. It was said that all difficulty would be avoided by a weekly agreement. He believed such an agreement was beneficial to the tenant, for it enabled him to seek the best employment at short notice, without the tie of having to pay for land he did not want. At the request of some working men, he had let them about two acres each; it was an experiment he thought would answer well with good men—that was, as long as they could earn their wages besides. He believed it was of advantage to these men that they should have the power of giving six months' notice. If the two acre limit were retained, he would let them nearly two acres each without coming under the Bill. If it was not retained, this experiment would not be encouraged. The letting of large plots of land was very much appreciated. He hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that the House of Commons had agreed that the Bill should apply to market gardens; and, that being the case, it would be impossible to agree to the limit proposed. Further than that, he did not see why, if improvements had been made on a small scale, compensation on the same scale should not be awarded.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he should be glad to modify his Amendment to meet the case referred to by the noble Lord, so that it should read as follows:—"Nothing in this Act shall apply to a holding that, not being a market garden, is less than two acres in extent."
  EARL COWPERsaid, he preferred the clause as it stood.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would remind their Lordships that the clause, as now framed, was not in the
  50
  original Bill. He did not agree to the Amendment, however, on the ground that it might interfere with the letting of land in small allotments; and he would therefore suggest, as the best mode of meeting all the requirements of the case, that they should adopt the limit of one acre.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he should prefer the limitation being kept at two acres, because, besides the allotments of arable land, there were in some parts of the country small holdings of pasture land called cowgates, which would keep one or two cows, and these might be interfered with by this clause of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he hoped the Committee would agree to the Amendment, otherwise he could not accept the clause, as it would cruelly affect the poorer tenants. The effect of this Bill would be to cause many landlords to evict their tenants.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 54 to 59, inclusive, severally agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Interpretation).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 20, line 38, leave out ("after the commencement of this Act"); and in line 40, after ("other") insert ("immediately after the commencement of this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 61 (Repeal of Act of 1875).
  On the Motion of The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL, the following Amendments made:—In page 21, line 32, after ("1875") insert ("and the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, Amendment Act, 1876"); leave out from ("right") in line 34 to ("under") inline 35, both inclusive, and insert ("thing duly done or suffered or any proceedings pending under or in pursuance of"); line 36, leave out ("of a tenant"); page 22, line 3, after ("Act") insert ("or"), and insert as a separate sub-section—
  "(d.) Any right in respect of fixtures affixed to a holding before the commencement of this Act."
  Line 4, leave out from ("such") to ("such") both inclusive, and after

  51
  ("right") insert ("reserved by this section may be enforced"); and in line 6, leave out ("he would have been entitled.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 62 and 63 severally agreed to.

SCHEDULES.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHproposed to strike out Part II., which referred to drainage.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, lines 20 to 23, leave out ("Part II.")—(The Duke of Bucchuch.)
  LORD CARLINGFORD (Lord PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he could not accept the Amendment, seeing that the Government attached great importance to that part of the Schedule as it stood. They regarded drainage, in very numerous cases, so essential to farming, that they earnestly desired to stipulate, by provisions in the Bill, that where the landlord could not, or would not, undertake the work himself, the tenant should be able to do so.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would advise his noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch) not to persist in this Amendment, as it was one which would most materially affect one of the principles on which the Bill had been drawn, which was to encourage drainage. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had not that fear, which some noble Lords had, that tenants were going to drain all the land in the country; he only wished they could.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Schedule agreed to.
  SECOND SCHEDULE agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 186.)
  House adjourned at One o'clook A. M., to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clook.