Sitting of 20 July 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILL — Committee —Agricultural Holdings (England) [186] [Fourth Night]—R.P.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (INTEREST) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, lie was sorry, when the House had so much other Business before it, to have to occupy time in moving, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered on that day three months;" but the task he had undertaken was one which he had undertaken entirely as a matter of public duty. He had stated, some time ago, that if the Standing Order were left alone, he would leave the Hull and Barnsley Company to take such course as they approved; but, when the Standing Order was passed and modified most carefully by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he (Sir Joseph Pease) felt it his duty to the House, to the commercial interests of the country, and to the Railway interest in particular, to see that this Bill should have the careful consideration of the House. It was on that ground he moved that the Consideration should be postponed. He might be told that he was opposing the Bill as a Railway man. He was not at all afraid of that charge, because it seemed to him that the House had taken into its hands—rightly he dare say—the question of competition between different Railway interests; and, when the House decreed competition, it behoved Railway Companies to carry out that competition according to the rules and forms laid down by the House, and according to the laws they were obliged, from time to time, to pass. If the House agreed to encourage competition, he, as a Railway man, was quite ready to acquiesce in that view; but he must appeal to the House that the rules regulating competition should not be abrogated by the Act of any Company or private individual. If the House were to decree that this Bill should pass, he should feel that he had done his duty in calling the attention of the House to it; but it seemed to him that there were very grave reasons why it should not be allowed to pass into law. The Bill itself was of a very peculiar and a very remarkable character. No doubt, Bills of a peculiar character had been passed by the House in former years, and, notably, the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill; but that Bill was introduced after an arbitration before Earl Cairns and the Marquess of Salisbury. The present Bill involved

    19
    the payment of interest out of capital to a very large extent, far outside the Standing Order recently passed at the suggestion of his lion. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and after the proposal had been supported in a speech by his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Chamberlain). If they passed this Bill, it seemed to him (Sir Joseph Pease) that they would do away with all respect for Statute Law, and all respect for their Standing Orders, and they would deal a death-blow to the observance of that upright and straightforward dealing which ought to characterize all matters connected with trade in this country. The Bill had been very much modified since it had been laid on the Table of the House. It was proposed that 5 per cent should be paid on a capital of £3,000,000 sterling, and it further proposed that 5 per cent should be paid upon an additional share capital of £2,400,000, in accordance with the Act of 1882. That latter clause had since been eliminated from the Bill, and the measure now merely referred to the capital of £3,000,000 sterling of the Hull and Barnsley Railway, and it was to that provision that he desired to call the attention of the House. In 1880, the Hull and Barnsley Company obtained their Act of Parliament, and the Act contained the usual provisions to put in force the Statute Law as sanctioned by the Standing Order of 1845. The promoters accepted the Bill, with the restriction that they should not pay interest out of capital, because that was a clause which had been enacted in every Railway Bill for a long series of years. Having obtained their Bill, they found that they wanted shareholders, and the idea of paying interest out of capital seemed at once to have occurred to the Board. They proceeded, however, with great caution, and this was one of his reasons for finding fault with their proceedings. Before they inserted a clause in their prospectus, in which they proposed to pay interest out of capital, they took the opinion of very eminent counsel. He was not aware what the result of that opinion was; but he had no doubt that it was in accordance with the judgment of the Master of the Rolls which came afterwards. But, in spite of the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, and of the legal opinion thus obtained, a clause was inserted in the prospectus, of which,
    20
    according to the Hull papers, 300,000, weighing somewhere about 14 tons, were sent out. Advertisements or notices were issued in at least 51 newspapers, and the Company paid something like £55,000 to various brokers, in order to secure the issue of shares. The Board then proceeded to pass a Minute, authorizing them to obtain tenders for a contract in the usual way; and, on the 15th November, they rescinded that resolution, and the Chairman was sent to London to make other arrangements. he made a contract with a highly respectable firm of contractors—Messrs. Lucas and Aird—by whom the works were to be put through, and by whom interest was to be paid, although they had previously obtained the opinion that the payment of interest out of capital was altogether illegal. He would not trouble the House by entering into the contracts. On the 4th March, before any interest had been paid, the Master of the Rolls granted an injunction against the Company, to restrain them from paying interest out of capital, and no interest up to that time had been paid. An expense, however, of £2,200 had been incurred, for a grand celebration in connection with the passing of the Act on the 15th July. No sooner did the Company get notice of the injunction which had been granted by the Master of the Rolls, than they attempted to sail to the windward of it; and they succeeded, through the contractors, in forwarding to the shareholders the dividend which the Master of the Rolls had declared to be an illegal payment. He could not imagine, for a moment, how Messrs. Lucas and Aird men of proverbial intelligence, could have obtained no other security for the payment of their advances than the promise that an Act of Parliament would be subsequently introduced. He saw in the contract between Messrs. Lucas and Aird a curious reference to a sum of £100,000 to be paid to them for the speedy completion of the works; but he could only find one reference in the contract itself to the completion of the works; and it was that they should be finished by the year after next. It would be apparent to the House that the Company had defied the law; that they had made arrangements to go beyond the law; and that, even after the Master of the Rolls had laid down the law, they went, with their eyes open, and made arrangements with the contractors to pay this interest.

    21
    He was prepared to assert that no Bill was ever introduced into the House in such a position, in order to secure the sanction of Parliament to the payment of interest out of capital. The House knew the nature of the agitation which was got up last year. In that year a Committee was appointed, at the instance of the Chairman of Ways and Means, which reported in favour of altering the Statute Law. This year there had been the same kind of agitation again; and the Chairman of Ways and Means, no doubt considering it advisable to conform to the views of the people behind the agitation, brought in a Standing Order which was most carefully and consistently guarded. That Standing Order was passed by the small majority of 8 in the House; but it was found that even that Standing Order would not allow the Bill to be passed. The Standing Order and the present Bill were diametrically opposed to one another. First of all, the Standing Order of his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means contemplated a Committee of Inquiry; but there had been none. On the 12th of July, his hon. Friend held a Committee on the Bill, and received a Report from the Board of Trade, in pursuance of his own request, and which Report was said to be in pursuance of the Standing Order. But the Standing Order said that no Company should pay more than 4 per cent, and the Bill proposed to pay 5 per cent. The Standing Order was prospective. The Bill was evidently retrospective. The Standing Order said that the 4 per cent should appear in the advertisements and prospectuses; but the advertisements and prospectuses of the Company were issued in 1879 and 1880, when it was illegal to pay interest out of capital altogether. None of the half-yearly Reports of the Company complied with the Standing Orders. The Board of Trade were told that if the provisions of the Bill did not become law, it would be impossible to continue the works for more than two or three months longer. There was another allegation which he wished to call attention to, because it appeared to him that the Report which had been presented from the Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means was founded on it, and the Report also of the Board of Trade. The statutory accounts were published duly by the Company; and no one could find fault
    22
    with the form in which they appeared. It appeared from them that on the 31st December no less a sum than £2,130,000 was at the command of the Directors. The amount to be spent, according to the statutory declaration necessary to be made by all Companies, was, up to the 30th June, £533,000; and the Company would require, up to the end of the year, £1,599,000 to complete their obligations with regard to works. The Board of Trade said, very wisely, that the Company seemed to have paid no attention to finance. First of all, the preliminary expenses amounted to the large sum of £72,900; and, in their Report, in order to show what had become of so large a sum, the Company stated that the advertisements had cost £10,000; brokers' receipts for commission, £54,900; whereas the interest on the pre-payment of calls by the Company was only £14,000 during four half-years. The bankers had allowed £12,000 in one year for money in hand; and these figures certainly showed a large amount of transactions which ought to have been investigated by the Board of Trade, or else by the Chairman of Ways and Means, before any Report that could be satisfactory was sent down to the House. The hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means stated in his Report that he was moved to report the Bill by the fact that 8,000 or 10,000 persons would be thrown out of work if the Bill were not passed. Why? Navvy Jack was a creature here to-day and gone to-morrow; and no sooner was he out of work in one place than he got it elsewhere. There was, therefore, no force whatever in that argument. The Board of Trade said the same thing; but he failed to see its bearing. Now, what did the argument of stopping the works amount to? The Bill did not raise a shilling of extra capital in any shape or form. The capital of the Company remained the same as it was by the Act of Parliament already passed. There was still a sum of £300,000 to be borrowed, and £1,113,000 to be called on the shares. There was no question of getting the amount of the capital. The capital had been greedily taken up; and there was no question of getting out of the shares. If this Bill had any effect, it was taking money out of the hands of the Directors and placing it in those of the shareholders. The effect of not giving the Directors power to complete the works

    23
    would be to place the money again in the hands of the Directors. The Directors did not spend the money, and did not make calls on the shareholders; then it would remain in their pockets until after the works were finished in 1884; so that, within 12 months of the present time, the whole question must come to an end. In his opinion it was much better that the matter should remain as it was. In the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor had made a strong statement as to the propriety of leaving all Bills alone until the Statute Law was altered, indicating that it was intended to repeal it, piecemeal, by legislation. He contended that the House of Commons could not well pass this Bill. The Directors had taken the Act with the usual clause in it; they had taken opinions as to the legality of the prospectus; and they had issued it knowing that the clause they had inserted in it could not be carried out legally. They had issued it on the chance of nobody inquiring into the matter; but, fortunately, somebody had done so. Even after they obtained the decision of the Master of the Rolls, they went on, and, in spite of everything they knew to be right, decided on paying interest out of capital. How much they had paid out he did not know; but he thought he had proved conclusively that, in effect, this Bill would not be to further the works, but rather to take money away from the works out of the pockets of the Directors for the purpose of paying interest on capital, and placing it in the pockets of the shareholders. The case was of so strong a character, and so well exemplified the danger of interfering with the Standing Orders of the House, that he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. CROPPERsaid, he would not delay the House more than a minute in seconding the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease). The whole merits of the case were discussed a short time ago, on the 6th June; and, therefore, there was nothing to be gained by entering again into any argument as to the question of paying interest out of capital. But the case seemed to go a great deal too far in advance of the decision which he thought the House came to wrongly five weeks ago. Not content with taking the 4 per cent allowed by the Standing Order, the Bill, in advance of
    24
    the decision of the House, claimed 5 per cent; and, as the hon. Member for South Durham had shown, the Company proposed to raise an additional share capital of £2,400,000 on the same terms. He felt that everything his hon. Friend had stated deserved the attention of the House, and he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL GERARD SMITHsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) with much surprise. He (Colonel Smith) had regarded the Bill as an unopposed Bill; and, according to the Rules of the House, unopposed Bills — that was to say, Bills against which no party bad a locus standi, on a matter of Petition, went before the Chairman of Ways and Means, assisted by other hon. Members and the Speaker's Counsel, who took the matter into their consideration. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would hesitate before it attempted to upset a decision arrived at after full inquiry by a Committee presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He did not intend to follow the hon. Baronet in a single word he had said as to the purely personal matters which the hon. Baronet had thought it right to bring before the House. He (Colonel Smith), for one, would be no party to wasting the valuable time of the House in the discussion of a purely personal matter; but the House ought to know that the hon. Baronet was a Director of the Board of the only Railway which was in direct opposition to this Company. The hon. Baronet had done all that he could to damage the Company which he (Colonel Smith) represented; but he knew very well that, in circles where these matters were understood, the statements of the hon. Baronet would damage the Company the hon. Baronet himself represented much more than the Hull and Barnsley Company. The Bill had been carefully amended, and, in deference to the decision of the other House, various provisions of the Bill had been cut out, in order not to prejudice a question which was still sub judice,

    25
    the Houses of Lords and Commons not being entirely agreed upon it. He should have thought that this would have satisfied the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham—namely, the cutting out of every provision of the Bill which could be objectionable, leaving such matters to be settled another year. But the hon. Baronet was not satisfied, and he came down to the House, in a strange spirit of inconsistency, to try and oppose the Bill. And why was the hon. Baronet inconsistent? It was because, on the 6th June, when the question was previously discussed, he had made use of these words—
    "He believed that the representations which had been made by the promoters of the Bill had been owing to an entire want of knowledge of the law."—(3 Hansard, [279] 1855.)
    The hon. Baronet now said that they had taken the opinion of eminent counsel, and that they know the law. Which was right? Then, again, the hon. Baronet said on the 6th June—
    "If the Hull and Barnsley Company had made a mistake, he, for one, should not for a moment object to their coming in a white sheet, with a candle in their hands, asking to be put right, after due inquiry, with their shareholders. He would not oppose them if they did that—he should pass no opinion on the Hull and Barnsley scheme as a railway enterprize; but he said this—if they had made a mistake, by all means let them acknowledge it."—(Ibid.)
    Now, the hon. Baronet seemed to have changed his mind, and he came down to the House, in defiance of the pledge he had given to support the Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, that, on the occasion referred to, he was arguing against the Standing Order and what lie said was that, if there had been no Standing Order, he should not have opposed the Bill; but as there was a Standing Order, and this Bill did not comply with it, he thought it ought not to be allowed to go on.
    COLONEL GERARD SMITHsaid, he declined to follow the hon. Member into the statement he had just made. He would rather follow the previous declaration of the hon. Member. It certainly seemed strange, after the words used by the hon. Baronet on the 6th June, that he should come down to the House now with a violent opposition to the Bill. He would not waste the valuable time of the House, on a day when they had other important matters to discuss. This was an attempt by a side-wind to upset the decision come to in June for the
    26
    establishment of a principle which would not only help the development of railway enterprize in this country, but, if applied to Ireland—with probably similar results — would tend as much as anything to the establishment of tranquillity and peace in that country. He opposed the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham, on the ground that it would weaken the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means, if the House consented to adopt the practice—now, he regretted to say, too common—of upsetting the decision of Committees upstairs. If they did nothing else, by rejecting the Amendment, they would show the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham that the House of Commons was not the place for the ventilation of private grievances between opposing Railway Companies.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he was altogether in a different position from the hon. Baronet who first addressed the House (Sir Joseph Pease), or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Colonel Smith). He had no interest whatever in the question, beyond that of doing what he considered to be right in the performance of his duty towards the House. He must say, in regard to this Bill, that lie was somewhat surprised at the quarter from which the opposition had arisen, when he recalled the observations of the hon. Baronet on the 6th June, and he concurred in the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for High Wycombe, because the hon. Baronet, on that occasion, most distinctly stated—and he (Sir Arthur Otway) held in his hands a copy of the hon. Baronet's words—that if the Hull and Barnsley Company had made a mistake and would bring their Bill before the House, he, for one, would not oppose it.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he would ask his hon. Friend (Sir Arthur Otway) to quote the whole of his speech. This argument was addressed entirely to the Standing Order; and what lie had said was that, if the Company had made a mistake, let them acknowledge it. But he found they had not made a mistake. They knew very well what they were doing.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, it would be very hard upon the House if he were required to quote the whole of the speech of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet certainly did make a serious

    27
    assertion, that if the Hull and Barnsley Company brought in the provision they were now asking for, he would not oppose it. He (Sir Arthur Otway) only did what he considered he was bound to do in asking the House to amend the Standing Order. When the Bill was brought before him, he had to consider the circumstances of the case, and the Board of Trade were directed to make a Report upon the matter. On receiving that Report from the Board of Trade, the Committee came to the conclusion I that, under the circumstances, the relief sought for by the Bill ought to be granted. What did the Board of Trade say in their Report? The Board of Trade recited the circumstance, that the capital had been supplied both privately and by the shareholders; and they then went on to say—
    "In these circumstances, and without offering any opinion as to the course which the Directors have taken in raising the capital under the Act of 1880, or as to the arrangements entered. into with the contractors—a statement relating to which is given in the Preamble of the Bill, the Board of Trade are of opinion that no impediment should be placed in the way of the early completion of the railways which were authorized by Parliament, after lengthened and exhaustive inquiries, as being of great public utility, and that the powers sought by the Bill should be sanctioned. The shares in the first capital of £3,000,000, having been issued, with the understanding that the shareholders were to receive 5 per cent, it would appear desirable that that rate should be sanctioned, and that the same rate should be authorized for the share capital of £2,400,000 under the Act of 1882, as proposed by the Bill."
    The Board of Trade, it would be seen, suggested that interest might be allowed at the rate of 5 per cent; but the Committee were not of the same opinion, and as, in amending the Standing Order, the House had suggested 4 per cent, the Committee struck out the higher rate of interest. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham had put words into his (Sir Arthur Otway's) mouth which he could not find in the Report of the Committee, to the effect that 8,000 or 10,000 men would be thrown out of employment; but all that he would say was that it was all very well for the Chairman of a great and promising concern to look with equanimity upon a proposal which-might involve the throwing of 8,000 or 10,000 men out of employment, and regard it as a matter of very little consequence. He (Sir Arthur Otway) regarded it as a matter of very considerable importance; and when he
    28
    was told that, if this Company did not obtain the relief they sought, 8,000 or 10,000 men engaged in a useful and great work would be thrown out of employment, it was certainly not a matter which was without its influence upon him. The Committee thereupon had come to the conclusion stated in their Report, and he saw no reason for departing from the conclusion come to on that occasion. Certainly, nothing which had been brought forward by the hon. Baronet would induce him to change his opinion. The hon. Baronet was one who was opposed to all enterprize on the part of people who were not so well established as himself; but considerations of that kind would have very little weight with the public or the House. As he had said, he was perfectly indifferent in this matter. If the House thought fit to pass by what had come down from the Committee, he should not feel in the least degree mortified. He had done what he thought it right to do. The Committee were satisfied with the conclusion they had come to, and they left the question in the hands of the House. He had no feeling whatever in the matter; and if the House thought fit to decide in favour of the proposition of the hon. Baronet, all that he could say was that it would give him some surprise, but no dissatisfaction whatever.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he thought the House was very much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) I for having brought the matter forward. It seemed to him to be a question of public policy, to be decided by the House, rather than by the Chairman of Committees. The question was, whether a Railway Company, having knowingly and wilfully broken the law, should now come down for a special Act of Parliament, to set themselves right in the teeth of the breach of the law they had already committed? It was a great question whether this power ought, on any occasion, to be granted; and, if it was, it ought to be prospective and not retrospective. He objected to the condonation of a fault openly and wilfully committed by per sons who ought to know better. On that ground alone, without entering into the question of paying interest out of capital, the should support he Motion of the hon. Baronet.
    MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Committees had stated that he was perfectly indifferent in this matter. Now, he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was not indifferent in it at all. He took a very deep interest in it as one of the Representatives of the town of Hull; and he might say that this was really an attempt to destroy the united feeling and desire of the town of Hull to relieve themselves of a great Railway monopoly. All those hon. Members who were in favour of sanctioning a great Railway monopoly in that part of the country would support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Joseph Pease); but he did not see how those who regarded the efforts of the community to relieve themselves of the weight of that monopoly were to proceed if these difficulties were to be placed in their way by Parliament? They had had to raise millions of money already; and everyone knew that it was utterly impossible to induce shareholders to invest, unless they could see a prospect of some immediate return for their money. This was actually a question whether the Port of Hull should deal with a monopoly they had suffered from for a number of years, or whether they should be allowed to remain in the hands of one Railway Company, which had for some years favoured other ports in preference to Hull. This feeling was so strong that the Port of Hull was unanimous in the matter; and it appeared to him that it would be monstrous for the House of Commons to object to this measure, and, by doing so, to throw out of employment the large number of men who were at present engaged in constructing one of the most important Railways and one of the finest docks in the country. That might possibly be considered by the hon. Baronet a matter that would be for the advantage of the Railway Company which he represented; but he (Mr. C. H. Wilson), as a large trader and shipowner connected with the town of Hull, felt sure that even the North-Eastern Railway would benefit by this addition to the trading interests of the Port of Hull. It was all very well for a Director of the North-Eastern Railway, who happened to possess a seat in the House of Commons, to take this course; but he (Mr. C. H. Wilson) did not think it right that matters that were really of private interest should be put upon public
    30
    grounds, for that was what that opposition virtually amounted to. ["No, no!"] They might cry "No;" but he was speaking of what he knew to be a fact; and he hoped that this measure would receive the support of all those who regarded the interests of the community, and who believed that they ought not to be compelled to suffer a disadvantage in consequence of a monopoly of any sort or kind.
    MR. GILESsaid, he could not help reminding the House that, in these matters, they were guided very much by precedent; and he felt that, if they were to go into the merits and demerits of a scheme which had been thoroughly thrashed out by a Committee of the House of Commons, and upset the decision of that Committee by a side wind, they would establish a very awkward precedent. If payment of interest out of capital was going to be stopped, they might say good bye to the grand public works of the country. This country was noted for its grand public works, and he ventured to say that there were no greater works being executed at the present time than the new dock at Hull, and the Hull and Barnsley Railway. This new dock was made because the Port of Hull was not capable of accommodating the shipping of the present day; for, though there were many good docks at Hull, there were none capable of accommodating the largest merchant ships of modern construction. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease).
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Committees had departed a little from his usual impartiality, when he brought such a general charge against the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), as saying that the hon. Baronet opposed every scheme of this kind, and that lie had discussed it as a mere partizan. The hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means had departed somewhat from his judicial position of a Judge. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham had not allowed himself to be influenced by the payment of interest out of capital. That was not the question; the question was one of public honesty; and for that the hon. Member for South Durham had always stood up. Had this Company acted honestly or not? That was

    31
    the only matter that was worthy of the consideration of the House; and, so far as the statement made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. H. Wilson) was concerned, that the unanimous feeling of Hull was in favour of this Railway, all he (Mr. Warton) could say was, that as Hull was a large and wealthy place, the people there should start a Company to make this line on an honest principle. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham appeared to him to be standing up for the principles of common honesty; and on that ground he thought the house was indebted to the hon. Baronet for the action he had taken in the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 121: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 218.)
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Consideration, as amended, put off for three months.

