Sitting of 31 July 1883

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Harrison's Estate; Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway (Various Powers).
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) * [275].
Second Reading—Revenue and. Friendly Societies [269].
Committee—Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) [190] [Third Night]—R.P.
Farther Considered as amended — Agricultural Holdings (England) [272] [Second Night]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) * [270].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Public Health Act (1875) (Support of Sewers) Amendment * [267], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  HARRISON'S ESTATE BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"
    MR. FINDLATER, in rising to support the Motion, said, that he must ask the House to support a Bill, which had already been submitted to the House of Lords, and, after being considerably modified in its terms, had been passed by that House. In accordance with the Standing Orders, it had been referred to two of the Irish Judges of the highest eminence—Chief Justice May, and Mr. Baron Andrews, both of whom were thoroughly acquainted with the locality. The Bill was of a very technical character, and quite unsuitable for a discussion in that House; but an hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had placed upon the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was to declare that the area of settled land in the country should not be increased by a Bill of this kind. He (Mr. Findlator) did not think a Private Bill of that nature was a measure upon which a general discussion in regard to increasing the area of settled land in Ireland ought to be raised. It might be a very desirable opportunity for the hon. Member for Salford to air his crotchets in that House upon a Private Bill; but it was a very serious matter for the unfortunate gentleman who was promoting the Bill. The hon. Member probably thought that the indignation which would be excited at even an infinitesimal attempt to increase the area of settled land would divert the attention of the House from the real merits of the Bill. But he (Mr. Findlater) trusted the House would listen to a very brief statement in regard to the objects of the Bill. The Bill was rendered necessary by the omission, in a testator's will, of proper powers for the improvement and development of certain estates situated in the town of Holywood, near Belfast, and its neighbourhood. The promoter, as tenant for life of that property under the will, and being a very enterprizing gentleman, had succeeded in purchasing 56 acres of foreshore and 35 acres of building land, which intersected the property, in the interest of, and for the development of, the settled land. Fourteen acres of the building land passed into the settled estate on the death of two lives, and the property either intersected or adjoined the estate, so that it was not of the slightest use, unless it was added to the estate. The Bill contained provisions to enable the trustees of the settled estates

    1111
    to purchase the property so acquired by the tenant for life, and to hold it on the same terms as the settled estates. The price for this property was not to exceed £18,000, and if any difference arose between the parties as to the full value of the property it was to be settled by arbitration. There was a further power given to the trustees to repay the tenant for life the sum of £12,000 expended by him in the improvement of the property, upon which there was at present a mortgage for the amount; and he trusted that the House would not consent to be parties to injuring a meritorious tenant for life, by leaving on his hands property which was perfectly useless unless joined to that which had been already settled, and which, if joined to it, would largely increase its value. The House would perceive that the property affected by the settlement was, in reality, only 35 acres and the foreshore. It might, as he had said, be a very pleasant thing for the hon. Member for Salford to pose as a Land Reformer, and to air his crotchets in that House upon the discussion of a Private Bill; but that which might be an amusement and a gratification to the hon. Gentleman was a very serious matter to the tenant for life in this particular case. It reminded him (Mr. Findlater) very much of the fable of the boys and the frogs—"What is fun to you is death to us." It was well understood that the hon. Member was celebrated for systematically examining the Notice Paper; and when he found that any other hon. Member had evolved from his inner consciousness some new political or social idea, and given it form in the shape of a Notice, down came the hon. Member with an Amendment of a colourable character, to the intense horror of the originator, who found that he was to be robbed of a great portion, if not all, of the kudos he expected to derive from the elaboration of his ideas.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Member (Mr. Findlater) was speaking to the matter before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that anything has happened yet which calls for my interference.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he certainly should not have made observations of that kind, without having some founda-
    1112
    tion for them. In fact, it was whispered that the hon. Member for Salford was only to be compared to a certain bird, which was in the habit of laying its eggs in the nest of some other feathered biped. As long as the hon. Member confined himself to that practice, he would not do much harm, beyond the natural irritation caused to those who were annoyed by his predatory instincts; but when he proceeded to ask the House to throw out this Bill, which, however, it was scarcely likely to do, he placed himself in a position to cause incalculable injury to innocent persons. It must be borne in mind that the promoter of the present Bill was already tenant for life of the property, and that he had been put to very considerable expense in preparing statements and in bringing the question before Parliament. The second reading of the Bill had already been adjourned on one occasion; and he thought it was most unfair for an hon. Member, who had really no interest in the matter beyond a desire to ventilate the general question as to settled land, to seek to retard the progress of the measure, for the simple purpose of putting a private individual to considerable expense. He (Mr. Find-later) contended that this was not the proper time for the hon. Member to ventilate his grievances, or to air his crotchets, especially when it was borne in mind that the House of Lords had already passed the Bill. He, therefore, trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time; and if they thought it necessary that there should be further inquiry, no doubt, as the Bill was practically unopposed, the Chairman of Ways and Means, when it came before him, would see that it was fairly investigated.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Findlater.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that, among other purposes to which it would be scarcely necessary for him to refer, it was proposed by this Bill to pass certain land, which was now free land, into settlement for the term of 1,000 years. He thought that was sufficient not only to justify his opposition, but to render it absolutely necessary that he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.