QUESTIONS.

  MADAGASCAR—THE FRENCH AT TAMATAVE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Despatch from Zanzibar, quoted by the First Lord of the Treasury, and described by the noble Lord as coining from Colonel Miles, was sent, in the first instance, to Zanzibar from Commander Johnstone, Her Majesty's Acting Consul at Tamatave; and, whether he will communicate to the House the telegraphic information received from Madagascar since July 10th?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the telegram from Colonel Miles, quoted by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, was probably based upon information received from Commander Johnstone, of Her Majesty's ship Dryad, at Tamatave, through the Commander of the Dragon, which conveyed a telegram and despatches from Tamatave to Zanzibar. Commander Johnstone is not Acting Consul at Tamatave, and does not correspond with the Foreign Office. It would be inconvenient and irregular to lay on the Table necessarily imperfect sum-
  32
  maries, sent by telegraph, of despatches not yet received. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Wednesday was based, as my right hon. Friend informed the House at the time, upon information received from Zanzibar and Madagascar—that is to say, from Colonel Miles at Zanzibar, and Commander Johnstone at Tamatave.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The noble Lord has stated that this information was "probably" sent by Commander Johnstone. May I ask, if the despatch did not distinctly state that it was sent by Commander Johnstone; and can the noble Lord inform the House when the despatches to which he has referred will be received in this country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot inform the hon. Member clearly the contents of despatches which have not yet been received at the Foreign Office. With regard to the probable time of arrival, I cannot say definitely; but I hope they will arrive towards the end of the month.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH CAHIRMEE HORSE FAIR.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that telegraphic communication with the Cahirmee Horse Fair (the greatest of its kind in Ireland) is only maintained by messengers to the adjoining towns, and that for the remuneration of these messengers a subsidy of £2 is required by the Post Office from the baron of the fair; and, whether, considering the vastness of the business transacted at the fair, and the importance of prompt telegraphic communication, he will be good enough to arrange for direct connection with the field for the future, on the responsibility of the Post Office, as has been done in the case of Fairyhouse Racecourse?
MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, it was the fact, as stated by the hon. Member, that telegraphic communication with this fair was only maintained by messengers to the adjoining towns; but no such subsidy was required by or paid to the Post Office, as that to which he had referred. He (Mr. Fawcett) believed the case was that the proprietor of the fair supplied a room for telegraphic purposes, the

33
rent of which he estimated at £2 a-year. The average number of telegrams sent to and from the fair was 35; the number sent from Fairyhouse Racecourse was four times as large; and, in the latter case, the Race Committee supplied a telegraphic room at their own expense, and also, at their own expense, had put up telegraph wires from the course.
MR. O'BRIENasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the small number of messages sent from the fair was not in consequence of the extreme inconvenience of the present mode of sending them?
MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that was taken into account; and if the telegraph wires were sent into the fair, as was the case with the racecourse, he should be very glad to carry on business with them.

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' RESIDENCES.
MR. BORESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish National School Teachers who recently waited on the Lord Lieutenant were correct in stating to His Excellency that the Commissioners of Public Works refuse to grant loans of money under "The National School Teachers' Residences (Ireland) Act, 1875," for the improvement of houses already occupied as residences of National Teachers; and, whether loans were formerly granted for the same purpose for which it is alleged grants are now refused; and, if such a restriction has been imposed on the granting of loans, whether Government will relax the conditions under which money is lent so as to facilitate the improvements of unsuitable existing residences without entailing on school managers the expense of erecting new structures?
MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I understand that, owing to an oversight in the Rules that were issued in 1881 by the National Education Commissioners, the Board of Works, in some few cases, were entirely precluded from making, and had, in fact, had no option but to decline to make, loans for the improvement of houses already occupied as teachers' residences. But that error in the Rules has now been rectified, and the Board will be able to make such loans, on the same footing as for new
34
residences, if the alterations proposed be reported as reasonable and necessary, and the cost not less than £50.

POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE WESTMINSTER WORKHOUSE INQUIRY.
MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, having regard to the lengthened investigation and the importance of the questions raised in their bearing on the proper control of workhouses, he will forthwith lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the evidence taken at the recent official inquiry at the Westminster Workhouse, Poland Street, into the conduct of the master, Mr. John Bliss?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, if the hon. Member will move for the Return, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) will have no objection to produce it.

THE SUEZ (SECOND CANAL)—EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF M. DE LESSEPS AND THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been drawn to a reported interview between a correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" (Thursday July 19th) and M. Charles de Lesseps, in which the writer states—
"In reply to my inquiry as to how the Company had succeeded in obtaining from the British Government the explicit recognition of their exclusive powers, M. Charles De Lesseps assured me that neither before nor during the negotiations for an arrangement had they been discussed by the English Government;"
and, whether the statement thus attributed to M. C. de Lesseps is correct?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I have read the statement in yesterday's Daily Telegraph to which this Question refers. The question of the exclusive powers was never discussed with the MM. de Lesseps in the course of these negotiations.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (NEW RULES).
MR. W. LOWTHERasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the New Rules of Procedure, framed by a Committee of Her Majesty's Judges, and now lying upon the Table of the House, have been

35
printed; if so, when they will be in the hands of Members, and, whether any Copies of the Rules will be obtainable by members of the legal profession other than honourable and learned Members?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the course which had been taken in connection with the New Rules was to direct that about 8,000 copies of them should be printed. It was not thought necessary, as they formed a very bulky volume, to distribute copies to every hon. Member of the House; but everyone who so desired would be supplied with a copy on application. He believed they would be ready on Monday afternoon, and distributed on Tuesday morning. After supplying the requisite number of copies to those interested—namely, Members of both Houses and the official Members—the remainder would be placed at the disposal of the law booksellers, for sale to the public.
SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked Mr. Attorney General, whether he was aware that this bulky volume would become law, after it had been laid on the Table of the House for 40 days?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I do not know why my hon. and learned Friend asks me this Question. Of course, I know that it will then become law; but I do not think that the fact of the volume being bulky makes any difference in that respect.
SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: In consequence of the Attorney General's answer, I will, on Monday, ask the Primo Minister, whether he will give us an opportunity to prevent this bulky volume from becoming law without discussion?

TREATY OF WASHINGTON — THE "ALABAMA" (SURPLUS) CLAIMS—COURT OF COMMISSION.
MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received advices from Her Majesty's Ministers at Washington, that the Court of Commission of Alabama (Surplus) Claims has decided that subjects of Great Britain residing in the United States have been embraced in the beneficial provisions of the Acts reestablishing the said Court on an equal
36
footing with all other residents and aliens; and, if so, whether the original award at Geneva embraced that class of petitioners?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Mr. West has informed Her Majesty's Government that the Court of Commission of Alabama (Surplus) Claims has decided in the sense indicated in the hon. Member's Question. Under the Geneva Award, a gross sum of 15,500,000 dollars in gold was paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction of all claims referred to the consideration of that tribunal, conformably to the provisions of the Article of the Treaty of Washington. No class of petitioners was specially mentioned in that Award.

THE SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF M. DE LESSEPS AND THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY.
MR. GIBSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the opinion of the Law Officers with reference to the alleged exclusive rights of M. de Lesseps and the Suez Canal, under the concessions relating thereto was given before the instructions were given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the British Suez Canal Directors to enter upon the recent negotiations, or after those negotiations were entered upon or were concluded?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I fear that, with no want of respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), I must adhere to the answer which I gave him yesterday. Her Majesty's Government are entitled to ask for the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, and they did so in this matter. But, for the reasons I gave yesterday, I must decline to give the date of their advice, for, by so doing, I should establish a precedent of a very dangerous character. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) will, perhaps, be good enough to accept this as an answer to his Question, No.16.
MR. GIBSON: Having regard to the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), this question becomes of greater importance than before, and I desire to state that I shall, on Monday, again refer to it, and present it in the form of a Question.
SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: And I shall, at the same time, ask the Prime Minister, Whether there is any precedent for having stated that there was an opinion by the Law Officers, and given the effect of it, and then refusing to produce it or give the date on which it was delivered?
MR. J. LOWTHER: I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is not the usual practice, when a quotation is made from any document, that that document is laid upon the Table?
MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What details of the scheme for the construction of a second Suez Canal there are which have as yet been laid before Parliament, but which cannot have reached the Governor of Queensland by the ordinary telegraphic agencies; what length of time would be required for the transmission by the mail of a letter or despatch from the Colonial Office to the Governor of Queensland; and, whether any such letter or despatch, containing any information as to the details of the scheme above-mentioned, has, in fact, been as yet written or sent; and, if so, when?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, as far as I understand the meaning of the Question, it is intended as a rebuke to me for having said yesterday that, in my opinion, the Premier of Queensland was in rather too great a hurry to express an official opinion on the Suez Canal arrangement. Well, considering the deluge of Questions which have been put down on the Paper by hon. Members opposite on this matter during the last week in this House, we are landed in this dilemma. Either Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith, who asks no Questions, has more intelligence than hon. Members of this House, or else there is some additional information to be obtained beyond the short statement made on the 11th instant. Now, the first hypothesis is, I am sure the hon. Member will agree, absolutely untenable; so we are driven to the second, and that was all I said in the House yesterday. The telegram is dated the 14th; and with respect to the part of the Question as to Papers laid before the House since that date, I may mention, among other statements before Parliament, which the Queensland Ministry could not have had before them at the date
38
of their telegram of the 14th, the Report of the British Directors, a document which certainly contains some considerations of importance as regards the Question; and further, the account of the deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his statement, both of which are subsequent to the telegram of Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith. But I would rather appeal to the view of the Victoria Government, who certainly does not, from a telegram we have received, entirely unsolicited, this morning, appear, like the Queensland Government, satisfied with the abundance of their knowledge. I will read it, as I promised to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn I would read any telegram that I might receive on the subject. It is thus—Mr. Service, the Premier of Victoria, sends as follows to the Agent General, a day later than the Queensland telegram:—"As to Suez Canal quite in the dark." The telegram proceeds to say that the Chamber of Commerce has passed a resolution that Great Britain should have preponderating influence in the management, and that they—that is, the Chamber of Commerce—will support action for that object.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman seriously wishes the House to believe that he has any doubt that the Governor of Queensland knew as much as this House about the terms of this arrangement?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am not only not in great doubt, but I am certain he did not. The date of the telegram was the 14th, and the first statement in this House was made on Wednesday the 12th.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Could the hon. Gentleman state how long it would take for a despactch to reach Queensland?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: It will take five weeks to communicate by despatch with Queensland. As to the last part of the Question, no communication has been made, and, at this stage, it is not proposed to make any communication to the Colonies.
MR. BOURKE: Will my hon. Friend state what possible practical object could have been gained, if the Governor of Queensland had waited for details?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: That is not a Question I can answer now.
MR. J. LOWTHER: How long will it take to communicate by telegraph?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Well, electricity destroys time. We could telegraph in a day, of course.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Firman of the Sultan, dated 1873, in which the Khedive is granted power to enter into Commercial Treaties and Conventions without their confirmation by the Sublime Porte being necessary in order to give them validity; and, whether it is not a fact that since this Firman numerous concessions in regard to Canals and other industrial undertakings have been granted by the Egyptian Government, without reference to or confirmation by the Porte?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Firman of 1873, to which my hon. Friend refers, has been already laid upon the Table of the House in a Paper presented in 1879 (Egypt, No. 4, p. 47); and I may remind him that the subsequent Firman of 1879 (Egypt, No. 1, 1880, p. 51) contains an additional provision respecting a communication to the Porto of all such acts before their promulgation. The second portion of my hon. Friend's Question is in too general terms to allow me to give a reply at such short Notice.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Note addressed, on the 6th of April 1863, by the Sublime Porte to the Courts of London and Paris opposing the continuation of the works on the Suez Canal?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it would be entirely misleading to present this despatch in a separate shape, as the state of things to which it refers has been entirely superseded by the Firmans of 1873 and 1879.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, whether the concession which bore upon the question of granting land could not be given?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The document is of no value for the reasons I have given.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: In consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I shall, on Monday, ask the Prime Minister, Whether the land which is now to be applied for by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with M. de Lesseps, as a concession for the new Canal, is not part of the same land which, on account of the arbitrary decision of the Emperor of the French, the Egyptian Government purchased at a very large price from the Canal Company in 1876?
Subsequently,
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can state to the House the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to recognise an exclusive character in the concession of the Suez Canal Company?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in reply to the Question, I am afraid I cannot say more than this—that the privileges of the Canal Company are, of course, defined by the concession. We found ourselves on the language of that concession. Our interpretation of it is an interpretation which we arrived at without any doubt, and we conceive that we are supported in that interpretation by very great authority, and by all the facts which make up the history of the case.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Government to give the House any information as to the reasons which induced them to come to this decision before the question is debated in the House? It is usual for the Government, I believe, to do so. Does the right hon. Gentleman not intend to give us any guidance in this matter?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not aware that it is usual to make a statement of one side of a case before there is an opportunity of stating the other side of the case. I am afraid that would be the result of the practice which the hon. Gentleman recommends.

MADAGASCAR—STRENGTH OF THE FRENCH NAVAL FORCE.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any ships of war have lately been ordered to the Mauritius or to Madagascar; and, if so, whether he can state their names and size; and, whether he can give the

41
number and strength of the French fleet now at the Island of Madagascar?
Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, I told the hon. Member yesterday that no additional ships of war have been sent to Madagascar. The fuller information he now asks for I must, with all respect to the House, decline to give; and I venture to appeal to the House whether some mischief may not even be done by such a Question being put on the Paper?
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to state that I put the Question at the request of the hon. Member yesterday. If the Question had been answered when I first put it on the Paper four days ago, it would have saved a great deal of the time of the House.
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the Question the hon. Member put to me yesterday was, whether certain ships had been sent to the Mauritius? But now he puts a Question, asking the size and names of the ships; and, also, in juxtaposition, an inquiry as to the strength of the French force in those seas. It is because that juxtaposition brings out apparently the motive of the Question that I declined to answer it.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will withdraw the last paragraph of the Question, as the hon. Member puts that construction upon it; and I beg now to ask him, if he will state whether any British ships of war have been sent to the Mauritins?
MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, the evil, such as it is, which I anticipated from the Question has been already done; and, under those circumstances, I must decline to answer the Question altogether.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, I shall call attention to the evasive answers on this subject by the noble Lord, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty; and, moreover, to the terror displayed by Her Majesty's Government to state what they have done in these matters.

EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice—Whe-
42
ther Dr. Hunter has yet started for Egypt; and, whether, the noble Lord is in a position now to make any further statements regarding the Special Commission and the position of English medical officers in Egypt?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; Dr. Hunter has started, and I may add that Mr. Mieville, the English Delegate on the Egyptian Joint Sanitary Board, and Dr. Mackie, the consulting English Physician who attends that Board, have been attached to the Commission, and I feel that their great local experience will be of the greatest value to Dr. Hunter. I am also glad to inform the House that the Egyptian Government are not only ready, but anxious, to avail themselves of the services of Dr. Hunter.
LORD HENRY LENNOX: I wish to ask the noble Lord a Question, of which I was only able just now to give him private Notice. It is, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the facts related by the Special Correspondent of The Standard this morning from Cairo, who says, with regard to the alarming spread of cholera in Cairo, that the mode of conducting funerals in that city directly contributes to the rapid spread of contagion; that the bodies are carried through the streets in coffins of the slightest construction; that the clothes of those who died of cholera in hospital are sent home for the relations to wear, and thus further spread the disease; also, whether it is true that patients are carried to the hospital in Cairo without any attempt at precaution; whether some poor creatures have died in the open streets with a gaping crowd looking on; and, whether the noble Lord will at once telegraph instructions to Cairo with the view of putting an end to this state of things?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I make no complaint of my noble Friend having asked this Question without previous Notice, because I know the painful interest with which this subject is being watched, not only in this House, but throughout the country. I cannot, of course, answer, in reply to this Question, as to how far the details mentioned by my noble Friend in it are accurate or not; but, unfortunately, every Member of this House—and there are many—who has travelled in the East knows

43
only too well how very defective sanitary arrangements are, and especially with what very great and lamentable carelessness, according to European ideas, funerals and burials are conducted in these countries. I may, however, assure my noble Friend and the House that the attention of the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the spot has been already called to these subjects, and they have instructions to press upon the Egyptian Government the great importance of attending to all these subjects, because, as I informed the House the other day, it is upon strict attention to sanitary laws and arrangements, and not to cordons, or lazarettos, or quarantine measures of that kind, that Her Majesty's Government look for a suppression of this terrible disease now raging in Egypt. Considering, however, the very great gravity of the statements contained in the paragraph alluded to, I shall make it my special and immediate duty to call Sir Edward Malet's attention to these statements, and, no doubt, he will direct his attention in a peculiar degree to the necessity of impressing upon the Egyptian Government the desirableness of attending to these subjects, and to the cases described in the telegram. I may, however, mention that, naturally, these are the points to which Dr. Hunter's attention will be immediately devoted upon his arrival; although, at the same time, the pressure which Her Majesty's Government can bring to bear upon the Egyptian Government must, in the first place, be exercised through their diplomatic Representatives, and not through Dr. Hunter himself. I hope this will be considered a satisfactory statement, and that the House will realize that everything is being done that can be done to assist the Egyptian Government, although, at the same time, I must warn the House that, in our view, nothing would be more likely to lead to the spread of the disease than if it were thought by the Egyptian Government that 'Her Majesty's Government were going to take into their own hands the stamping out of the disease; for in that case, I believe, the only result would be that the Egyptian Government would put upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government the whole responsibility now justly resting on them, and Her Majesty's Government clearly have not at present the requisite staff or necessary
44
means to undertake that responsibility. What Her Majesty's Government has to do is to bring pressure upon the Egyptian Government.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE: May I ask the noble Lord, Whether he has any reason to believe that the statement made in the papers to-day is true, to the effect that deaths from cholera are far more numerous than is officially reported by the Egyptian Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I cannot, of course, give a precisely accurate answer as to the number of deaths. All I can do is simply to place before the House the telegrams giving the official Returns from time to time. But I can assure the noble Viscount that I am no implicit believer in the necessary truth of every figure that is officially published, and I believe there are unrecorded deaths in the great cities, where statistical information is imperfect.

PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL, &c.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, with regard to the course of Business to-day, he thought that it would, no doubt, be greatly convenient to the House if an arrangement could be made to continue the discussion on the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill throughout the entire day. His hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had a Motion down for 9 o'clock, which, undoubtedly, related to a matter of great interest and importance, one well deserving discussion, but which his hon. Friend would be aware could lead to no immediate practical result—namely, one with regard to a peasant proprietary; and he (Mr. Gladstone) felt some difficulty in appealing to him again, because he had already shown much kindness and deference to the House, and a readiness to alter his arrangements on a former occasion to meet the convenience of the Government. But he would suggest to him that, if he consented to waive the discussion that day, under the circumstances, he would give an additional proof of that deference, and would do still more to secure a kindly hearing for the question when he found himself able to bring it forward. He would also suggest that the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition

45
should make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), in reference to the Motion that stood in his name also for that evening, and which related to the murder of Mr. J. W. Honey in Stellaland.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No doubt, it would be extremely convenient that the House should proceed this evening with the further consideration of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has on one occasion recently given way, and I do not know whether I may fairly appeal to him again to take the same course today.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the appeal of the Prime Minister placed him in a rather awkward position. That was the second time that he had, with great difficulty, secured a first place for his Motion, and he was now appealed to a second time to withdraw it. The question was one of great interest and importance to a great body of agricultural labourers, who were not in any way represented in the House, and if the Motion was again withdrawn, they would certainly have some right to complain.
MR. SPEAKER, interposing: The hon. Member is proceeding beyond the limits of an answer to the Question addressed to him by the Prime Minister. He is debating the matter.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was only pointing out reasons for not withdrawing his Motion. He had not said, however, that he was not going to withdraw it. he was going to say, as one reason why he should not withdraw his Motion, that so much time was occupied in the discussion of foreign affairs, that subjects of this description could not secure adequate attention. At the same time, he was bound to say that the appeal of the Prime Minister placed hint in this position—that if he persevered with his Motion, he would incur the great responsibility of going against the feeling of the House, and of interfering with the wishes of the Government, and that he would probably thereby injure the question by preventing that kindly and patient reception which he hoped it would meet when it came on for discussion. He had, therefore, no alternative but to yield to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman; but he did so with a great deal of reluctance, and only on one con-
46
dition—namely, that the Government would really have the night for the purpose for which they asked for it.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that there were then only three hours left in the week for private Members. He gave way last week with great reluctance, and not at all in deference to the Government, but in deference to the personal wishes of the right hon. Baronet who led the Conservative Party. He would make this offer to the Government—that if he had an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion, he would promise not to take up more than 15 minutes of the time of the House, and, no doubt, Ministers, if they were moderate, would be able to compress their replies within the same limit. He did not understand the Leader of the Opposition to do more than make a suggestion to him.
VISCOUNT LYMIINGTONsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to the advisability of proceeding with, and devoting the whole day to, the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Eye—
MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order, and asked the Speaker whether there was any Question before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped he might be permitted, in thanking his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) for his offer, to express the hope that he would allow it to hold good. He had no control, either by influence or in any other way, over the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who, he thought, was more careful than necessary to disclaim any deference to the Government. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On this Occasion.] He must leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Member and of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote); but there was this to be said on the part of the Government, that he did not think they would be able to take part in any discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member, for the reason that the Papers on the subject to which the Motion referred were, he believed, now on the Table of the House, and would be in the hands of hon. Members in three or four days.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was restrained from making any special appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), because he thought care should be taken not to endeavour to infringe upon the very limited time at the command of private Members. He had expressed his own opinion that it would be for the general convenience of the House if they were able to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill. Beyond that he did not think he was justified in going.
MR. HEALYsaid, he would give Notice that he should call attention, at the Evening Sitting of that day, to the circumstances attending the brutal bayonet charge by the police upon the citizens of Wexford, while the latter were waiting outside the Mayor's office to hear the poll declared, whereby many people were injured. He should be bound to bring forward the matter that day, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland gave him an assurance that he would at once direct an inquiry to be opened into the circumstances under which the charge was made.
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the case stood thus. The events which had taken place were undoubtedly of sufficient gravity to demand very careful investigation on the part of the Government. He had received a considerable number of telegrams on the subject; and he had received a Report, in reference to the proceedings complained of, from the Sub-Inspector present, which had been forwarded to him by the County Inspector. The most important information on the subject, however, was to be obtained from the Resident Magistrate who was in the town during the proceedings; and, until he obtained a Report from that gentleman, he could not come to any final decision in the matter, because he thought it extremely important that no hasty or partial decision should be given. He was afraid, under these circumstances, that he could not give the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Healy) the assurance he asked for, either one way or the other. He wished to know whether he rightly understood that it was the intention of the hon. Member to move his Resolution on the subject that night, in order that he (Mr. Trevelyan) might be able to meet him
48
with such materials as he had at hand?
MR. HEALY: Yes, Sir, I shall. The position in which I stand is this. I will have an opportunity to-night which I may not have again. I have no desire whatever to obtrude the matter upon the attention of the House, if I am assured by the right hon. Gentleman that, as to the initiation of the riot, he will grant an inquiry.
MR. TREVELYAN: It is utterly impossible I can say so until I get the Resident Magistrate's Report. I think, under those circumstances, the hon. Member will have another opportunity of moving for this inquiry, in case I am unable to grant it straight off. [Cries of "When?"] He will have other opportunities. [Renewed cries of "When?"] It would be grossly unjust, as against the police, to grant an inquiry, which, in itself, expresses blame, until I have the preliminary Reports.
MR. HEALY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why, as the bayonet charge took place on Tuesday last, and this is Friday, the police did not send this Report? I should also like to ask when another opportunity will arise if I forego the opportunity I shall have to-night?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if the hon. Member would repeat his Question on Monday next he should be prepared to give him a full answer.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to know from the Prime Minister how matters stood. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) had agreed, out of deference to the wishes of the House, to postpone his Motion, in order that the Bill referred to might be proceeded with; but he was not willing to give way if the time of the House that evening was to be taken up by the Motions of the two hon. Members who had declined to give way. In such an event, he thought he understood that the Prime Minister would not press him, because there would be no object to serve in withdrawing his Motion on a peasant proprietary.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he believed the state of the case to be this. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had made a sort of informal appeal to the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), to which that hon. Member had not at present yielded, though he

49
had promised a limit of his observations; and the hon. Member for Wexford—[Mr. HEALY: No; Monaghan]—he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon, he should have said Monaghan, and it was very wrong on his part to have made the mistake—the hon. Member for Monaghan had heard the statement of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) that he would be prepared to give him a distinct answer to his inquiry on Monday. he would not make any appeal—he had no right to make an appeal—but he was in hopes that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member would be inclined to trust to the future for the purpose which he had in view, if he should think it necessary to persevere in it. It was quite plain that the matter could not be adequately disposed of to-night; and he was bound to say that if the hon. Gentleman did not press his Motion to-night, he would have some claim upon the Government to endeavour to give him some assistance as soon as they could. Neither would he venture to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Eye; but he hoped that, under the circumstances of the case, he would perceive the convenience it would be to the House if he would withdraw his Motion. Unless he did so, however, the hon. Member for Ipswich would be entitled to the consideration of the House.

PRIVILEGE.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—"BRADLAUGH?. GOSSET."

    CONSIDERATION OF WRIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
    Order for Consideration read.
    WRIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS considered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that in consequence of the communication which had been made to the House yesterday by the Serjeant-at-Arms, he had now to move—
    "That leave be given to Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, Serjeant-at-Arms, to appear and plead in the Action brought against him by Charles Bradlaugh, esquire."
    He believed that it would be only necessary very briefly to state that the Motion was made not only on account
    50
    of its necessity and prudence, which he thought would cause it to be accepted by the House, but also because this course was entirely governed by precedent. He was sure that the House would desire to maintain, to the fullest extent, its right to control its own action within its walls, and that no interference would be willingly allowed with such action by any Court, under any circumstances whatever. But he was sure the House would see that, on the other hand, there was a primâ facie right in any and every subject of this Realm to institute proceedings in any Court of Justice. Therefore it was necessary, if such action was instituted, that the Court should be informed, in some way or other, that the suit which was brought was an interference with the rights and Privileges of this House; and, until that was done, the Court would be uninformed as to the fact that any question as to the Privileges of that House was involved. In former times, he believed that the attempt was made to communicate that fact—namely, that the Privileges of that House were involved in the question in dispute—by means of a certificate from the Speaker in the Chair; but such a method of communication had been found to be very inconvenient and very insufficient, and, therefore, many years ago, as early as 1810 at least, when an action was brought against one of the Predecessors of' the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair (Mr. Speaker Abbot), and also against the then Serjeant-at-Arms, by Sir Francis Burdett, the House resolved in terms very similar to those which he (the Attorney General) was now submitting to the House. Since that time some six or seven occasions had occurred of actions having been brought, when the like course had been pursued, and that House had always directed that a plea should be entered, on behalf of the officer of the House, to ensure that the Court might be informed that the officer was acting in accordance with the Orders of the House, and that, therefore, the Court could not interfere to stop the operation of or question those Orders. He would not dwell upon these precedents, neither did he enter very much into the question at large, whether it was, as he said it was, a prudent course to pursue, because the House would recollect that, as late as May of last year, an action was brought, in

    51
    many respects similar to the present one—although this one seemed to be an action in anticipation of events that might occur, whereas the action of 1882 had reference to events that had occurred—but the same principle was involved, and he had then, when the question came before the House, stated the reasons why he thought a Motion similar in its terms to the present should be submitted to the House, and the House resolved unanimously that that was a proper and fit course to pursue. The result was, that in accordance with the Orders of the House, the defence of the Deputy-Serjeant-at-Arms was brought to the notice of the Court. That defence was held by the Court to be sufficient, inasmuch as the Courts had no power to interfere with the action of the House, and that the House, forming as it did a part of Parliament, constituted ono of the highest Courts in the Realm, and, therefore, had a right to determine its own action within its own walls. That being the course then taken, he could perceive no reason why a similar course should not be pursued now. He must point out that, if this course were not taken, and the House refused to interfere, great inconvenience or something worse might arise, and the result would be that they would leave the officer of the House unprotected. Either that officer would have to appear personally—and he presumed that that was not a course which the House would desire that should be taken, when an officer was acting in obedience to an Order of the House—or he would not appear, and then the action which had been commenced would be entirely unanswered. The result would be, that the Court would not be informed of the fact that the officer of the House had acted in obedience to the Orders of the House, and the plaintiff would be able to state any circumstances he thought proper, entirely uncontradicted, and the judgment would go by default, in consequence of the Court not being informed of the real state of the facts, and then, when the process of the Court was attempted to be executed, they would have to take action to prevent a grave inconvenience and confusion from arising. He might point out that in the case of "Stockdale v. Hansard" that course was practically followed. The officer was, in the first instance, allowed to plead in person; but the matter was
    52
    not followed up in the way he had indicated, and the consequence was that, afterwards, the House came into collision with the Courts of the country, a circumstance which gave rise to many debates, and involved a difficulty from which the House had much trouble in escaping. Under those circumstances, he could not anticipate that any objection would be raised to the adoption of the course which he now proposed should be taken. If they did not adopt that course, he feared that consequences might arise of grave inconvenience, which they could not at that moment foresee, but which could not possibly occur if they followed the course which was taken last year. The House would, he trusted, excuse him for being so brief in this matter. He begged to move the Resolution which he had already submitted to the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, Serjeant-at-Arms, to appear and plead in the Action brought against him by Charles Bradlaugh, esquire."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that a great deal had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in which he concurred; but he thought that before the House agreed to what seemed to him the very grave precedent which it was now invited to adopt, it should have distinctly before it a statement by which it could understand what was really the question at issue. Doubtless the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman had been adopted in a great many cases, and for this obvious reason—that, judicially, it could not be known what was the subject matter of complaint; for, although, in the first instance, authority might have been given by the House, it might well have been, as in one or two instances it was decided to have been, that the authority so given to the officer had been exceeded; and therefore, in so far as what he had done in excess of that authority, he was liable to be dealt with by an action in the Courts of Law. But that was not the case now. The case now was one in which, from the correspondence which had been read, and from the form of writ which had been read also, it appeared that, for the first time, it was sought to bring into a Court of Law the question whether the House of Com-

    53
    mons had authority—conclusive and exclusive authority deal with matters arising within its own walls. That was not a complaint of anything which had been done, and therefore was not a complaint that could possibly have reference to any excess of authority by any of the officers of the House. That which was sought to be obtained was an injunction, and it was sought to bring the matter into the Courts of Law for the purpose of an inquiry whether the House of Commons had power to make an Order upon its own officers with reference to proceedings occurring within its own walls. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right or he might be wrong as to the convenience of the course which he suggested; but what occurred to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was, that it was far too grave a matter to be decided at such a short Notice, and he would be disposed to move either the adjournment of the Debate, or the appointment of a Committee to inquire and determine what should be done in the matter. He must say, at the present moment, he regarded with very considerable apprehension that what the House would do by this course of proceeding would be tantamount to a surrender of the Privilege which the House of Commons had certainly, for the last 200 years, claimed—to treat an action brought against an officer of the House, for anything done or to be done in obedience to its Orders, as an absolute breach of Privilege. He did not want to go back into any precedents, but there was one in which the House sent two Judges to the Tower for having tried a case affecting the Privileges of the House; and, even if he did, he need not go further back than 1844, in which year, if his recollection was correct, Mr. Howard, a solicitor, for having brought an action against Mr. Gosset, the then Serjeant-at-Arms, was himself brought to the Bar on the charge of having been guilty of committing a breach of Privilege. Now, it might be right or it might be wrong that the House should surrender their Privilege in such matters; but he could not help thinking that when a question now, for the first time, arose, in a definite and clear form, that the plaintiff had complained, not of something that had been done, but statedly as to something the Serjeant-at-Arms
    54
    had said he would do in obedience to the Orders of the House of Commons, whether the House ought to permit such an action to go on. The claim was that an injunction should be issued, and that it should be argued in a Court of Law as to whether the House of Commons had the right to give such a direction to its officers. That writ claimed an injunction, and, nothing else, and, coupled with the letters which had been read to the House, it came to this, that the Speaker having, by the authority of the House, directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, an injunction should be issued by the Courts of Law to restrain the Serjeant-at-Arms from obeying the Orders of the House. It seemed to him that was far too serious and important a question to be decided in this very light and cavalier manner, and for that reason he now moved the adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) must be under some misapprehension when he said the question was whether they would allow the action to go on. That was not the question. The House could not help the action going on. What his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General proposed was, that the action should not go on on the ex parte statement of the person who had brought it, without any security that the facts should be brought to the attention of the Court. Of course, the action would go on, whether the House wished it or not, and he did not understand what the hon. and learned Member for Launceston meant. He supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that if, upon the statement of the case which the plaintiff made, the learned Judge should decide in the plaintiff's favour, that then the House might send the Judge to prison, and any of the officials who carried out his judgment. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member assented to that, and cheered it; but was that really the course upon which the House of Commons at the present time, in its

    55
    cool senses, was going to embark? He should have thought that the experience of the past would have shown that such a course would be a foolish one in the extreme. There was no need to bring the House into a needless conflict with the Courts of Law, which would not conduce to the dignity of the House or to the benefit or advantage of anybody. The only question was whether they should now take such a course; or whether the House should take the precaution, as on the previous occasion, of seeing that the facts were brought before the Courts of Law, in order that they might not be ignorant of the circumstances of the ease, and so come into conflict with the rights of that House? No inconvenience or difficulty resulted from a defence being made to the previous action, and there was no abandonment of the rights of the House. The House was now asked by the Government Motion really to enforce its rights. The Serjeant-at-Arms could not appear to the action without their leave. Was it not a sensible thing to give him leave to appear, so as to lot the facts be brought before the Court? Surely that was likely to lead to a better result than if they did not give him leave, and if, on an erroneous representation of the facts, the Courts decided the case against their own jurisdiction, it would be then that the conflict would arise; and it was to avoid that inconvenience that the present course, recommended by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, was proposed to the House. He submitted that, by adopting such a course, they would abandon no right, but only be exercising the same discretion as when they determined, a year ago, that the Serjeant-at-Arms should have leave to appear, and when the matter at issue was decided in full knowledge of all the circumstances.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) was dealing with the matter on a proper footing. He said that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) wished the case to go on without the Court being properly informed; but it was the business of the Court to inform itself whether it had jurisdiction. Supposing that the Serjeant-at-Arms did not appear, on the ground that the writ
    56
    showed that the plaintiff was seeking to invoke the action of the Courts in a matter in which the Courts had no jurisdiction, the course that would be taken by the learned Judge would be this—that when the plaintiff appeared before him, and asked for an injunction to forbid the Serjeant-at-Arms obeying the Orders of the Speaker, the Judge would at once say—"I have no jurisdiction to issue an injunction in this matter," and would at once dismiss the the case. He thought there was no doubt that would be the course that would be taken by the learned Judge. The question for the House was, whether they should give their sanction to one of their officers condescending to appear to take any part in a proceeding, the nature of which he knew to be an injunction craved from the Courts of Law, directing him to disobey the Orders of that House? He thought there was so much doubt on the question as to justify the House in accepting the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston, and adjourning the debate, in order to give the House a little more time to consider the question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before this matter goes any further, it is right that I should remind the House that the immediate Question before it is the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. If the House desires to debate the Main Question, then the Motion for Adjournment must first be disposed of by being withdrawn.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Speaker whether, on a Question of Privilege, the debate could be adjourned? He was under the impression that it must be carried on until the Question was decided.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is quite open to the House to adjourn the debate on this matter, if it thinks proper; but, as I have already pointed out, the debate on the Main Question cannot proceed before the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate has been disposed of.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh, by this action, had—
    MR. ILLINGWORTHrose to Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-

    57
    gate) does not appear to have taken note of my observation that the debate on the Main Question cannot proceed until the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate has been disposed of.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Then, may I ask the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), who moved the adjournment, to tell us to what day he proposes to adjourn the debate?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTESpeaking strictly on the question of Adjournment, to which I will confine myself, I imagine that the matter stands thus. A certain course has been taken which has been brought under the notice of the House. The hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General has moved that, in this case, we should proceed in the same manner as that in which we proceeded in another case last year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) considers that there is a distinction between that case and the present. He also considers that the question which is raised is one which touches so nearly the question of the rights and Privileges of this House, that it ought not to be decided, at all events, without some discussion, in order to show how far we have raised and clearly considered questions which may affect the Privileges of this House for all time. My hon. and learned Friend thought that it would be better that the discussion should take place after an interval for consideration; but it seems to me that the House is in a position in which it might be very fairly, if it so pleased, discuss the question, and so settle it at once; and, in order that this decision should not be hampered by a Motion for Adjournment, upon which the merits of the case cannot be entered upon, I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate, and let us continue the discussion on the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he was willing, with the leave of the House, to withdraw his Motion; but wished to point out, by way of explanation, that he had suggested two alternative courses—either to refer the matter to a Committee, or to move the Adjournment.
    58
    He understood, from a gesture that he made, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General objected to a Committee, and therefore he moved the adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to call attention to the course Mr. Brad-laugh was pursuing in the country. He had been proceeding from place to place accusing that House of being the source of illegality. Last year be issued an address, in which he impugned the right of that House to exercise any jurisdiction over the admission of those elected to be its Members; while, by law, it was the duty of that House to witness the swearing in of all Members, and to see that they took the Oath or Affimation of Allegiance, according to the spirit and intent of the Statutes imposing these obligations. Mr. Bradlaugh seemed to imagine that that House had ceased to be a portion of the High Court of Parliament, and appealed to "our masters," the constituencies of the country. Mr. Bradlaugh was doing everything he could to derogate from the position of the House of Commons, and was doing that during the Session of Parliament. Surely, the first duty of the Members of that House was to preserve the rights and efficiency of the Assembly to which they were returned by the constituencies; and, if the House was worthy of the confidence reposed in it by the constituents, it would deal with Mr. Brad-laugh's conduct as a matter of violated discipline, and of insult, directed against one branch of the highest Court existing in this country. In that view he was supported by a leading Member of the Liberal Party and ex-Cabinet Minister. In speaking on the Parliamentary Oaths Act Amendment Bill in 1882, the Duke of Argyll said—
    "On the 10th of March Mr. Bradlaugh circulated by post—it came to me by post, and I suppose it came to other noble Lords—a most violent and scurrilous attack upon the House of Commons in consequence of the vote of the 6th of March. I will not take up the time of the House by reading any part of that address. It was called An Address to the Majority of the House of Commons,' and, as far as I can judge, it is full of matter insulting to the House of Commons and if the House should be of that opinion, there is nothing whatever in this Bill, or in any Bill which we should pass, which would prevent the House of Commons from

    59
    continuing the exclusion of this particular Member on the ground of discipline."—(3 Hansard, [271] 1369.)
    That was spoken by the noble Duke, while he was proposing a Bill to admit Atheists to this House. No one, therefore, could doubt that the noble Duke spoke with perfect impartiality.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had not risen for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, for it was very evident that if Mr. Bradlaugh brought an action against one of the officers of the House they were bound to cover that officer with the protection of the Law Officers of the Crown, and to see to their appearing in answer to the suit. But he took exception to the mode in which the hon. and learned Attorney General asked the House to instruct him to plead that the Orders of the House to its officers were over and above the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not propose to allow the Court to inquire whether those Orders were legal or illegal, but simply asked the House to pledge itself to a prejudice, and to assert that no Court of Law in this country had any right to interfere with the disciplinary power of the House of Commons within its walls. It appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere), however, that if such a docrine were allowed it would be open to the House to pass a Resolution directing the Serjeant-at Arms to kill him (Mr. Labouchere) within its precincts. That being done, the Attorney General for the time being—perhaps it might be the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard)—might appear and say that he had been justly and properly killed, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms was covered by the Order of the House. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that it would be only reasonable that the hon. and learned Attorney General should allow the question to be raised that was at the bottom of the whole of this dispute—namely, whether the Order of the House was legal or illegal? That had been the desire of Mr. Bradlaugh from the commencement of his dispute with the House. He had all along wished to carry the matter before a Court of Law, and in every way in his power he had sought to attain this object. The case really was not one of "The Serjeant-at-Arms v. Mr.
    60
    Bradlaugh," but "The People of England?. the House of Commons." ["No, no!" and laughter.] Well, such was the view unquestionably taken by a very large number of persons out of the House, who could not understand why it was that the House should claim—just as Sovereigns used to claim in days of old—to be superior to the law, and should decline to allow the question of whether the Order of the House was legal or not to be submitted to the tribunals of the country. This was the contention of Mr. Brad-laugh. He held that the disciplinary power of the House over a Member commenced as soon as he was a complete Member, and that he derived his right to go up to the Table, and to do what the House had declared was requisite to qualify him to sit and vote in the House, from the fact of his being elected; and that the House possessed no right to interfere with him, or in any way to interfere with his going up to the Table and performing those acts which were necessary to enable him to take his seat. Having performed those acts, Mr. Bradlaugh did not deny for a moment that he came entirely under the disciplinary power of the House, or that the House would have a perfect right the next day to order him to be excluded from the House. He (Mr. Labouchere) would place before the House a hypothetical case to show the absurdity of the denial that a Member derived his right to sit and vote from the fact of his election. Let the House suppose that this Parliament were dissolved, and that another House of Commons came into existence. Then, as soon as there were 40 Members sworn, and a quorum was constituted, they might, without giving any reason for so doing, pass a Resolution directing the Sorjeant-at-Arms to exclude every other Member. This quorum of 40 might then proceed to legislate as the House of Commons of this country. ["No, no!"] He asserted, and defied anyone to deny, that if the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was correct, the House of Commons had an inherent right to prevent any duly elected Member who was not disqualified by law—[Mr. NEWDEGATE: That is the point.]—from coming up to the Table of the House, from taking the Oath, and then taking his seat. Then,