    1113
    The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) evidently knew but little of the Bill, and he had grossly misstated the quantities involved. ["Oh, oh!"]
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He wished to know if the expression "grossly mis-stated" was Parliamentary language?
    MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet noticed anything out of Order.
    MR. WARTON: The expression used by the hon. Member for Salford was "grossly mis-stated."
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not see anything in that expression that is irregular.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDresumed. He did not think there was anything irregular in stating that the hon. Member for Monaghan had grossly misstated the acreage dealt with by the Bill. The main point, however, was that the Bill proposed to place free land under settlement for a term of 1,000 years; it proposed to increase the area of settled land, which meant, to place the land, as far as it was in the power of the trustees, according to the law of the country, in such a position that for 1,000 years, if the Bill passed, it could not even be sold upon demand of creditors in the event of the insolvency of the proprietor. That was the effect of settlement of land. The consequence was that where land was settled, not a single yard or acre of that land, from the time of settlement, could be sold in the event of the insolvency of the proprietor. It so happened that this Bill was an Irish Bill; and he confessed his surprise that an Irish Member should have been found to advocate the increase of settled land in Ireland. He did not believe that any Irish Member would occupy such a position, because, baneful as had been that practice in England, in Ireland it had almost been the ruin of the country. The proposal of the Bill was to increase the area of settled land, and by that means to further the policy which had brought landowning in Ireland to this position, that, at the present moment, one-third of the land of the country was held by fewer than 300 persons. The hon. Member for Monaghan had spoken of the hardship which the rejection of the Bill would entail on the promoter. Now, there was no hardship at all in the matter. The House,
    1114
    in its wisdom, had passed a measure last year, the author of which actually came from the neighbourhood of Belfast, in which the present Bill originated. The House had passed Lord Cairns's Settled Land Act, in order to meet cases of this sort; and it was because the promoter did not choose to take advantage of that Act, that he now came to Parliament with an audacious proposal to increase the area of settled land. There had been other private Settled Land Bills before the House during the present Session and in past Sessions; but he would give the House his word that there had been no Bill which contained a proposal of this sort, or he would have opposed it. There had been no Private Estate Bill introduced, either in the last or in the present Session, which made so monstrous a proposal as that which was contained in the present Bill—namely, to settle free land for a period of 1,000 years. He would appeal to the House to reject the Bill. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    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 not expedient to increase the area of Settled Land as proposed by the Bill,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it was only due, as a matter of courtesy to the House, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland should express some opinion upon the Bill. He should not have risen himself if it had not been for the fact that the Speaker was on the point of putting the Question, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not consider it necessary to rise. Now, he (Mr. Healy) regarded this Bill not merely as one affecting the personal interests of Captain Harrison, but as a most extraordinary kind of procedure, by which a Private Act of Parliament, affecting an individual landlord, was to be smuggled through the House. He failed to see, if this Bill were to pass, what was to prevent any landlord, who possessed sufficient means, from subtracting the whole of his estates from