    61
    no one could deny the fact that 40 Members of the House, being a quorum, might exclude every other Member who was elected. He thought it was right, in stating that proposition, to make clear to the country the utter absurdity, injustice, and illegality of the course of action that had been pursued, and was still being pursued, by the House towards Mr. Bradlaugh.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) clearly showed how very injudicious and impolitic was the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, for it appeared, from what the hon. Member had just said, that it was the wish of Mr. Bradlaugh to bring this question before a Court of Law, in order to test the legality of the proceedings of that House, and he wished to obtain the decision of a Court of Justice on the rights of that House, which was a higher Court than any other Court in this country. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not think much of the arguments used by the hon. and learned Attorney General, nor did he think he was ever more astounded than when he heard the comparisons drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman between the proceedings this year and those of last year. It was impossible to have two cases standing upon more widely different footings. Last year the Serjeant-at-Arms had acted, and, consequently, it might have been right for a Court of Law to inquire whether that officer had, or had not, exceeded the instructions received by him from the House of Commons. But here Mr. Bradlaugh endeavoured to anticipate the action of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and to stand between the House of Commons and the Orders it had given to one of its servants. If the servant exceeded his duty, then it was perfectly legal for the Judges to inquire into it; but until some act had been performed by the Serjeant-at-Arms, in obedince to the Orders of the House, it seemed utterly irrational, as well as illegal, for a Court of Law to step in to say that the House had no right to give those Orders, and that they should not be executed for fear of committing some illegality of which Mr. Bradlaugh might afterwards take advantage. He trusted
    62
    that the Government, notwithstanding their eternal desire to force Mr. Brad-laugh into the House, would not carry their proposal.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that he did not understand what was the alternative course recommended by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), or by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), to that which was proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. The hon. Member for Portsmouth said it would be irrational and illegal to allow a Court of Law to stand between this House and the Orders which it had thought fit to give to one of its officers. There might be a great deal of truth in that; but he (Mr. Horace Davey) contended that the alternative course which was proposed was the very course which would enable that to be done, and that the course proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General was exactly that which was best calculated to put the Courts of Law in possession of all the circumstances and the proper aspect of the case. The hon. and learned Attorney General proposed that the House should instruct its Law Officers to put in a plea, that the act which it was said Mr. Bradlaugh desired to restrain the Serjeant-at-Arms from committing was an act which he had been ordered by the House to do, and that the Serjeant-at-Arms should plead the Orders of the House as a complete justification. He did not understand his hon. and learned Friend to propose, or suggest, that any pleading should be put in on behalf of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or that any issue should be taken or raised, as to the legality of the Order made by the House. All that was to be pleaded was, that the House having given its Order to its own officer, no Court of Law had any jurisdiction or authority to interfere with the execution of that Order. That appeared to him to be a perfectly proper defence. He thought the House was bound to support its own officers in executing its own Orders; and it was simply because he thought the course recommended by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General best fitted to confine the issue before the Court of Law to that question, that he intended to support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend now before the House. It had been said—"Why should we

    63
    condescend to appear before a Court of Law at all? We should not sacrifice our dignity by condescending to appear before a Court of Law." Such language might be applicable to other times; but he did not think its weight had continued down to the present time. For his own part, he saw no condescension, but only the manifestation of a proper respect for the Courts of Law, in authorizing, or ordering, if necessary, their officers to appear in proper mode before them. The alternative course for the House to adopt was, that they should not put in any plea at all, and that they should leave Mr. Bradlaugh at liberty to move on the proper Motion day, making such statements as he might think proper to make in any affidavits that he might choose to file. But, in that case, there was no security that the true facts of the case would be brought to the attention of the Court; and it might be asked to adjudicate on a question involving grave Constitutional issues. Such, proceedings might bring the House into collision with the Courts of Law, or rather the Courts of Law into collision with the House, simply because the House of Commons had not taken the trouble, or had not "condescended," to lay before them the proper state of the facts. In his opinion, therefore, it was much more consonant with their own dignity and respect, and much more respectful to the Courts of Law, that they should authorize their officer not to raise any question as to whether the Order of the House was legal or illegal, but that he should merely plead the Order of the House. The course proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was perfectly consonant with precedent, and was best calculated to maintain the dignity of the House.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought it would be very much to be regretted if, upon a question of that kind, there should be anything like a considerable division of opinion, or any apparently sharp antagonism of feeling, as to what was the right course to adopt. He felt sure that every hon. Member of the House only desired to vindicate fairly the position of the House in reference to this transaction. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) spoke, he pointed out the truism that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General
    64
    had not had an opportunity of testing the judgment of the House, and said he thought that he and his Colleague the Solicitor General ought to have every opportunity of conversing over the matter, and of making up their own minds about it. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Gibson) would have been very glad to have had an opportunity of thinking out the matter more fully; and if time had permitted, and it had arisen at an earlier period of the Session, he should have been very glad to have seen the course taken of referring the subject to the care and calm consideration of a Committee to see exactly how they stood; or, if not that, to defer further proceedings as regarded it to another and a later day. But his right. hon Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) had given good reasons why the matter should now be put into a train of final decision, if possible, and especially after the way in which the matter had been presented to the House, and after the short and temperate discussion that had taken place upon it. Personally, he (Mr. Gibson) was very much disposed to think that, had the matter been left to the Judge alone, as in the case of what he might term a collusive action against Mr. Bradlaugh, by a plaintiff selected by himself, the Court would at once challenge legal evidence from Mr. Bradlaugh. He had very little doubt that, if this case were now brought before the Court, the Judge would very likely take up this point, and put Mr. Bradlaugh to prove that the Order of the House was not a full and complete justification for their officer in what he had to do. But his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Law Officers, whose duty it was to look into this matter, advised the House that they, themselves, would be the masters of the pleadings put in in the action; and they had arrived at the conclusion that the best advice they could give to the House was that they should allow their officer to appear and to plead like an ordinary suitor, subject only to this difference—that the hon. and learned Attorney General had given the House a clear and distinct understanding that the question of the legality of the Orders and proceedings of the House were not to be submitted to the judgment or arbitration of the Courts. Under those

    65
    circumstances, he apprehended that the best and wisest course for the House to adopt was not unduly to prolong the discussion, and to avoid anything in the shape of difference of opinion, and much less any chance of collision or disagreement, by assenting to the Motion.
    Original Question put.
    Ordered, That leave be given to Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, Serjeant-at-Arms, to appear and plead in the Action brought against him by Charles Bradlaugh, esquire.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Attorney General be directed to defend the Serjeant-at-Arms against the said Action."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. ALBERT GREYmoved to amend the Motion by leaving out "the Attorney General," and inserting instead "Sir Hardinge Giffard." In doing so, the hon. Member said, the position in which they were placed was the direct result of the unconstitutional action of the majority. The reason why he made this proposal was that, while there was no stouter opponent of the action of the House that had been taken on this question from the first than the former hon. and learned Gentleman, it had no more enthusiastic supporter than the latter; and because it would not tend to raise the present high standard of morality at the Bar, that the House should instruct one of its most eminent Members to plead in a manner known to be in direct opposition to his own feelings and opinions.
    [There being no Seconder, the Amendment was not put.]
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished to move an addition to the Motion, as an Instruction to the Attorney General—
    "but that the ordinary fulfilment of his statutory obligation by a duly elected Member of this House is not to be held as disturbing the proceedings of the House."
    All this discussion, and all those proceedings arose, in the first place, from the Motion which the right hon. Baronet opposite the Leader of the Opposition persuaded the House to accept. ["No, no!"] It appeared to him the Motion went directly in the teeth of the law. ["No, no!"] When this matter was previously before the House, and the Previous Question was proposed, the Speaker, replying to a question as to what would be the effect of carrying
    66
    "the Previous Question" against the Resolution of the Leader of the Opposition to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh, said, that—
    "In the event of the Resolution being set aside by the Previous Question, there would be no Resolution before the House adverse to the operation of the law by which the hon. Member for Northampton would undoubtedly be entitled to take his seat." — (3 Hansard, [278] 1856.)
    Therefore, upon the authority of the Speaker, the Resolution was adverse to the operation of the law. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) most strongly objected to Resolutions overriding the law of the land; and, therefore, he proposed the Amendment. What, he would ask, was the meaning of the words "not further to disturb the proceedings of the House" in the Resolution which the House had passed?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Question before the House is, that the Attorney General be directed to defend the Serjeant-at-Arms against the said Action, and that he is going beyond the Question before the House.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would say no more, but would conclude by moving his Amendment.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add at the end of the Question the words "but that the Attorney General be instructed that the orderly fulfilment of his statutory obligation by a duly elected Member of this House is not to be held as disturbing the proceedings of the House."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has felt himself called upon, by political consistency, to make this Motion. There are very few hon. Members whose convictions carry them further than myself in their opposition to the original proceedings of the House. I do not know that I ever used the expression that the action of the House had, in my view, been illegal; but certainly I have said, and I have not the slightest hesitation in repeating it, that I am unable to reconcile the action of the majority with my conception of the law. But in all Parliamentary proceedings there is a point at which it becomes necessary to recognize

    67
    the decisions of the House as regards their consequences, and as regards matters which are subsidiary to them. It is upon that principle that we, I think, on this side of the House have very generally, even where we disapproved of the Motion on which the proceedings were founded, recognised the highest Executive authority of the House, and that the officers of the House must be sustained in their obedience to the Orders of the House. This is a question of proceeding altogether consequential and auxiliary. There is no principle going to be laid down anew as against the view of my hon. Friend; and I would, therefore, submit to him that nothing is gained in point of principle, and much is lost in point of practice, to the general convenience and the general conditions under which alone the Business of a great Assembly like this can be carried on, if a Motion of this kind is pressed for the purpose of introducing a novel principle with regard to a question which really raises no principle, but simply expresses the intention of the House to act upon its own deliberative Resolutions. If that question is to be re-tried, it ought to be re-tried, not by a collateral proposition of this kind, but by an attempt made to overset the original decision which lies at the root of all these proceedings. I think my hon. Friend will feel that there is an objection, from his own point of view, to the form of his proceeding, and that I am right in saying that, if we are to question what is now proposed, we ought to question it by going to the root of the matter, and getting rid, if we can, of the original proposition, to which this is merely secondary and consequential. I hope, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will not press his Motion. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was anxious to take a vote, because he wished to show who was the revolutionary Party in that House. However, he would, at the request of the Prime Minister, yield to what appeared to be the general feeling, and not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put.
    Ordered, That the Attorney General be directed to defend the Serjeant-at-Arms against the said Action.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [BILL 186.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 19th July.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  IMPROVEMENTS.
  As to Improvements executed before the Commencement of Act.
  Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 5, after the word "secures," to insert the word "compensation."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'compensation' be there inserted."
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that, as he was unfortunately absent yesterday when this Amendment was moved by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Chaplin), perhaps he might be allowed to say a word or two in explanation of the object he (Mr. Stanhope) had in view in putting it upon the Paper. He had read carefully the remarks made last night, and he found it was stated that the words he proposed were vague. He was not going to say for a moment that they were not vague; but what he did venture to assert was, that they were very much less vague than the words proposed by the Government in the Bill, and that it would be very difficult indeed to frame any words at all which would not be more or less vague. No one could doubt that the words "fair and reasonable compensation" were vague. They had no reference to any standard at all; but the Amendment he proposed had a standard to which they could refer, and that standard was the 1st clause of the Government Bill. The 1st clause of the Government Bill laid down that the compensation to be paid should be such a sum as fairly represented the value of an improvement to an incoming tenant. Therefore, his

  69
  Amendment, and the whole of the clause, if his Amendment were accepted, would be interpreted by the valuers to have reference to the provisions of the 1st clause, wherever the compensation under any particular agreement was contrary to, or in evasion, of the objects of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he regretted to be compelled to differ from the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. E. Stanhope); but he thought that, vague as were the words "fair and reasonable," the words proposed in the Amendment were quite as vague, and more difficult to deal with. In truth, lawyers would have really little difficulty in dealing with the words "fair and reasonable," as they were words well known to lawyers, who had often to determine whether conditions were "fair and reasonable;" and he did not believe that valuers, though laymen, would practically have much trouble in deciding whether the compensation awarded by a contract was "fair and reasonable" within the meaning of the Act. But what would valuers have to do under the Amendment proposed. They would have to consider what was the "object and intention" of the Act. That might sound easy to do; but only last night, in the Lobby of the House, when lie (Sir Henry Holland) was discussing this Amendment with an hon. Member of great experience, and who had paid great attention to the Bill, he found that they differed as to the exact intention of the Bill. If, then, they, who had been all these days discussing the Bill, could not quite agree as to the object of it, what difficulty might not the lawyers or valuers have, who had not had the advantage of hearing all these debates? He believed that the intention of the Bill was to secure to the tenant a "fair and reasonable" compensation; and, therefore, in considering, under the Amendment, whether the agreement which gave the compensation was in accord with the "object and intention of the Act," the valuers would have, in fact, to consider whether the compensation was "fair and reasonable." Why, then, should not that be done directly under the words, as proposed by the Bill, rather than indirectly under the words proposed by the Amendment? He was informed that one important Chamber of Agricul-
  70
  ture, if not more, after full discussion, had resolved in favour of the term "adequate" in lieu of "fair and reasonable." he confessed he did not himself think this term less vague, or more likely to secure a just decision, nor did he think it so much in keeping with the spirit of the Bill. Unless, therefore, the Government could find some better term than "fair and reasonable"—and he doubted whether they could do so—he hoped they would adhere to the Bill as now framed.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was quite possible that landlords would compel tenants to enter into agreements, giving compensation entirely inadequate to the circumstances under which the agreements were made. He was quite aware that lion. Gentlemen might say that there was no great chance of tenants being put under such a screw, because landowners were of opinion that, in the present state of agriculture, tenants had a better chance than they had had in former years of looking after their own interests. That was true, no doubt. It was to be hoped that the great depression in agriculture would not continue; but, at all events, as long as it had continued, the effect had been, no doubt, to reduce the value of the land, and to increase the number of farms not in occupation; and, therefore, to give tenants seeking farms an opportunity of making terms with landowners and land agents. This Bill had been drafted, not with a view to a particular state of agriculture, but to the normal state of agriculture. In Great Britain, there was but a very small amount of land; and it was quite clear that, under normal circumstances, applications for land would be greater than the land could meet, a knowledge of which would put tenants in a position of not being able to make fair contracts. Under the circumstances, it appeared to him that they ought to keep words in the clause which would give some protection to the tenant. he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were landlords, not to try to water this Bill down to such weakness that it would be scarcely worth having.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that they arrived at this point last night—namely, that his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) asked whether an agreement, under the

  71
  Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875, would be deemed to give "fair and reasonable compensation?" The right hon. Gentleman stated that, generally speaking, such would be held to be the case, but that there might be parts of the country where that might not be held to be so; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) suggested that a Proviso might be added to the clause defining what was "fair and reasonable." Now, what was wanted was that which many Amendments and speeches had pointed to—that there should be some sort of definition, as far as they could determine, as to what was "fair and reasonable;" so that the matter should not be left in doubt. It was of the greatest disadvantage to the tenant, quite as much as to the landlord, to have this matter remaining undecided. The Government had expressed a willingness to listen to a proposal to define the words "fair and reasonable." His right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire did make some such suggestion, although he did not formulate the words. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) desired to take this opportunity of acknowledging and recognizing that Her Majesty's Government had, during the course of this Bill, endeavoured to meet reasonable proposals coining from any side of the House; and he believed they would find this feeling was reciprocated by the Members of the Committee generally. He had on the Paper a Proviso which he was not competent to move on this Amendment; but he would be in Order in reading it. It was a Proviso in the sense of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon; and if it were adopted by the Government, it probably might take the place of many Amendments on the Paper, and tend very much to shorten the discussion. It was to this effect—
  "Provided always, where such an agreement in writing secures the prescribed compensation in the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875, or such other compensation as is generally equivalent to the same, according to the custom of the locality, such compensation shall be deemed to be 'fair and reasonable' within the meaning of this Act."
  That would be a definition and standard for a Court of Law, or an arbitrator, or a referee to go upon; and he believed
  72
  that if the Government could intimate their readiness to accept some such proposal at the end of the clause they would get rid of many Amendments, and farmers and landlords would be no longer in suspense as to how "fair and reasonable" would be interpreted. All that was asked was, that there should be a standard of what was "fair and reasonable." There was no doubt that "fair and reasonable" were legal words; but they were not agricultural words, and the uncertainty was what they wished to get rid of.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had also been greatly puzzled with the words "fair and reasonable." He could not understand what their operation would be. His impression was, that the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) would meet the difficulty. He understood that the hon. Gentleman would subsequently move to add, at the end of the clause, these words—"Unless the agreement is contrary to, or in evasion of, the object and intention of this Act." Of course, these words were, in a certain sense, vague; but he apprehended that no words they could possibly find could be otherwise than vague. They must either say that any agreement should oust an Act of Parliament, or they must have some words of this kind, which were liable to discussion, and possibly to litigation. It was only a question as to which would lead to the least litigation, and which would be most clear to ordinary minds. What was wanted was an Act of Parliament which a farmer could understand as well as a lawyer; and he was of opinion that the words proposed by the lion. Member for Mid Lincolnshire were certainly as good — indeed, he (Mr. W. Fowler) thought they were better — than the words "fair and reasonable." If the hon. Gentleman went to a Division he should vote with him.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was glad to hear the observations which had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), because he (Mr. Chaplin) had never departed from the view which he entertained in regard to this matter. There was just one word which fell from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) upon which he would

  73
  like to make a remark. The hon. Gentleman said that the effect of this Amendment would be to water down the Bill. Now, he (Mr. Chaplin) had ascertained two matters in connection with this Amendment, which, perhaps, he ought to have mentioned to the Committee before. The first was, that the Amendment was unanimously accepted at a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, met for the purpose of discussing this Bill, and of making suggestions, with the view of strengthening it in the interests of the tenant. He also found that these words were taken from an original draft of one of the measures introduced by the Farmers' Alliance. Tinder the circumstances he did not think these words could be considered to weaken the Bill in the interest of the tenant farmers. The Committee were most anxious to come to a decision, and he would appeal to the Government to accept the Amendment, and put an end to what must necessarily be a prolonged controversy.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he sympathized with the wishes of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that there should be as much latitude as possible given to an agreement between landlord and tenant. They were told there was no standard set up of what was "fair and reasonable compensation;" but they had laid down in the Bill what he presumed was considered to be fair and reasonable compensation for improvements. He thought that the clear course to adopt in regard to this measure was to lay down that the provisions of this Bill formed a reasonable standard of compensation; that landlords and tenants might have power to enter into agreements for a higher rate of compensation than would be provided in the Bill; but that, in order to avoid litigation, and to make sure that farmers should have the benefit of this Bill, such as it was, a Proviso should be inserted, to the effect that farmers entering into agreements of the kind which was desired by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire should have the option of claiming compensation, either under the agreement, or under the Bill. If hon. Members were anxious to give farmers the benefit of the Bill, or something better, and also at the same time to avoid litigation, they ought to accept
  74
  the solution of the question he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) now proposed.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he stated last night that the Government had not heard, or received, from any quarter, any suggestion which they could prefer to the words to be found in the Bill; and he was bound to say that the reflection over night had not altered that opinion. The words "fair and reasonable," as he had stated last night, and as was stated just now, by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), were words known to the law. It was said they were not words understood by farmers. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Dodson) that they were clear and intelligible to the lay mind—at least, as intelligible as the words proposed to be substituted; and he could not agree that those hon. Gentlemen who had taken the view that the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope)—namely, "unless such agreement is contrary to, or in evasion of, the objects and intention of this Act," would be as clear as the words "fair and reasonable." It would be very difficult to say what agreement was contrary to, or in evasion of, the Act. It was necessary to have, in relation to these words "fair and reasonable," some standard upon which the Court could go. There was a standard provided by the Bill. The Bill laid down what the compensation should be—namely, the value of the improvements. There was thus a standard for the Court to go by; and, therefore, "fair and reasonable" compensation might be something which approximately gave to a tenant the value of his improvements, though it might be given in some other form than that which was provided under the terms of the Act. He presumed they were now discussing the Amendment of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), therefore he would not proceed to discuss the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which he presumed would be moved as a subsequent Amendment ["Go on!"] If it was the pleasure of the Committee that he should on, he would state why he preferred to retain the clause in the form in which it stood,

  75
  rather than adopt the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Baronet. The Amendment of the right hon. Baronet was to insert the words "the specific compensation provided by 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875' or other." Now, the effect of that would be to set up a double standard—a standard under the Bill, and a standard under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875. He was at a loss to know, if they provided in this clause that an agreement in the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, was to be considered a "fair and reasonable" standard, how the Court could set aside such agreement. If they were to put before the Court, by the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, an agreement embodying the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, he did not know how the Court could decide that it was not "fair and reasonable," or how it could set the agreement aside. He thought it would be unwise to adopt that Amendment in other respects. It would bring in all those petty restrictions with regard to manures and feeding stuff; and, therefore, he thought they had better leave in the clause the words "fair and reasonable," which were generally intelligible to the lay mind. To go back to the Amendment immediately before them—namely, that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), it had been stated that the words wore approved by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He (Mr. Dodson) had great respect for the Central Chamber of Agriculture as an authority on agricultural matters; but when they were drafting an Act of Parliament, it was the Government and the House of Commons that must be responsible, and must take upon them-solves the framing of a measure that would work, and be acceptable to the public at large. They could not, therefore, be content to accept what they thought worse words, because they had received the approbation of agricultural meetings.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the provisions of the Bill might be intelligible to lawyers; but what was feared was that they would not be intelligible to the public generally. The object of this and several other Amendments was, that there should be something done to preserve the landlords
  76
  and tenants who only desired to make bonâ fide agreements amongst them-solves from troublesome and costly lawsuits. He disclaimed, as he was sure his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) did, any desire to water down the Bill; but lie could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) that there was anything in the Bill which was a sufficient standard on which the valuers could work. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the provisions of the Bill were framed so as to leave everything in the vaguest possible way to the valuers, although, no doubt, the Bill had been, to some extent, made plainer by the Amendments that had been already introduced in the 1st clause, Now, his proposal, which he would venture very shortly to allude to, because the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to it, was that there should be some standard fixed on which both landlord and tenant might agree, and which, if once fixed, should be recognized by the Courts, when it came to be interpreted at the determination of the tenancy, as an agreement giving, in the words of the Bill, fair and reasonable compensation. Why had the right hon. Gentleman proposed an alternative agreement? It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman must have felt, in the first place, that the provisions of the Bill were, as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had already stated, so vague that landlords and tenants, in very many instances, would, in order to insure some certainty in the future, seek to make an agreement; and, in the second place, that the provisions of an Act of Parliament on this subject, whatever they might be, could not be universally applicable to every part of the country. He believed many landlords and tenants would desire, by a bonâ fide agreement, to relieve themselves from the vagueness of the Bill, and he proposed to enable them to know when they had succeeded in doing so. The Act of 1875 laid down, clearly and distinctly, what the improvements were for which the tenant was to be compensated.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had spoken of restrictions in the case of the use of artificial manures.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had described those as potty restrictions; but he did not believe that there were any petty

  77
  restrictions in the Act of 1875 at all. If, however, the Government considered that they were unfair restrictions, would the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy suggest in what particulars they were unfair; and would he go further than that, and amend his Bill, in order to make provision for them? Let the Committee turn to the rules relating to artificial manures and feeding stuffs. The Act of 1875 provided that, in awarding compensation, consideration should be given to the expenditure incurred in this way for a period of two years preceding, provided that the outlay during the last year of tenancy was not more than the average annual outlay for the three years preceding. That proposal it was intended, in a subsequent Amendment, he believed, to engraft upon the Bill; but what he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) desired was, that such an agreement as was contained in that provision should, if made, be held to be a valid agreement between the landlord and tenant. He certainly failed to see anything wrong in such a proposition, and it practically endorsed the proposal made by the Select Committee last year, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was Chairman. He believed that Committee unanimously agreed that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 should be adopted as one of the alternative methods of granting fair and reasonable compensation to a tenant. Why were the Committee to depart from that basis now? All he wanted was that there should be some possibility of landlords and tenants meeting each other on fair and suitable grounds. If they adopted the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), embodied in the Bill which his hon. Friend had introduced last year, and agreed that the landlord and tenant, having made rules by which compensation should be assessed, should submit those rules to arbitration in the manner provided by the Bill on the commencement of the tenancy; and if an agreement so sanctioned by the arbitrator were held to be valid at the termination of the tenancy, then he should be quite content. All he desired was, that there should be some possibility, on the part of the landlord and tenant, who desired to act fairly by each other, to relieve them-
  78
  selves and their representatives from the future litigation which this Bill certainly seemed to open out for them. All he wanted was, that there should be some opportunity of making a bonâ fide agreement, and that the landlord and tenant should be placed upon such a footing that they should be able to adopt that course. But, by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government absolutely declined, as far as he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) could see, to accept any Amendment; it declined to put any interpretation upon the words "fair and reasonable;" and it refused to insert words in the clause which should have the effect of enabling the parties to escape from litigation. He had no alternative left but to support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he objected to the Amendment which he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had placed upon the Paper, because it would have the effect of establishing the Lincolnshire custom—which the right hon. Gentleman admitted to be a good custom—throughout the whole of England. Now, his Amendment proposed nothing of the kind. It simply allowed a reference to that custom, and if anything different was required, it could be adopted; but he sincerely hoped that there would be, before the debate closed, a much more favourable expression of opinion from the Government than that which had yet fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Government would not persist in their refusal to consider an Amendment on. the subject.
  MR. DODSONsaid, be thought he ought to apologize for discussing two Amendments at once; but he was afraid he had been encouraged in doing so by the action of the Committee itself. The right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), however, proposed to go a step further, and ask the Committee to consider three Amendments, with a view to carrying out the object of the Bill of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). As the Amendment now before the Committee was the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had himself moved—namely, to insert certain words in the clause, and as he (Mr. Dodson) had already expressed his opinion that the

  79
  words proposed to be inserted could not be accepted, it was not necessary that he should carry the discussion further.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that an allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to the fact that it was proposed to add a clause, on the recommendation of the Farmers' Alliance, in order to prevent the Bill from leaving anything to be determined by a Court of Law. The proposal of the Farmers' Alliance contained an Arbitration Clause, and that clause was so clear in respect of compensation, that there could be no difficulty as to the interpretation of its terms. He (Mr. James Howard) objected not only to the words "fair and reasonable," but to the whole section; but on totally different grounds from those which had been urged. He objected to it, because it was an unnecessary interference with the form of contract; and he objected further to the present section, because it proposed to allow the provisions of the Act to be set aside. If the Act were just and reasonable, and its conditions were suitable, why should they allow any parties to set it aside? He would ask the Committee seriously to consider whether a Bill which provided for compensation to tenant farmers should involve the necessity of an appeal to a Court of Law? How could such a course inspire that confidence in the breasts of tenant farmers, necessary to induce them to make the outlay which it was the very object of the Bill to stimulate? He entirely agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in believing that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill) afforded a solution of the difficulty. The Bill introduced by that hon. and learned Member gave the tenant the option of claiming compensation under the provisions of the Act; but it did not involve the necessity of resorting to a Court of Law. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire that the Act of 1875 left nothing to be desired. He objected to the whole section as being a most one-sided one, and he believed that the entire object of the Bill would be defeated, unless the tenant and the landlord were
  80
  precluded from the necessity of resorting to a Court of Law.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that, as far as he could understand the matter, the words of the clause as they stood were the best. What the Committee had to consider were the improvements referred to in the Schedule of the Bill; and the question was whether any agreement between the landlord and the tenant for compensation, in respect of such improvements, should prevent the operation of the Bill? His opinion was that the only way to prevent the operation of the Bill was to provide for the payment of proper compensation. It was only fair that such provision should be made as far as the landlord and tenant were concerned; and he failed to see how they could better provide for it than by inserting the words "fair and reasonable," which were words well known and recognized by law, and ought not to give rise to much difficulty as far as he knew. Of course, either party might apply to a Court to decide what were fair and reasonable terms; and it was desirable, therefore, to provide, as far as possible, by the Bill, that the umpire or arbitrator should be a competent person. The working of all the clauses of the Bill would depend, to a great extent, upon the competency of the persons who were appointed to carry out the provisions of the measure. He, therefore, trusted that the provisions of the Bill would secure the nomination of properly-qualified and competent persons. If that were done, he certainly failed to see that there would be any difficulty in the matter.
  MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to proceed. He could not see the slightest difference between the words in the Bill and the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. He certainly failed to see any possible safeguard in the Amendment. If an impartial person were asked to read an agreement, and to decide whether it was fair and reasonable on the one hand, or whether such an agreement was contrary to or an evasion of the Act, he would be bound to express the same opinion. He therefore thought that the Committee were at present engaged on

  81
  a most unprofitable discussion; and he hoped the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, by withdrawing the Amendment, would allow the matter to drop, and enable the Committee to proceed to something which was of real importance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 221: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 219.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he now proposed to move, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 7, after the word "Act," to insert "the specific compensation provided by The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,' or other."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 7, after the word "Act," to insert the words "the specific compensation provided by The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875,' or other."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would not consider that he was wanting in respect to the Amendment if lie declined to discuss the questions which had been raised further.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was only one question he wished to ask—namely, that if the Government would not accept the Amendment, would they agree to the insertion of a clause in the Bill, which would define more accurately than at present the rules under which the arbitrators were to assess compensation under the Act? If that were done, the object he had in view would be entirely accomplished.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not undertake to insert in the Bill rules for the guidance of the valuers. He was bound to say that he thought the valuers were much more likely to know their own business than the House of Commons was able to teach them.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would accept a provision which he proposed to insert at the end of the Bill, in order to attach more certainty to the terms upon which the compensation was to be given?
  MR. DODSONsaid, the question be fore the Committee was the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and, no doubt, when the proper time arrived, the Committee would be prepared to give the proposition of the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) every consideration it deserved.
  MR. H. H. PAGETsaid, the decision at which the Committee had arrived by a large majority in no way interfered with the Amendment they were now discussing, although, no doubt, the question had been discussed, to a great extent, in considering the last Amendment before the Committee. At the same time, the decision of the Committee had been taken upon that Amendment, and upon that Amendment alone, and in no way had the Committee arrived at a decision in regard to the present proposition. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would see its way to the acceptance of the Amendment now before it; and, with the indulgence of the Committee, he would give one or two instances why, in his opinion, that course ought to be taken. Since the Act of 1875 it was notorious that thousands of agreements had been entered into, embodying, more or less, the provisions of that Act, in respect of the different districts to which those agreements applied. Every one of those agreements had now the force of law. The present Bill would destroy the validity of every one of them, and in future they would be left in a state of absolute uncertainty, because the Bill set up no standard which was to give the valuer anything whatever to go upon. Nay, even more than that—and he would ask the particular attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to this — by the Bill they virtually repealed the Act of 1875. Might not the valuer be likely to say—"Parliament has repealed that Statute, because it was a bad Act, and because its provisions were not applicable; and, therefore, I decline to consider that the sections of that Act afford any information to guide me in making my award in regard to the valuations." He did not think there could be any difference upon that point, and the effect of the present Bill would be to set aside every

  83
  one of the agreements made under the Act of 1875, no matter how well weighed, or how well considered they might have been. It would be a matter of the greatest possible advantage to a valuer that he should, at least, have before him one standard to go upon. He would say—"Here is an agreement made absolutely in accordance with the Act of 1875; it is a perfectly valid agreement; but here is another agreement which does not follow that Act word for word, or line by line, but it makes some minute alteration applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Now, he (Mr. R. H. Paget) contended that that, nevertheless, ought to be considered to be a valid agreement. If they took away the Act of 1875, let them see what it was that the Bill proposed to set up instead. It provided no standard whatever, and it was as clear as possible that everything would he landed in confusion. There would be a doubt thrown upon the validity of every ono of these agreements, no matter how bonâ fide they might have been entered into with the tenants; and he was bound to say that, in a great majority of cases, they would have been entered into after full discussion and consideration with the tenants. The consequence would be that, although they were fully prepared to recognize the spirit and justice of the Act of 1875, every agreement entered into under it would not be worth the paper upon which it was written; because at any moment it might be said that the agreement was not fair and reasonable. It was in the interests of the farmers of England that he strongly urged Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment now before them. If they did not, the consequence would be that both landlords and tenants in the future would be landed in a world of difficult litigation, the end of which it was impossible at present to foresee. He, therefore, made the strongest appeal in his power to Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment; and if he wanted to adduce any argument in favour of the proposition it was this — that there had been no meeting of farmers, either in connection with the Central Chamber of Agriculture or any other Chamber or place throughout the whole of England, where distinct exception had not been taken to this very clause,
  84
  owing to its vagueness and uncertainty, and to a strong feeling that it must eventually give rise to an enormous amount of litigation. He knew it was contended that, if these words were inserted, a Court of Law would be bound to interpret the Act of 1875 as being of universal application. He was of opinion that it would be impossible, in the face of the words themselves, to maintain that view. How would the words run as the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire proposed to introduce them?—not that the Act of 1875 should be the one and the only thing; but there were to come in afterwards the words "or other fair and reasonable compensation." The point the Committee had to consider was this. Wherever the Act of 1875 was applicable, that Act having been accepted ipso facto, an agreement entered into under it should be a legal and valid one; but if the Act had not been accepted, then it should not be applicable, if any other fair and reasonable arrangement could come in. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Government to give the farmers of England the credit of understanding their own business. He knew what they wanted, and he was bound to say that what they did want was that they should be able to bring in the Act of 1875 as a standard, and as something to help them in preventing future litigation.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he hoped that, after the lengthy discussion which had taken place upon the subject, the Committee would consent to arrive at a decision upon it. He fully recognized the fact that his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had not approached the subject with any hostility to the Bill, but with a desire to assist the Government in framing the clause. But if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to stand by their proposal, it must be considered that it was not only on the ground that they had no hostility to the proposal because it came from the other side of the House, but from a firm belief that the proposition now made in the Bill in its present shape was the best for the House and the country to accept. His great objection to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was that it set up a second

  85
  standard in opposition to that which was already contained in the Bill. The proposal of the Bill was that—
  "In the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy beginning after the commencement of this Act, any particular agreement in writing secures to the tenant for any improvement mentioned in the third part of the Schedule hereto, and executed after the commencement of this Act, fair and reasonable compensation, then in such case the compensation in respect of such improvement shall be payable in pursuance of the particular agreement, and shall be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act."
  But the right hon. Gentleman proposed to set up a second standard—namely, to provide that fair and reasonable compensation should be the specific compensation provided by the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875. Now, for his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) part, he had been under the impression that the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875,,had not been so universally accepted as to afford any indication that the tenant farmers or landlords were satisfied with it. Personally, he had never been one of those who had condemned the Act, or who had entertained any great objection to the compensation -provided under it; but he was certainly under the impression that the great bulk of the persons interested in the Act declined to adopt it, and that many of the landlords had given notice of their intention not to be bound by it, or to accept its provisions as a satisfactory standard of compensation. No doubt, in many parts of the country the standard of compensation had been accepted as a suitable one; but, in other parts, that had not been the case. For instance, in the county of Lincoln, although the standard laid down by the Act very nearly approached the Lincolnshire custom, it was not considered to be as satisfactory as that custom itself. Now, the Government had no desire to set up a second standard in the present Bill, and there were other objections to such a course—namely, the confusion which would occur in a Bill which virtually repealed the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, by incorporating in it certain clauses of that kind in a very inconvenient form. If the principle of the Amendment were adopted by the Committee, it would be necessary to specify the particular scale of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, in a new Schedule; and
  86
  any reference in such a manner would, he thought, be a most inconvenient mode of dealing with the question.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had admitted that the difficulty of form might be overcome by inserting a new Schedule in the Bill. He must confess that he was very much surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, in his opinion, the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 had failed, because it was not acceptable to the country at large. he had certainly heard, over and over again, from the right hon. Gentleman and others who sat on that side of the House, that the failure of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875—and it was a point in regard to which hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House had always been twitted—was due to the fact that it was not compulsory, and that wicked landlords prevented their tenants from coming under it. It was now objected to upon entirely different grounds, although the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works admitted that it was suitable to the relations between landlords and tenants in many parts of England. All that he asked was, that in those parts of the country where Her Majesty's Government deemed that it was suitable, the landlords and tenants should be at liberty to adopt it, and that if they did adopt it, Parliament should sanction their action, and not exclude them from the benefits of these definite provisions, which had already received the assent of the Legislature.
  MR. BULWERsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was labouring under an entire misapprehension when he told the Committee that the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would introduce a new standard of compensation. It would do nothing of the kind. All that it did was to ask the Committee that agreements made in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1975 should be considered to be fair and reasonable. The Amendment of his right hon. Friend did not add anything to the Act of Parliament; but it simply made that clear which otherwise would be obscure. It was simply a direction to

  87
  the valuer or to the Court to justify them in holding that an agreement entered into under the terms of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 was a valid agreement. The only object was to make that which was considered a fair and reasonable agreement compulsory. Therefore, the Amendment could only have a good effect. It was introducing nothing new, and certainly not establishing a second standard.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 167: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 220.)
  MR. BIDDELLrose to move the Amendment standing in his name upon the Paper, when—
  MR. JAMES HOWARDrose, and said, he had a similar Amendment upon the Paper, which preceded that of the hon. Member.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment which appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had already been disposed of by the previous Division.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he was of opinion that the circumstances of the case were not sufficient to warrant Parliament in upsetting the freedom of contract; and he should therefore propose to leave out the words "fair and reasonable." Perhaps his position would be better understood if he were to put a suppositious case. Suppose that a man made an agreement allowing his tenant 70 per cent for the oil cake consumed upon the farm. Now, that would not be reasonable; it would be a most excessive amount of compensation. At the same time, if a contract of that nature had been entered into, he did not see why it should be upset. On the other hand, if the contract was to allow 10 per cent for the use of oil cake, that would be excessively low and unreasonable; but, nevertheless, he did not think that the contract ought to be upset on that ground. His great object in proposing that Amendment was to uphold freedom of contract. At the same time, as he saw no chance whatever of carrying his Amendment, he thought the best thing he could do was to withdraw it, and not submit it to the decision of the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out "fair and reasonable compensation," and to insert—
  "Such compensation as, in the opinion of the Referees, is not less than is provided by this Act."
  His object was to provide that the reasonableness of the compensation should be determined by reference to the provisions of the Act. One great objection to the use of the word "reasonable" was that it required a lawsuit in order to determine what was reasonable; and he thought it would be better, therefore, to guide the arbitrator in his determination of what was fair and reasonable by referring him to the terms of the Act itself. He did not happen to know what was the policy of the Government in regard to this question. He did not know whether they intended to propose one general clause dealing with questions arising between the landlord and tenant under agreements. If they did, it would not be necessary to persist in this Amendment; because the object he had in view would be fully covered by a general clause in the Bill relating to disputes between the landlord and tenant. In submitting the Amendment, he was simply anxious to give the Government an opportunity of stating their views.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 8, leave out "fair and reasonable compensation," and insert "such compensation as, in the opinion of the Referees, is not less than is provided by this Act."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought he had stated the other night that these matters, under the Bill as it stood, might be questions of the construction of the agreement, and would have to be determined by a Court of Law. He doubted very much whether the determination of matters of that kind should be left to a referee or valuer. It might be a question altogether of the construction of the agreement; and he thought the effect of incorporating Clause 36 of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 would be to take all such questions to a Court of Law. He was inclined to think, from what passed the other night, that that would be the best course to follow. Perhaps there might be a question

  89
  whether minor disputes might not be settled by arbitrators — for instance, where the sum at issue was less than £100, and that questions of a higher amount should be subject to an appeal to a higher Court. But, as at present advised, he should prefer to leave the clause in the form in which it stood.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that, as he understood the Bill, the only resort, in nearly every one of these cases, would be to a Court of Law. There should be something in the Act to enable an ordinary valuer to decide the position in which an agreement might place the contracting parties; and he still hoped the Government would do something in that direction.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he apprehended that if any difference as to amount arose between the parties, it would be submitted, in the first instance, to arbitration.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, in his opinion, if matters had to be decided, he should prefer their being decided in open Court. The objection to references was that they were secret, and no one ever knew how they were settled. If a high class umpire could be secured, possibly some kind of arbitration might be arrangeable; but he believed it would be far better for the parties to go into open Court and be examined as witnesses.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he had been to may meetings where this matter had been discussed, and the farmers all put their finger upon this clause, and asked what was the meaning of "fair and reasonable compensation." It was not a term which conveyed anything definite to the agricultural mind, and he doubted whether it did to the legal mind. Farmers were entirely opposed to having this matter hung up in this manner; and, therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to accept an Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said these matters would be settled by valuation; but a valuation was one thing, and the point whether an agreement was fair and reasonable was another thing. "Fair and reasonable" was simply a legal opinion; it was a matter simply of judgment and custom, and therefore the two things were not the same.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, everybody seemed to treat an agreement as if it
  90
  were a matter of about two lines. Until an agreement was in the hands of the valuators they could not tell whether it was fair as a whole, or in part, or what part they objected to; and therefore he did not see that, as a matter of necessity, the matter would go a Court of Law. He hoped such a matter would not go to a Court of Law at all, and he thought the obvious way of dealing with the question was for the valuator to take the agreement into his own hands; and if he, on the part of the tenant or the landlord, took exception to any portion of it, an umpire could be called in to decide whether it was fair or not. There was a very good class of men—Inspectors under the Land Commissioners — and either landlords or tenants would rather have their decision on a practical point than that of a County Court Judge, who knew nothing about agriculture, and nothing about agreements. Therefore, he thought there was a great deal in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), for anything that would keep landlords and tenants out of a Court of Law would be a great advantage.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he hoped the Government would not give way upon this point. It appeared to him that the Amendment involved this—that not only when a dispute rose, but in every case if compensation was secured by private agreement, it must be made a matter of reference. That, he thought, would be most objectionable; because, although he had great respect for valuers, very nice questions might arise; and, while he was as unwilling as the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire (Sir Thomas Acland) to go into Courts of Law, yet, if difficult and delicate questions arose, it would be far better that they should be settled in Courts of Law than by valuers, who had very little experience in reference to such matters.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would go to a Division, unless the Government gave a promise to introduce some words to the same effect as the Amendment. He was satisfied that the Bill would be a failure, for there was no class of people in the country more afraid of law than tenant farmers. As to valuers, they were constantly called upon to settle difficulties

  91
  arising from agreements, and to determine what they meant.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the valuer had only to determine what was fair and reasonable; but if the matter went to a Court of Law, lie would not express any opinion, for it was a question of practice, and he would refer it to someone of skill to determine.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he hoped the Government would do everything in their power to avoid the necessity of a tenant having to go to a Court of Law. He knew of nothing that was a greater detriment to the community than that landlords and tenants should go to law; and if the words of this section in any way encouraged litigation, they would be very prejudicial. As the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had said, there was no class in the community who regarded with distrust and suspicion the action of Courts of Law and deprecated litigation so much as tenant farmers. He hoped, therefore, that when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) considered this clause, he would be able to introduce some specific provision which should render any appeal to Courts of Law unlikely.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, he hoped the Government would not give way. The Committee had, spent several hours last night on this matter, and he thought the argument which had had most weight was, that the words were well known in legal documents, and, so to speak, were capable of legal interpretation. Now, however, it was proposed to refer this delicate question to hap-hazard valuers, who, whatever their other merits, were not very well informed on such matters as this.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that another objection to throwing this matter into the hands of valuers—namely, the question of whether the compensation was fair and reasonable — would arise on every occasion; but if it was left to a Court of Law the question would only arise in extreme cases.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON, in moving to insert at the end of the clause—
  "Provided always, That where such agreement in writing secures specific compensation prescribed under 'The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875,' or such other compensation as is
  92
  generally equivalent to the same, according to the custom of the locality, such compensation shall be deemed fair and reasonable within the meaning of this Act,"
  said, that when this question was discussed last night at the instance of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks- Beach), he raised the point whether, in the case of a farm or an estate under the Act of 1875, compensation upon these terms would be held to be fair and reasonable; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) expressed the opinion that it would be so held, in most cases, except in such cases where the cultivation or custom of the district made it unreasonable or insufficient. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) suggested that some Proviso, embodying the opinions which had been put forward by the right hon. Baronet, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and himself should be proposed. He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) believed that would be the easiest and simplest way of getting some standard of compensation, and doing away with constant references to Courts of Law. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) had just told the Committee that what tenant farmers dreaded most was litigation. He quite agreed in that. They were afraid of uncertainty, and would rather trust to the evils they had than fly to others they knew not of; and nothing would more weaken the effect of this Bill than matters being left over. Tenant farmers had pointed oat this element of uncertainty at many meetings. The words "fair and reasonable" conveyed nothing to them, and what a landlord might consider "fair and reasonable" a tenant might not; and a definition or standard incorporated in the Bill would greatly simplify matters. There was also an element of elasticity desirable, for it was impossible to draw any agreement which would suit every county.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, at end of Clause, to add these words—"Provided always, That where such agreement in writing secures specific compensation prescribed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875, or such other compensation as is generally equivalent to the same, according to the cultivation or custom of the locality, such compensation shall be deemed fair and reasonable within the meaning of this Act."—(Sir Baldwyn Leighton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment, and hoped it would not be pressed.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHappealed to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, to add at the end of the Clause—"Where, under a tenancy commencing before the passing of this Act, either no rent or a merely nominal rent was made payable at the commencement of the tenancy, and thenceforth during either the whole or a portion only of the term of the tenancy, in consideration, either expressed or implied, of the tenant making any reclamation or other improvement, then the tenant shall be deemed, by means of abatement of his rent, to have received compensation for such reclamation or other improvement, and the compensation so received by him shall be deemed substituted for compensation under this Act."—(Mr. A. F. Egerton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. DODSONthought the case dealt with by this Amendment was met by Sub-section A of Clause 6.
  MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that, if that was the case, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he desired to raise a very important point, upon which he had spoken on a previous Amendment. he proposed to add at the end of the clause—
  "Provided, That a landlord and tenant may, before executing any such particular agreement, concur in referring the terms thereof to an umpire, to be appointed in manner provided by section twenty-three of 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875;' and an agreement which has been found by such umpire to secure such fair and reasonable compensation as aforesaid, and has been signed by the landlord and tenant and countersigned by the umpire, shall be deemed to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant."
  All that he desired, by this Amendment, was to enable the landlord and tenant, if they chose, to do at the commencement of a tenancy what the Bill would enable them to do at its termination. The compensation under this Bill must, of course, be settled by the valuers at a certain amount, but according to certain rules. He did not interfere with the
  94
  amount at which the compensation was to be fixed; but it would be necessary that an agreement should contain certain rules as to the mode in which it should be computed, and he wished that the two persons who desired to make an agreement of this kind should be permitted to refer it to an impartial umpire of the independence contemplated by the Act of 1875, who should decide whether or not the agreement provided the fair and reasonable compensation intended by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words—"Provided, That a landlord and tenant may, before executing any such particular agreement, concur in referring the terms thereof to an umpire, to be appointed in manner provided by section twenty-three of 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875;' and an agreement which has been found by such umpire to secure such fair and reasonable compensation as aforesaid, and has been signed by the landlord and tenant, and countersigned by the umpire, shall be deemed to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the tenant." — (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that, in his opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) was going to oppose every one of these Amendments, it was time to report Progress, and let this question stand over till the Amendment could appear on the Paper and the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of judging whether he could accept it or not.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again this day.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked, Whether it was intended to proceed with the Bill at the Evening Sitting?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the Government had good hopes of being able to proceed with it; but they were not entirely masters of the situa-

  95
  tion. It would entirely depend upon the hour at which it might be reached. Unless it was reached by 11 o'clock, it would not be proceeded with.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought there ought to be a definite understanding as to whether or not the Bill would be taken at the Evening Sitting, as it was rather unreasonable that hon. Gentlemen should be kept in doubt upon the subject till so late an hour.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would, to some extent, depend upon hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper for that evening. He had done the very best be could in the matter, and believed the feeling of the House was generally in favour of proceeding with the Bill, and that it would not be satisfactory to waste a night.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he thought that great dissatisfaction would be felt if the Bill were proceeded with to-night.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he would point out that many hon. Gentlemen had gone away under the impression that the discussion would not be renewed till Monday.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would ask the Government not to place the Order on the Paper for the Evening Sitting.
  The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.

    TENURE OF LAND—PEASANT PROPRIETARY.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS, in rising to move, as an Amendment—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in order to increase the productiveness of the land, to arrest the decline of the rural population, and to promote the interests
    96
    of the commercial industries of the Country, that provision should be made by Parliament to facilitate the acquirement by agricultural labourers, tenant farmers, and others, of proprietary rights in agricultural land,"
    said, that in the direction which he indicated by his Resolution would be found an important means of arriving at a permanent settlement of the Land Question. The present land system which obtained in this country, and whose tendency was to place land in the hands of an ever-decreasing number of proprietors, had been abolished in every other part of the world, and had entirely broken down as far as England was concerned. Its effect had been such that at the present time one fourth of the land in England and Wales was in the hands of less than 1,000 persons; while, owing to the existence of that system, the farmers of this country were unable to compete either with the American farmers, or with the small land proprietors on the Continent, the result of which was that the farmers in England had fallen into a very bad condition, and labourers, notwithstanding their increased wages, were relatively little better off than they were before. In 1880, out of 1,366 bankruptcies, 9 per cent of the whole were farmers. Then, taking a lower class, that of the agricultural labourers, they were still in a starvation circle, and practically cut off from the land, for the poor farm labourer had no possibility of becoming proprietor of the land he tilled. The effect of all this was to reduce the productiveness of the land. It was said that the produce of all our farms and homesteads was £300,000,000 per annum, and public authorities on that question confirmed the statement that the productiveness of the country could be enormously increased under another land system. For instance, Sir John Laws, in a speech at Berwick, said there was no doubt the
    "Soil of this country could produce far more wheat and meat for the support of the population than it did—if not, indeed, all that is required to support the population."
    Countries like Friesland and Belgium, supporting a dense population, sent us large quantities of produce, and the supplies derived from other foreign lands were largely increasing. Political economists said—"Why not buy food in the cheapest market?" That question, he thought, ought not to be asked with regard to commodities for the pro-

    97
    duction of which our soil was suitable, when there were in this country tens of thousands of unemployed and insufficiently - employed people, and, at the same time, tens of thousands of untilled acres, and when the demand for food was always ahead of the supply. During the past 10 years labour on farms had diminished in the majority of cases to only a quarter, or half the number of men, the production having decreased in like proportion. How was it that the productiveness of the soil had diminished? Many farmers talked of bad weather and want of sunshine; but, in many cases, the foul condition of the land was largely the cause of the unproductiveness of the soil. With regard to the rural population, the last Census allowed that it had extensively decreased in almost every parish throughout the country. The number of paupers, however, had not decreased. That showed that a spasmodic increase of prosperity in trade was no true index of the general welfare of the country. What had become of these labourers, who had been "squeezed off the land." Some, and a considerable number, had emigrated, and political enonomists said they had become our customers, because they were cultivating the waste lands in Queensland and Canada. But they would surely have been as good customers, if allowed to remain here and cultivate the waste lands of Devonshire and Warwickshire. What would our wealth do for us, if we got rid of the very backbone of our country, which these men were, by emigration? Then, large numbers of those who were reared in agricultural districts sought their fortunes in towns, where the competition for the means of sustaining life became proportionately keener, and where they were obliged to herd together in dense masses, and ultimately swelled, by the displacement of others who had grown older and less able to labour, the list of paupers. That was a workman's question; and, though they might have their trades unions, strikes, and regulation of out-put, so long as there was this perpetual influx into the great towns they would never have anything but competition in wages. The result to the towns very few knew; but he feared the people of this country would find it out before long if they did not mind what they were about. The condition
    98
    of the large towns of this country was such as would astonish many men. During the severe winter of 1878–9 he happened to be Mayor of Birmingham; and he found that there were empty cupboards and starvation in the homes, not of chronic paupers, but of very respectable men of the industrial class. That showed him that a few weeks of illness, or of frost, sent them down to pauper condition. If we had an English Zola to put before us a picture of our great towns, people would be very much surprised, especially considering that we were the wealthiest nation in the world. And now he came to the remedy, which was that—
    "Provision should be made by Parliament to facilitate the acquirement by agricultural labourers, tenant farmers, and others, of proprietary rights in agricultural land;"
    and he claimed for it that it would, to a large extent, remove these evils. His proposal generally meant occupying-ownership. According to an eminent writer, peasant proprietary was an art—as far as England was concerned, it was a lost art. It was the art of living and saving on a small farm, and making the land produce more by the superior industry and care of the man who was proprietor of it. No doubt an easy system of land transfer would do a great deal; but they were not likely to have that for a long time, seeing how difficult it was to get the little that was now asked for. There was plenty of land in the market. A writer in The Times of July 5 said that there were 50,000 acres advertised in one day, and he had no doubt that there was five times that amount in the market; but who were the buyers? They were landowners, capitalists, almost anybody but the cultivator. The fact was, as a rule, he had not the money; and while land was bought, not for the primary object of cultivation and production, but as an element of social distinction and importance, there would always be higher prices given for it. And that brought him to the last proposal in his Resolution—that the State should assist certain classes in the purchase of it. In other words, his remedy for the ills of the country was to create a peasant proprietary by State aid. That principle was not new. It had been successfully carried out in the Church Act of 1869. It was carried out by Stein in Prussia, the

    99
    burden of whose argument was, that he had a duty towards the people of the country; and that was an argument which he (Mr. Jesse Collings) too, in his feeble manner, would wish to place before the House. The principle had been lately advocated by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) with reference to Ireland. The noble Lord proposed that the entire purchase money should be advanced to any suitable buyer at 3½ per cent, to be paid back, both interest and capital, at 5 per cent in 35 years. For his own part, he would not go so far as the noble Lord. He thought one-fourth would be sufficient for the State to advance. If his proposal were accepted, it would be necessary for the State to advance money; and he would insist that one-fourth, or, at any rate, a substantial sum, should be found by the purchaser, in order to secure that they had the right man—a man who had an interest in seeing that the price at which ground was bought was not too high, and to secure the public against loss by the transaction. Again, he did not agree with the noble Lord as to the machinery. The noble Lord would have central authorities. But a central authority would require a large Staff, and would not be as economical as a local authority. Everything that concerned the social well-being of the people must be better done by local authorities than by Imperial authorities; and the more important the duties of local authorities were made, the higher would be the qualifications of the men who would undertake them. They were promised County Boards, and he would lot them raise money for this purpose on the security of the rates. The credit of some Municipal Corporations was so good that they could borrow money almost as cheaply as the State. In the first place, he would allot a piece of ground to each village school, where the children might learn the art of raising their own vegetables, and acquire a love for the soil, which would keep them in the rural districts, and so check the overflowing of the rural populations into the great towns. He would limit the farms so bought to 120 acres. There were, however, a smaller class, the best of the labourers and villagers, who had saved a little money, small tradesmen, and others, whom it was desirable to reach. In order
    100
    to go down lower, and moot the wants of these classes, be would allow the local authorities to buy estates, and on them do nothing but make roads and drain the land, and then let it out in perpetual tenancies to suitable persons in plots from five to 20 or 30 acres. The local authorities could charge 1 per cent over the interest they paid on the money they borrowed. This difference of 1 per cent, invested at 3 per cent per annum, would, in 47 years, recoup the whole amount; and the local authority would be the owners of the ground rents in perpetuity. He should forbid mortgages altogether on those national farms, or limit them to a small extent; but he would allow proprietors to borrow on their stock, furniture, or personal security. The holders would be virtual owners, subject to a ground rent, which would be collected with the rates. It would be said this was a system of land nationalization, and so it was. The remarkable book of Mr. Henry George was being studied so much, and the opinions contained in it were going so far and wide into the minds of the working classes of the country, that it must be answered by some system of Land Reform, which, while just to all parties, would restore, in some shape or another, the land to the people. Unless that was done, in a few years land nationalization on Mr. Henry George's lines would be found to be a formidable power, and the landlords were too few to protect themselves from such an agitation. It was objected that there would be sub-letting; but that he would prohibit; if a man could not cultivate the land let to him, he must sell. It was objected that, in France and Belgium, land hunger and acquisition drove the occupier to the money lender, and that mortgages reduced productiveness; and he would, as he had already said, forbid mortgages altogether in these cases; the holder might borrow on any other security, but the land should be free from debt. It was questioned whether men would pay 3 or 4 per cent if there were landowners who would be content with 2½. Owners who had held any length of time were getting more than 2½ per cent; but the advantages of ownership to the cultivator more than compensated for the difference. The soil would, in fact, become the savings bank of the cultivator. On that point

    101
    he could produce several instances, in which farms cultivated by their owners had been greatly improved in value through increased productiveness, while there was no such advance in the surrounding farms occupied by tenants. One small owner wrote to him that some people thought Lord Derby was drawing the long bow when he said the production of the soil could be doubled but experience showed that this could be done easily. He had a mass of evidence on every point, and he believed that evidence would fully justify his claim, that this system would cause a larger amount of capital to be invested in the purchase of the land and in its cultivation; that it would increase the productiveness of the soil, both by improved cultivation and by the return of the farmers' savings to the land; that it would give new life to villages and market towns; that it would check the influx into the towns; that it would benefit industry by increasing the demand for manufactured goods; that it would diminish pauperism, and promote the comfort and well-being of the whole population. The existing evils, he maintained, were tending to a war of classes, which he, for one, wished to avoid. He would ask men who read of Social and Communistic doings in Lyons and Marseilles why those doings never went further in Franco than the large towns? It was because they were met by 5,000,000 owners of the soil. In England, there were a few lauded proprietors, and a vast proletariat, larger than any that existed in Europe. These asked for a fair share of the comforts, enjoyments, and material benefits of life. Parliament had to find oat how that could be brought about; and he believed the proposal he had introduced, if accepted, would go a long way towards solving these social questions, and which, if it did not solve them altogether, would, he believed, add to the comfort of the people, and to the safety of the nation generally. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTON, in rising to second the Motion, said, that in doing so he did not wish it to be understood that he was at one with his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) as regarded all the details of his scheme, but rather that he fully agreed
    102
    with the broad principle he had laid down in his Resolution. He sincerely regretted the necessity under which they had been obliged to bring so important a subject forward at so late a period of the Session. He should not attempt, therefore, to detain the attention of the House for other than a short time. In the few remarks he should make he would address himself to those who had no objection to peasant proprietary on principle, but doubted whether the State could properly aid in bringing it about. It was, of course, obvious that the first step in the matter was to cheapen the legal transfer of land. That, he was aware, was a matter about which there was no difficulty in agreeing; but as it would have to be preceded by the simplification of title, it must take a considerable time before it could be generally adopted. There was one argument against the Resolution—namely, with regard to the extent to which it would compromise the State; but that, he thought, should be met by a very strict limit as to the size of the holding above which tile State should not render assistance in the process of purchase; and for these reasons—first, the vicissitudes of agriculture accompanying holdings of a certain size, where the agriculturist looked to his land for corn and produce to sell, rather than for his own consumption. Small holdings cultivated by the personal labour of the owner, and looking to small items for profit, were not affected by foreign competition, but by the increasing home market, and the increase of population. It was reasonable to suppose that what was called agricultural depression would not affect them. Secondly, the man who could afford to buy a small farm had no claim to State assistance. As to the risk of the State, he thought they might consider it would ensue in two ways—namely, through the insolvency of the purchaser, and the fact that a political agitation might ensue. As regarded the insolvency, that might be considered from two points of view — first, how individual character stood in that respect; and, secondly, the results of experience from the working of the "Bright Clauses" in Ireland. In evidence of the first, he would take the amount standing to the credit of the working classes in the savings banks, which amounted to no less than

    103
    £35,000,000; and, in regard to the second, those who studied the Returns would see that the "Bright Clauses" had, so far as the security of the State was concerned, proved a success, and were a proof of the practicability of the scheme, and of its ultimately beneficial effects. Another objection raised to the proposition of his hon. Friend was that, after all, the markets at the present moment were flooded with land, that there was any amount of land to be bought; and why should not the principle be carried out through the agency of private Companies, through bankers, and in other ways, and that the State should not interfere in the matter? As regarded that point, it must be borne in mind that the labourer was, of necessity, never in a position to make any large contribution of money until, probably, he attained an age when the desire to become a freeholder had entirely passed. It must be borne in mind, too, that the security of the money invested in these Joint Stock Companies was, as was proved by a recent Parliamentary Return, not of a very high order; that those which were already in existence had not proved generally successful; for while he did not wish to infer that there were not many sound ones, still there were a sufficient number of rotten ones to dissuade the working man front investing, and also to seriously damage, in the case of those who had lost their savings, the general cause of thrift. Besides, no private Company could carry on its business as the State could in the scattered parts of England. He quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend that the agricultural question was both a political and economic one.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    VISCOUNT LYMINGTON, in continuation, said, that it was not only the insecurity of prices and of seasons that had brought the agricultural question into acute relief; it was from the foundation of our landed system that the troubles and anxieties of the agricultural question arose. He believed it was for political and social reasons that the agitation of the present moment was raised in regard to the land; and he entirely endorsed the view of his hon. Friend that it was
    104
    not wise for them to shut their eyes to the cry, indistinct as to its practical methods, and unreasoning as it was, of the nationalization of the land. That was a great fact, and would be a great political force in the future; and the only way we should be able to meet it would be to satisfy just and equitable demands by legislation. Bearing all this in mind, he would ask—Was it in the interests of those who wished to retain the rights of landed property to suppose that this great movement was to be diverted from dangerous and turned into safe channels by any mere tinkering of the relations between landlord and tenant, or by any attempt to establish in this country the plausible but conflicting principle of dual ownership. On the other hand, what they saw of the agitation proceeding among the labouring class must convince them that the change proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich was what they wished. He believed that the popular forces of this country were not more united upon any question than that of the enfranchisement of the labourers. That was a legacy which could not be long deferred from the Reform Bill of 1867. But, while he looked on the county franchise as a necessary consequence of that Reform Bill, it was a leap of increased uncertainty and far greater boldness. If the late Lord Derby considered the Reform Bill of 1867 a leap in the dark, would not the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourer be an infinitely greater one? In the case of the Bill of 1867, the class that were enfranchised were attached to diverse interests and occupations, identical only in their belonging to the same standard of living and of social conditions. The objections which were raised against the Reform Bill of 1867 were simply the commonplaces against a popular and democratic suffrage; but the enfranchisement of the labourer, he confessed, involved a grave political risk. We were about to transfer—and the fact was inevitable—potentially, even it were not at once realized, the political power of the agricultural constituencies into the hands of a class who were not affected by any association or any interest of a substantial character towards the prosperity of the permanent rights of landed property, and this at a time when the Land Question occupied a most prominent

    105
    place in the public mind, and lent itself to all kinds of ill-considered and revolutionary schemes. 'Whatever might be thought of the nationalization of the land, or of the proposals of Mr. George, it was impossible to be oblivious to the Socialistic ideas in regard to land which were permeating the minds of the people and the literature of' intellectual rather than practical reformers, both in journalism and magazines. In conclusion, he would say that meetings had been held in support of the Resolution of his hon. Friend in various parts of the country. The Agricultural Labourers' Union had held a large meeting at which they passed an unanimous decision in its favour; and it was because he believed it would confer an immense boon upon the country, and one that was desired, that lie should give it his hearty support.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in order to increase the productiveness of the land, to arrest the decline of the rural population, and to promote the interests of the commercial industries of the Country, that provision should be made by Parliament to facilitate the acquirement by agricultural labourers, tenant farmers, and others, of proprietary rights in agricultural land,"—(Mr. Jesse Collings,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was actuated by no feeling of hostility to the view that, in many respects, it was desirable to increase the number of landed proprietors in this country. If he consulted his own feelings and interests, lie should lend whatever influence he could bring to bear to the support of the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings), because he (Mr. Chaplin) did not scruple to say that it was in that direction that he, as a landed proprietor, looked in a large degree for safeguards against what might be called the predatory instincts of men like the hon. Member and many of his Friends. In spite of that inclination, however, he could not vote for the Resolution. The Motion of the hon. Member desired an increase of the productiveness of the soil, the arrest of the decline of rural populations, and the promotion of the in-
    106
    terests of the commercial industries of the Kingdom. This was to be done by what the lion. Member spoke of as the establishment of a peasant proprietary; but the whole object the hon. Member had in view was included in the first of the three portions into which he divided it; for if the productiveness of the soil were increased the rest would follow. The Earl of Derby, he (Mr. Chaplin) know, had made a speech a long time ago in which he declared that the productiveness of the soil might be doubled; but he denied that the noble Earl had ever said it might be doubled with profit. How did the hon. Member establish his proposition that the creation of a peasant proprietary would increase the productiveness of the soil? The hon. Member attributed the decline of the rural population to the present system of land tenure; when that decline was due to a variety of circumstances, prominent among which was the period of agricultural depression through which we had passed. The hon. Member produced a formidable indictment, if it were true, against the English land system; but he offered nothing in support of that indictment, but certain statistics of foreign imports. For that purpose they were absolutely worthless, unless they could be compared with the whole home produce of the country. The hon. Member would lead the House to believe that agriculture was far more flourishing abroad than in England. He (Mr. Chaplin) denied that that was the ease; but supposing it were so, and that the favourable view which the hon. Member took of peasant proprietors in other countries were sustained by facts, it would not prove that the system would prosper in this country. The hon. Member ought to have told the House that agriculture abroad flourished under a system of protection, which was denied to this country. The hon. Member complained that on the Royal Agricultural Commission there were no representatives of labour. To that he (Mr. Chaplin) would reply, that no man was more anxious than Lord Beaconsfield that the labourers should be represented directly on that Commission; but, though several persons were suggested, it was found that not ono of them commanded the confidence of the labourers. The evidence given before the Commission dealt largely with the question of peasant pro-

    107
    prietors abroad, and the latest information on the subject was undoubtedly to be found in the Reports of Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Sutherland, Sub-Commissioners. In Mr. Sutherland's Report, which referred specially to Western and Central France, he said that in France there were 2,826,388 properties which were worked directly by their owners, the average area of each property being 15 acres. He then went on to describe the condition of the owners in the following words:—
    "The peasant proprietor exists rather than lives. He has no pride in keeping himself or his cottage clean and presentable. His food chiefly consists of bread made from buckwheat or rye, although wheaten bread is gradually coming into more general use. He very rarely tastes meat, except in the form of pork. His drink, if in a wine country, is made from water poured over the already pressed grapes, from which the juice has been extracted and sold. … The peasant owners, examples of industry and thrift carried to excess, slave to get as much out of the land as it can be made to yield, starving themselves and their family to add something to their hoard.; their wives becoming prematurely old. from field labour, and bent from carrying heavy loads of fodder to the cow at home, content if at the year's end the tale of silver pieces be increased … at a sacrifice of all that makes life worth living for."
    Mr. Jenkins in his Report compared the produce of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark. He said he agreed. with Mr. Littlehurst's opinion, and especially with the statement that the peasants of Franco were indebted to the extent of £480,000,000 sterling. Mr. Jenkins, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Production Abroad as compared with Production at Home, in answer to Question 68,106, said that the compulsory division of land in France he found diminished the produce considerably. And, in answer to Question 67,899, he said—
    "If you go to a foreign farmer, and say that you have gone to him to learn something of the agriculture of the country (he will know at once you are an Englishman), he will laugh at you and say—'All the world goes to England to learn farming; you must be making fun of me.' "
    Question 67,900 was—
    "Speaking generally, there is more food produced in England. upon the same acreage than there is in the foreign countries which you have visited?"
    His answer was, "Quite so." That was a conclusive reply to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, that the land sys-
    108
    tem in England had broken down. With regard to the serfs who were made landlords and peasant proprietors in Russia, a writer in The Quarterly Review) of April, 1881 (p. 446), said—
    "From one end of the country to the other, the so-called. peasant proprietors—that Radical idea of the agrarian states—are in a state of semi-starvation; while in several of the Volga Provinces, once the richest in agricultural produce, the starvation has assumed the form of a widespread famine, which the Government is engaged. in alleviating by considerable grants of money …"
    But the hon. Member for Ipswich appeared not to know that they had peasant proprietors at home; but the fact was, that is Lincolnshire and other counties there were a large number of small freeholders, and another Sub-Commissioner, Mr. Druce, was appointed to report upon their condition in a large number of counties. Mr. Druce was well known in the agricultural world, and at one time had, he believed, been Secretary to the Farmers' Alliance. In his Report of the 1st of January, 1881, on the acquisition and tenure of small holdings, especially in Lincolnshire, and the Island of Axholme, he said—
    "I came across one case, and. I think it was the only one, where the owner of a six-acre plot, with a house and. buildings upon it, had been able to buy his land without borrowing any money; he had been a farm servant. … Under the influence of good times, he had. added to his little farm some 18 acres, which he rented; but he had done no good with them, he said, and. he wished he was back again at farm work."
    Dealing with the condition of the small freeholders and the character of their cultivation, Mr. Druce said—
    "The small freeholders are poor, and now especially so. … Vast numbers of them are in arrear with the interest on their mortages. … Everybody of whom I inquired, in fact, told. me the same thing. The small proprietors were in a very bad way."
    Again, he said—
    "It was universally agreed that the harvest of the last few years, including 1880, had teen very deficient, and that the prices had been so low as to be ruinous. … From all quarters I heard the same account. The small freeholders themselves told. me so. Persons who live among them and know them well all said the same thing. Times were very bad with them. … Many led me to infer that their land was mortgaged, without actually saying so, by such answers as the following to my question:—'Does the land belong to you?' 'Well, it belongs to me and. the monkey.' Monkey means mortgagee."

    109
    As to individual instances, Mr. Druce gave the following, of course suppressing names. This was the case of one man, who said—
    "He could not make both ends meet; he was much better off as labourer, but bought his land, because he considered that his master was getting 3d. a-day out of him, which, he thought, he ought to get himself."
    Here was another—
    "B., at Foxhill, was an occupier of 13 acres at a rent of £40 a-year. His place was kept very neat and tidy, and his land looked well farmed and managed. With the exception of occasional help, he did all his farm work himself, and 'worked,' he said, 'harder than any labourer,' and working so was just able to make both ends meet. he thought he would have been better off had he remained a farm labourer. he would have been able to save money, and would have worked less."
    Now, with regard to their cultivation, as compared with the cultivation carried on under the old system, which the hon. Member despised. There was a great deal of evidence on the question, which the hon. Member would have done well to study before introducing the subject. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: I have studied it.] Then, why did not the hon. Member bring it forward? That showed a want of candour on the part of the lion. Member, who had deliberately suppressed it, and made it the more necessary for himself to submit that evidence to the House. Mr. Druce, speaking of the absence of live stock on small holdings, said—
    "The absence of live stock on the small holdings is very striking. A sheep is rarely seen. I myself saw none, nor do there appear to lie many cows or other horned stock on them; there are, indeed, some, but neither dairying or cattle breeding or feeding is carried on to any extent in the Isle."
    And in answer to questions proposed, as to which class grows the most produce, and which cultivates the land to the greater advantage, Mr. Druce said—
    "In my opinion these questions must be answered in favour of the large farmers. From my observations, I cannot give any other answer. … On no large farm, on no moderate-sized farm did I see land so foul and so poorly cultivated as are some of the small occupations. As a rule, the lands in the occupation of the large farmers were well drained and well cared for; but, on the lands of the small owners, I saw the water standing in the furrows, no trenches cut to let it off, the ditches full of weeds, choking up the outfalls, and reeds and other plants in many places growing in the furrows among the corn."
    A vast number of circulars were sent
    110
    out by Mr. Druce asking for information with regard to the condition of these men; and of the answers he said—
    "These answers were, with one exception, only, to the effect that in the districts where peasant proprietors existed they were less prosperous than tenant farmers."
    Although it was most desirable that this important subject should be discussed in the House of Commons, yet he (Mr. Chaplin) must say he could not conceive what there was in the condition of peasant proprietors in this country to give satisfaction, or to produce the desire to make peasant farming general. he had conversed with many of them and inspected their farms; and, as the result of a long and intimate personal acquaintance with them, he was reluctantly obliged to confess that he was convinced that their position was one of hardship, toil, trial, and trouble, which he very much regretted to see, and which he could not conscientiously endeavour to impose upon a larger part of the population. His opinion was that the proposition of the hon. Member was; radically unsound, as well as economically mischievous, and founded upon information which he believed to be entirely erroneous.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, that lie agreed so far with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), that he considered it to be the true interest of every landlord to make the land as free as possible, to place no impediments in the way of its division, or else the people would divide it for themselves. However, as to tenants buying their holdings, and paying interest to the Government or local authority on the purchase money at the rate of 5 per cent, when land at present only yielded 2½ per cent, it was simply nonsense; the agricultural community would be bankrupt in a few years. If his tenants were to pay him 5 per cent, what would become of them? He (Mr. D. Davies) knew something of the matter, and he could say that the men who lived on their own farms in Wales were not fit to be in the same parish with those who were tenants; the owners were the worst farmers in the country. A discouraging element in the case was the eagerness there was to sell farms, either on the part of widows, or on that of elderly people, who wished to divide their property among their children. He was pestered

    111
    with letters from people who were anxious to sell, for those reasons. If the hon. Member for Ipswich would spend a week with him, lie would take him to scores of such farms. He should like to see some such scheme as that of the hon. Member carried out; but it seemed to him to be a hopeless one, for he could not see that it was of any use spending 30 s. on the land in order to realize 20 s., and yet that was all it amounted to. He had in his employ 4,000 men, most of whom had left the land, and they would not go back to it for the wages they could earn upon it. Millions of money could be spent by landlords in building proper houses for their men; but it was useless to try and tempt them from the towns unless you offered them a greater inducement than 8s. a-week. There was another remark of the hon. Member which was most absurd. He wanted good buildings erected on farms of £50 a-year. If he would try it himself for two years or so, and spend £50,000 or £60,000 of his own money on them, on land which would not pay for the expense, it would soon cure him. If he would only try it, he would very soon change his story. All these statements about the grand crops turned out were all theory. The poor lands were going out of cultivation, because labourers could not be got at a low enough rate of wages to work them at a profit. These poor lauds might be drained and made to grow a little grass; but that was all they were good for. On the other hand, good land was worth as much now as over it was. Then, again, speaking from his own experience, when people had their farms, they wanted to sell them, and that was the most discouraging thing of all. In short, the hon. Member's Motion was simply ridiculous, and he (Mr. D. Davies) hoped he would trouble his brains with something better than what he was doing by this Resolution. He regarded the remarks of the hon. Member as mere theory, the result of a want of practical acquaintanceship with the subject, and he looked upon the whole scheme as rubbish and nonsense, ridiculous and absurd.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought the task of enticing men receiving good wages in town to work in the country on clay land was hopeless enough; but it was not the well-employed artizan
    112
    class whom the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) referred to. He referred to those poor creatures who were perpetually flocking into the towns from the country, and who lived in a chronic state of poverty, and were a constant source of danger to the State. With regard to the farms mentioned, lie not only desired to see an increase in the number of small farms, but there was also room in this country for a great number of small holdings with large gardens, from a quarter of an acre to those of four or five acres; and he would rather see an increase in the number of these holdings than an increase in the number of farms of 160 acres. Upwards of £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables was imported every year into this country from abroad; and it was in order that a portion, or the whole, of that enormous quantity of daily food might he supplied in England, which he maintained could be very easily clone, that he wished to see small holdings created in the country. He was not a landowner, and, therefore, could not speak on the subject with the authority of the hon. Members for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies); but he had had some experience of small allotment holdings, and with the care and labour that, as a rule, were devoted to them they were made remarkably productive and successful. He was himself the youngest of a family of 13 or 14 children; and, when a boy, the yearly averaging wages of his father never exceeded 18 s. a-week. But adjoining their house, and attached to it, was a quarter of an acre of garden land, the produce of which was of material importance in the maintenance of so large a family. There was wee in the year in which something could not be gathered from that garden that could be turned into money, in addition to sup! plying he whole wants of the family. What he wanted to point out was that, having himself derived the benefit of that small holding, he was anxious that equal benefits should be extended to his fellow-countrymen. They would never get the same proportion of production out of a 50 or 100 acre holding as from a small holding, cultivated by the man who owned it, simply because it was not in the nature of things that a man would give the same care and attention to the

    113
    work of cultivation that he would do if he was immediately interested in the results of it as owner. It was on those grounds that he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich, which was a very reasonable and highly Conservative proposal, affecting, to a large extent, the welfare of the whole community. He fully concurred in the opinion of his hon. Friend that, unless something was done in the direction of this very modest proposal, there would be set on foot a movement in favour of the adoption of far more radical measures than any now submitted to the consideration of Parliament. There was no denying the fact that Mr. Henry George's book had made a great and lasting impression upon the minds of English working-men readers, who were anxious to secure a larger share in the wealth which their labour created, and they desired to accomplish their object not by force or robbery, but by fair and just means. There was no more true or more lasting Conservative proposal than that those who were possessed of vast landed estates should seek to create as many small holdings as they could; because then, when the great storm reached this country, if ever it did come, the upper classes would find themselves backed by a great army of sturdy, honest, well-to-do, and well-disposed citizens, who would be equally interested with themselves in the defence of that which was called property, and law, and order. He asked the Government to give their earnest attention to this subject, and, at some early date, to do their utmost to give effect to the views which had been so ably put forward by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Where the allotment system had been fully tried and carried out, it had been invariably attended with a successful result, and with the greatest benefit to those participating; and if the Labourers' Friend Society, which came into existence about 50 years ago, and adopted that system, had continued to exist, the labouring classes would be the most contented to be found in England; but, notwithstanding its great success, it fell to pieces because its management was in the hands of members of a particular religious Body in whom the agricultural labourers had no confidence. He saw no reason why what was done 50 years ago should not be done now. Had that system been
    114
    continued, the country would have been more prosperous and contented that it was at the present time.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, he regarded with great satisfaction the fact that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) had brought this subject under the notice of the House. The reason why the inhabitants of the rural districts flowed into the towns was, because their labour was no longer profitable to those who employed them. He denied they were in that starving condition described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. On the contrary, their condition had greatly improved. They were now better housed; indeed, there were many indications that they were better off than they were. They were certainly better clothed than they used to be; and, from his own experience, he knew that the cost of agricultural labour had risen 40 per cent. The persons who wanted the sympathy of the House were the corn growers, whose market had been ruined by a policy, the effects of which were now being felt in Birmingham itself. When he walked through that town and saw shop after shop closed, and those very articles which Birmingham once shone in coming from America, he thought that there they must feel there was something in affording Protection to native industry. It was absurd to suggest that there was any monopoly in land; there was plenty of land in the public market, and far more in the private market, for anyone who would buy it. The hon. Member might extend his charity to those who were nearer home. Thousands of families in London and other large towns lived each in one room. Labourers in the country were far better off than in the towns, and many in his (Mr. Biddell's) own employment, after going to a town, had returned and asked to be taken back into their old positions. He should be glad, although he had very little confidence in the matter, to see a larger number of peasant proprietors; but with regard to advancing State money for the purchase of the land, lie doubted whether any of it would come back, or whether it would very much benefit those for whose benefit it was intended.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought the Motion was one which ought to be supported.
    MR. STORERrose to address the House, when—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

ARMY (MEDICAL DEPARTMENT)—HOSPITAL SERVICES.

  RESOLUTION.
  VISCOUNT BURY, in rising to cal. the attention of the House to -au Report of the Committee on Army Hospital Services, and to move to resolve—
  "That while the individual medical officers in Egypt behaved admirably well, the system under which they worked did not successfully stand the strain put upon it; that the military authority exercised by medical officers is inconvenient, and that discipline in hospitals ought to be administered by combatant officers, leaving to the medical officers medical duties only also that medical officers ought to be attached to regiments instead of being detailed for duty day by day from station and other hospitals,"
  said, the subject was one entirely independent of Party, for the care of our
  2
  soldiers in war was a matter which nearly touched us all. In 1873 a very great change took place in Army Medical Administration, a change that was for the first time put to the test in the war of last year in Egypt; and he thought all must acknowledge that it did not altogether stand the strain then put upon it. Before the new organization of 1873 the system was purely a regimental one, a surgeon being attached to each regiment. In 1873 a system was introduced under which general hospitals were instituted, and all medical officers were attached to these hospitals, and detailed day by day for duty. Medical officers formerly attached to regiments were no longer so attached, and the Medical Department became genes-al in its character. The Service was divided into two parts—the Army Hospital Corps and the Army Medical Department; the latter supplying dressers and servants generally, and the former supplying nurses. The exception to this system was the House-

  3
  hold Cavalry, of which the Medical Service was still regimental. Medical officers had very important duties to perform, besides the treatment of sick soldiers, for they were responsible for the organization and management of the hospitals to which they were attached in peace or war, and for the control over the inmates, whether patients or otherwise. These officers had no opportunity of carrying on the regimental life they formerly enjoyed, for they lived out of barracks, apart from the soldiers, and thus they had no opportunity of learning discipline. It was found in the Egyptian Campaign that the new system had somewhat broken down, and that, although the officers individually were unexceptionable in a medical point of view, they were unable, owing to defective training, to enforce discipline in the hospitals. This appeared from the recent Report of the Committee on Army Hospital Service. With regard to the remedy for the existing defects, he was disposed to agree with the two Members of that Committee who dissented from the Report—namely, Major General Hawley and Sir Robert Loyd Lindsay. They proposed two remedies—first, a return to the regimental system, so far as attaching a medical officer to each unit of the Service was concerned; and, secondly, what he himself suggested in his Motion—namely, that the discipline in hospitals ought to be administered by combatant officers. Then they went on to point out the disadvantage of conferring upon medical officers military rank, while exempting them from military discipline. This was the crux of the whole thing. They pointed out that the regimental system was adopted by every Continental Army, and that it was, moreover, the system that the British Army, as a matter of fact, reverted to in time of war. They accordingly advised a partial return to the old regimental system, as he had already stated. He would now proceed to deal with the evidence before the Committee; but, first, he would like to say that the conduct of the medical officers in the late campaign was beyond all praise, that the individual officers did well, and that there was nothing whatever to be said against them. Everything they could do was done; and in what he was about to say he had no intention whatever of casting blame upon individual officers, but only
  4
  on the system. Lord Wolseley, speaking of the hospital at Ismailia, said in his evidence that the medical officers themselves worked individually remarkably well, and that their devotion to the sick was admirable. There was, however, a gloomier side to the picture disclosed in the gallant General's evidence. Lord Wolseley said that he visited the hospital after the two fights of the 24th and 25th, and that he found a great many things deserving disapproval, which led him to form the conclusion that the system was bad. At the Cairo Hospital he found the same defects, and he believed that there was no excuse for them. After the third day the hospitals should have been as well supplied as a hospital in London, there being no difficulty about obtaining any amount of servants, food, and necessary materials. He mentioned that he found the men lying on the ground in a filthy condition, and that the cooking arrangements were very inefficient. Colonel Knox also gave evidence to the effect that the hospital at Cairo was not well administered; that there was a want of organization and an insufficiency of men to do the work of the hospital. According to the evidence of the Colonel of the York and Lancaster Regiment, 18 wounded soldiers belonging to that regiment were almost unanimously of opinion that the nursing in the hospitals was very indifferent, and that there was very little discipline in the establishment. They were, however, quite satisfied with the manner in which the surgeons performed their duties. Thus, while no fault could be found with the surgeons' knowledge or treatment, the discipline maintained among their subordinates was very unsatisfactory. It was said by the surgeons that the hospitals were merely field hospitals, in which the same perfection of organization as existed in fixed hospitals could not be expected. Lord Wolseley, however, described the hospital at Ismailia as a base, and not a field hospital. With regard to that hospital, therefore, the argument of the surgeons fell to the ground. The Commander of the expedition said that while the medical officers were capital doctors they certainly were not soldiers, and had not the power of maintaining discipline among their men. The great fault which Lord Wolseley found with them was that they did not assume the responsibilities which their high position

  5
  imposed upon them. That bore out his contention that medical officers ought to be confined to purely medical control, and that combatant officers ought to be placed in the hospitals to maintain discipline. Lord Wolseley stated that the medical men were entirely wanting in initiative, and that, when asked why they had not bread, they said that the Commissariat had not given it, and why they had not stretchers, that stretchers had not been supplied. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge had said that of everything connected with the Medical Department the medical officer ought to have charge, but of everything beyond that he could know nothing. His Royal Highness added that he thought it the greatest misfortune that the medical officer should attempt to do that to which he had not been brought up. Colonel Maurice, who had been Deputy Assistant Adjutant General, said that as he was known to be an officer on the Staff of the General Commanding-in-Chief nobody would think of treating him otherwise than well; and yet, while lying wounded in the tent, he was woke up three or four times in the course of a night, once because the doctor wanted to know his name. Colonel Maurice said that in speaking of medical officers he was speaking of his own personal friends, men for whom he had the greatest personal regard; but he felt it his duty to say that the system was by no means perfect. he said that medical officers did not sufficiently recognize their functions at the head of an organization in which a number of persons were to be made to do their duty. Colonel Maurice related some stories in corroboration of what he had said. One was that he told a servant to get him some food, and the servant went to the cook, who, in a very uncivil way, said he would not work for an officer, or something to that effect. When the surgeon was told what had occurred, lie said it was true that an incivility had been committed; but Colonel Maurice must remember not only that he was an officer, but that he was his patient. Colonel Maurice was entirely of opinion that the discipline of the hospitals ought to carried out by combatant officers, and not by medical men, on account of the want of knowledge on the part of the latter. And Lord Wolseley said he was convinced that the presence of a military officer in the hospitals would have gone
  6
  far to correct all that was wrong. It would be unfair to blame a man for not knowing what he had not been taught, and what lie had no means of knowing. Their Lordships would be of opinion that medical officers had no opportunity of learning discipline. His Royal Highness said he thought that a man should be an officer in the Army to know what discipline was. If their Lordships turned to Appendix 24 to the Minutes of Evidence, they would find a Report on the system employed in the different Armies of Europe. That system combined the advantages of the departmental and regimental systems. The regiment officers and those of higher ranks in this country had unanimously expressed an opinion in favour of the adoption of that system. Owing to the frequent change of medical men the present system fostered malingering, because the medical officer was not attached to a regiment sufficiently long to be able to learn anything about the men with whom he had to deal. Another evil was that Commanding Officers rarely visited their men in hospital, and, in fact, lost sight of them from the time they became ill. The Report of the Committee which sat at Aldershot on the 6th of February showed that of the 14 officers in command of regiments, who were examined before it not one gave evidence to any other effect than that it was desirable that medical officers should be attached to regiments, and that the old system should, thus far, at any rate, be reverted to. The evidence showed that the system was so far in fault that the medical officers did not administer discipline, because they themselves were not, in a military point of view, disciplined men. Without going into other details of the Report, he might point out the practical difficulty that existed in obtaining good hospital nurses. These men were enlisted on the same terms as other men were enlisted into the Army; they were not properly trained, and were, in fact, exceedingly bad nurses. Another point was the presence of lady nurses in hospitals. Everybody knew the admirable services they rendered; and it would be ungracious not to pay a tribute to the excellence of lady nurses in the hospitals in Egypt. Time, however, did not admit of his going into these details, and he therefore concluded with moving his Resolution in the terms of which he had given-Notice.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That while the individual medical officers in Egypt behaved admirably well, the system under which they worked did not successfully stand the strain put upon it; that the military authority exercised by medical officers is inconvenient, and that discipline in hospitals ought to be administered by combatant officers, leaving to the medical officers medical duties only; also that medical officers ought to be attached to regiments instead of being detailed for duty day by day from station and other hospitals."(Viscount Bury.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, it was quite unnecessary for the noble Lord opposite to apologize for bringing this question before the House, for it was a question of the greatest importance to the Army at large. Neither could he complain of the manner in which the noble Lord had introduced the subject. The noble Lord in his speech disclaimed any intention of making an attack on any officer, and he had certainly carried out that intention. The ability of the medical officers in Egypt had been acknowledged by Lord Wolseley himself, and he concurred with the noble Lord opposite in acknowledging the admirable work done by the lady nurses in Egypt, and wherever else their services had been required. Before he spoke on the remedies proposed by the noble Lord for what he considered the defects of the present hospital system of the Army, he desired to make a few comments on the working of the system during the late campaign in Egypt. The noble Lord had referred to the Report of the Committee. It was admitted that there were some defects in the administration and general management of the hospitals during the recent campaign; but it was necessary to bear in mind the remarkable nature of the service. The peculiarity of the campaign was its extreme rapidity. On landing at Ismailia the Army had at once, for military reasons, to move into the Desert, and before the hospital equipment bad been landed. The noble Lord had quoted an answer given by Lord Wolseley with regard to base hospitals. It was not intended that there should be a base hospital—which was a furnished hospital fitted with bedsteads and other furniture such as was supplied to general hospitals—at Ismailia, the exact time the troops would land there being uncertain. Accordingly, base hospitals were established at Alexandria, Cyprus, and (bozo, the hospital at Is-
  8
  mailia being fitted as a field hospital only. Then the noble Lord had referred to the evidence of Colonel Maurice but he thought that that evidence should be compared with the evidence subsequently given by Surgeon Major Veale before the noble Lord formed an opinion on several of the points on which that officer bad animadverted. With regard to the medical results of the campaign they wore somewhat remarkable, and showed that even if there was in some instances undue delay it had not been productive of serious consequences to the sick. He would take the period from the 17th of July, when the first battalions landed in Egypt, to the 10th of October, the date at which the Cairo hospitals were converted into station hospitals, and the Army became an Army of Occupation instead of an Army in the field. Between those two dates there were 378 non-commissioned officers and men in hospital from wounds in the field. Of these only 11 died. Then there were admitted from other causes 7,212 non-commissioned officers and men, of whom 79 died. Thus the total number of wounded and sick was 7,590, of whom only 90 died. Of those who had been invalided from Egypt there died elsewhere before the 10th of October 21 who had been wounded in action, and 94 from other causes, making a total of 115. Therefore, out of 7,590 admitted to hospitals the number of deaths was 205 — 32 wounded in action, and 173 from other causes; these numbers being exclusive of the 82 killed in action. The 37 deaths on the passage from Egypt were included in the deaths stated to have occurred "elsewhere." He did not think that these figures were at all unsatisfactory. There was a total absence of pyæmia, gangrene, or other diseases peculiar to hospitals; and it was a remarkable fact that there was not a single case of loss of sight from ophthalmia, and that this disease was, by skilful treatment, almost completely stamped out. These facts, especially if compared with the medical history of former campaigns in Egypt, showed, whatever defects there were, that medical officers were careful and skilful. He was not prepared to question the statement that the Army Hospital Corps was not in a satisfactory condition; there were admirable nurses in it; but, at the same time, there were

  9
  some who were indifferent. As a rule, they had not had sufficient training as nurses to make them efficient. In the opinion of some, the only means of improving the nursing was to employ to a much greater extent female nurses; and he agreed that, where circumstances permitted, this should be done; but it was wholly impossible to employ female nurses in military hospitals to the same extent as in civil hospitals, because there were diseases and circumstances in connection with which women could not be employed. Unfortunately for the Army Hospital Corps, the patients in all our civil hospitals were nursed by women. It was a disadvantage to the military hospitals that there was no large body of men from whom nurses could be drawn in cases of emergency. The whole supply of male nurses and hospital orderlies must be maintained by and for the Army. The noble Lord appeared to have paid too little attention to the paragraphs of the Report relating to the Army Hospital Corps, to which he attached more importance than to any other part of the Report. The Committee recommended that the men should have more training as nurses, and also that there should be a better system of promotion, so that higher appointments in the wards might be given to good nurses. He hoped that when the Secretary of State had had time and opportunity to consider the suggestions that had been offered, there would be improvements made in the pay of nurses, and in the co-ordination of the different branches of the Corps. The Committee over which he had the honour eventually of presiding was appointed originally with reference to the condition of the Army Corps in South Africa; and its labours were approaching completion when the larger questions arising out of the Egyptian Campaign were referred to it. As regards the duty of the medical officers in charge of hospitals, and the necessity for having combatant officers at the head of such institutions, there were, undoubtedly, differences of opinion; and he admitted that the weight of military authority was on the noble Lord's side. But there were considerations which induced the majority of the Committee to take an opposite view. In proposing that hospitals should be presided over by a Military Commandant, he presumed the
  10
  noble Lord did not mean to include, besides the general hospitals, the numerous station hospitals scattered over the country.
  VISCOUNT BURY: Yes; I did.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Then his suggestion would be difficult to carry into effect, because there were 182 station hospitals in England and Ireland alone; and it had never been proposed that these should have Military Governors like Netley. The Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that it was undesirable that there should be a double control in any instance. They felt the great importance of unity of control, and that it should be vested in the medical and not in the military officer. They feared the evils that might result from friction between the military and the medical authorities. The Military Commandant at Netley, as long as the discharge depôt—now removed to Portsmouth—was attached to the hospital, had duties to perform in connection with this depot which rendered it necessary to have an officer of high position; and even now there was a considerable amount of work done there in connection with the discharge of men invalided from India and elsewhere. No doubt, a station hospital should be under the control of the General Officer commanding the district, or of the officer commanding the troops at the station. The Committee thought that the inspection of all hospitals by au officer of high rank, specially appointed, should be frequent and searching; but that it would be far better that the administration of the hospitals in all branches should be in the hands of one responsible medical head. With regard to attachment of medical officers to regiments the Committee were not unanimous; two of his Colleagues were in favour of a return to the old system so far as the medical officers were concerned. As far as hospitals were concerned, experience had so amply shown that the regimental system was impracticable in war that it was hardly worth while arguing the question. The noble Lord would attach medical officers to every battalion and every corps of troops. He quite admitted the importance of the witnesses who favoured such a change; but a medical officer would deteriorate if his only duty were to look after healthy troops, and if he were debarred from

  11
  attending hospitals; and he considered that there would be considerable difficulties in the way of employing medical officers attached to corps in the station hospitals. If it were said they should be attached to regiments with the view of learning discipline, that implied that the medical officers should be young and therefore inexperienced; and if they were, that would diminish the confidence of those requiring their services. Another difficulty in the way of the adoption of the proposal of the noble Viscount was the extra expense that it would involve. This matter had been Carefully considered by a Departmental Committee which sat some years ago. The appointment of a considerable number of additional medical officers would be required, and this would cost £20,000 or £30,000 a-year. Of course, if that were necessary for the benefit of the troops, such an additional expense ought not to stand in the way of the change. In his opinion, however, the advantages that might be derived from the change suggested would not be commensurate with the cost of the experiment. He was opposed to the attachment of medical officers to regiments, because officers so attached would gain less experience than under the present system, because it would render it difficult to distribute the medical officers, so that they should severally have duties which they were best qualified to perform; because, though this was not by any means an insuperable objection, it would interfere with the roster for foreign service; and because it would involve an additional expense without securing any adequate benefit to the Army. He thought he had dealt with the two main points raised by his noble Friend, and that he had given the reasons which induced the majority of the Committee to take the views which the Report showed they did take upon these matters. Before sitting down he wished to rectify an error into which a noble Lord had fallen. A notion prevailed, and had been given expression to that day, that a gallant colonel was reprimanded for visiting some of his men in hospital. The reason of the difficulty that had arisen in the case referred to was that the visit was paid when the medical officers were engaged in the wards. During the hours when they were so engaged inconvenience would be caused if a large number of officers were to visit their men; but it
  12
  must not be supposed that regimental officers were prohibited from visiting station hospitals, except during certain hours, when the medical officers were treating the patients. Any prohibition of that kind would be directly contrary to the wishes of the medical officers, and obviously wrong. With regard to the charges made by the noble Viscount opposite, he admitted that improvements in the cooking and nursing in Army hospitals were required, and that other matters connected with the administration of hospitals, and with the Medical Service generally, called for amendment; but he failed to see how the defects complained of by the noble Lord would be remedied by the adoption of the proposal before the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he felt very strongly that of the many changes that had been introduced into the Army during recent years, of which he most entirely disapproved, the alteration in the Army medical system was, perhaps, the worst. He could conceive no system more objectionable and disadvantageous than the present; and he regretted very much that, in the Report of the Commission, it was suggested that the system should be extended to the Household Troops. The noble Earl admitted that the arrangement, in accordance with which medical officers were not attached to regiments, was deprecated by all the military witnesses who gave evidence before the Commission. Were not the commanding officers of regiments the very persons who knew best how the present system worked, and how the former system had worked? This the noble Earl admitted, and yet he came to a conclusion adverse to the recommendations of those officers who were eminently qualified to give an opinion upon the subject submitted to them. In former times the medical officer was said to be the father of the regiment. He had probably assisted at the birth of every child in his regiment, and he knew the constitution of every man and woman in it. It was to him that the young men went when they had got into scrapes. All that had been altered, and the change was a very bad one. The noble Earl said that before introducing innovations the expense that they would entail must be considered. In his opinion, if a change was desirable, on the ground that it would improve the health

  13
  of the Army, the question of expense was the very last that ought to be considered.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, that, as his evidence had been referred to in the course of the discussion, he felt bound to make a few observations. His noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (the Earl of Morley) had been induced on that occasion to give expression to views which were not altogether in accordance with his own. He, however, desired it to be clearly understood that he recognized fully the excellence of our medical officers, and was inclined to make every allowance for the shortcomings which were sometimes the result of the difficulties which they had to face, especially in time of war. If anything had gone astray in their Department, it was the system, and not the individuals, who were at fault. He should very much like to see the present system modified, so that medical officers, for at least two or three years, should be attached mainly to a regiment. He did not think that there was any other Army in which there was not a medical man attached to the regiments. He believed that the old system was a very good system; but, as it had been so much altered, we could not go back to anything which had been so thoroughly changed. But he thought it essential that there should be some men to whom the whole constitution of the Army should be thoroughly known. If any one of their Lordships wanted medical advice, he would not wish to put himself into the hands of different doctors. But men were now sent about so much that they had five or six different surgeons to deal with them. It was not a question of roster, nor did he see any difficulty in accommodating the roster to the requirements of the case. It was all matter of arrangement. What he wanted to see was, that a medical officer should be attached absolutely for two or three years to a regiment, and should perform all the medical duties connected with that regiment. His noble Friend had said that a medical man would not acquire medical knowledge in that way. But he did not see why medical men should not spend a portion of their day in the station hospitals. In the London hospitals the visiting surgeons only came at certain hours; and he could not imagine, therefore, how a practical difficulty could be raised in that respect. It would be a mere matter of arrange-
  14
  ment by the Head of the Department. Why should they not attend to the ordinary medical requirements of the regiments, and, having done that, attend also at the station hospitals? He wished it to be clearly understood that he did not object to station hospitals at all. Station hospitals, in his opinion, were very good; they were better than more military hospitals; there was more system in them, and there was less extravagance in carrying them on. His noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) also thought that the discipline of the hospital should be in charge of the medical officer. He (the Duke of Cambridge) did not see how the medical officer could understand anything about discipline. Under the old system he joined a regiment as a young man and lived with it, and he did learn discipline; but now he joined as a professional man, and was attached to some station. What military discipline could he learn there? A military medical man ought to know military discipline, quite apart from medical discipline. He could not see why the station hospital system, as it existed, should not be combined with that moderate regimental system which he ventured to suggest, and which he believed to be compatible with the requirements of the roster. But he confessed he did not think that medical men were the proper persons to carry out discipline in hospitals. He was himself President of the London Hospital, and a civilian lived on the spot, who conducted the supervision of that Establishment. A great London hospital might be compared with a military hospital; and, inasmuch as they had a civilian to look after the wants and requirements of the London Hospital, he would say that they ought to have a military man to look after the wants and requirements of a military hospital like Netley, quite independent of the medical officer who might be in charge of the sick. He regretted, to some extent, the changes which had been made. He would not say that the new system should be entirely altered; but he thought it should be modified to the extent which he had indicated. He hoped it was possible that the discussion which had taken place, as well as the general feeling in the Army, which entirely accorded with the views he had expressed, would bring about this modification. He believed the change would be very beneficial to the Army, and that

  15
  it would not be found out of accord with the prevailing system, which, with the limitation he had suggested, would continue much in its present form.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that a system which was admitted not to work well in time of peace could not reasonably be expected to be successful during war. He did not wish to seek popularity by suggesting more economy, but a restoration of the late system. Everything that gave dissatisfaction to officers or men was due to the sacrifice of efficiency to economy. He would revert to the old system, as he thought that all the changes which had been made in the Army had proved to be of the most expensive kind. Nothing was more economical than sending a soldier to his duty instead of having him in hospital for six months. Ten years ago he had pointed out the absurdity of the present medical system in the Army; and he hoped that the present Secretary of State for War would make some alteration in it in the direction of the views entertained by the late Sidney, Lord Herbert.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, the fact was, the Army, with its attached Departments, had been re-organized to within an inch of its life. This very Medical Department had been under re-organization for more than 20 years. The statue of Sidney Herbert stood in Pall Mall as a grateful recognition of the attention given by a good and earnest man to this special branch of the Service. The result was that, in the Egyptian Expedition, a large staff of qualified medical officers, with subordinate assistants, and ample supply of stores, close to their ships, with no overwhelming number of sick on their hands, were unable to establish their hospital, and give proper attention to the sick for several days; and, according to the Report of this Committee, administrative defects were observed in other hospitals subsequently formed. Regimental paymasters, regimental surgeons, regimental numbers found no favour with modern Army reformers; and had been superseded by systems which, as far as he could understand, gave no satisfaction to anybody. He did not propose to go through a list of Army grievances then, and the medical question had already been sufficiently discussed; but he might mention that, having been lately present in one of their largest garrisons, in a
  16
  military society, he made inquiry respecting two cases, in which, by the neglect of officers to pass certain examinations for promotion, junior officers had been promoted over their heads. The answer was in language more forcible than polite—"The whole thing is so disgusting that no one cares a big D whether he is passed over or not." This was not the spirit that military reformers intended to introduce into the Army; but it was the spirit which they very generally—though he did not say universally—had introduced by their constant innovations.
  THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORDsaid, that many excellent reasons had been given for a return to the regimental system, as far as was possible, and there was a strong objection to the new plan being adopted with the medical officers of the Household Brigade. He thought medical officers should be put on the same footing as the other officers of the Army.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he would not trouble the House to divide, a s he was quite satisfied with the discussion which had taken place.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ARMY (RE-ORGANIZATION)—PURCHASE COLONELS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If it was intended to take any steps to redress the injury that Colonels with purchase rights, who held that rank prior to the 1st of October, 1877, had suffered by being compulsorily retired from the Service before the time their removal would have taken place by the terms of the warrants in force when they were promoted to the rank of Colonel? He (the Earl of Longford) voted for the abolition of Purchase on the assurance that the rights of officers would be respected, and their promotion maintained. First, the age of retirement from the Active List was fixed at 63, then, in 1881, it was reduced to 55 in the case of Colonels, unless they had obtained a certain rank. The officers in question had purchased rights, and among others was the expectation of promotion of which they were summarily deprived. If that was necessary to the reconstitution of the Army, it was but simple justice that they should be amply compensated. It was true that the au-

  17
  thorities at the War Office had already recognized, in some measure, the claims of these officers. One of them had received an additional pension of £5 a-year, another £8 17 s., and another £1 19 s. But these cases, he submitted, had not been sufficiently considered, and they were entitled to compensation far beyond anything that had been awarded to them.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, he was afraid he could not add anything to what had been already stated in "another place" by the late Secretary of State for War in regard to these Colonels. The noble Earl had stated rightly that in 1877 a new Rule came into force regarding the age at which these officers should retire; but they were compensated for any loss that might occur under this Rule. Whereas, under the old Rule, the half-pay of these officers could not exceed £200, the retired pay now reached to as much as £420. In addition to this, in 1878, they received compensation for the loss of their chance of obtaining unattached pay as general officers; and those attaining the age of 59 before their term of employment was up received full compensation for the term they were unable to complete in that employment. The other claims were of so vague and shadowy a character that it was impossible to consider them, and he could not undertake to re-open the question.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.