    1115
    the purview of the Common Law of the country. It appeared to be the easiest thing in the world for the landlord to introduce a Private Bill to upset the Statute Law, and to deal with estates upon a principle of law totally different from the rest of the land of the country. This was a most mischievous principle, and a mere glance at the provisions of the present Bill would convince the House of its extraordinary character. In the first place, there was a most affecting statement made in regard to Captain Harrison himself—"And whereas Captain Harrison is in the 50th year of his age, and not married." How glad the House would be to hear that Captain Harrison was 50 years old, and was still unmarried. Personally, he (Mr. Healy) trusted that Captain Harrison was enjoying the best of health; and the only matter of surprise to him was that Captain Harrison had not published his portrait as a frontispiece to the Bill, so as to enable the House to understand the kind of man Captain Harrison was. Now, why was it that the House were called upon to sanction the extraordinary principle of permitting a private individual to go before the Examiners of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and enter into an arrangement for settling land, which would relieve private property from the obligations it was under for the benefit of creditors, and thus relieve impecunious landlords from their responsibilities? He could easily understand other impecunious landlords in Ireland throwing longing eyes across the Channel, in the hope of getting similar powers to those which it was proposed to confer on Captain Harrison. He could further imagine that the Irish landlords, who were Members of that House, would give the Bill their support, because they knew that if they did there was a prospect of their own lands becoming settled in the same manner, and their creditors being unable to recover their just rights. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that, when the Bankruptcy Bill came up for consideration in that House, he should propose to introduce a clause into it affecting such cases as this of Captain Harrison and other private gentlemen, who were attempting to withdraw their estates from the responsibilities which might attach to them in the event of bank-
    1116
    ruptcy. His (Mr. Healy's) own opinion was that whenever these gentlemen attempted to get out of their difficulties the House of Commons should be ready rather to invent hindrances than facilities. The landlords of Ireland were not a class on which the House of Commons ought to look with extreme satisfaction. They had been the curse of this country for generations, and, in a special degree, they had been the curse of Ireland. Why the House should be asked to take up its time in order to discuss a palpable job was more than he could understand. He hoped the House would reject the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, that the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had appealed to him to state his opinion in regard to the Bill. He had no intention whatever of withholding that opinion, although he did not recognize that the Office he held was one which rendered it necessary that he should express an opinion in regard to a private measure of this kind. At the same time, he knew perfectly well what the object of the Bill was, and he was most happy to relieve the minds of hon. Members from any misapprehension in regard to it. The Bill contained ample powers of leasing, and of leasing subject to fee - farm rents, which formed the tenure under which the most prosperous parts of the land of Ireland wore now flourishing. The entire town of Belfast was held upon that tenure. So far as the remarks of the hon. Member for Monaghan were concerned, there was no attempt whatever in this Bill to defraud creditors, and he very much regretted that such a suggestion should have been made. All he would say was that, even if that state of facts did exist, it was a mistake to say that the creditors would have no power over the estate, seeing that the power of leasing would pass to the assignees in bankruptcy, and no portion whatever of the property could be withdrawn from the creditors. So far as the suggestion was concerned that the Bill was an attempt to tie up property which was formerly free, he could only say that, at the present moment, the estate was most strongly tied up, and that the Bill would have a tendency to render it far more free than it was at the present moment. Therefore, having been appealed to by the hon. Member oppo-

    1117
    site (Mr. Healy), he could only say that he thought the Bill was a very proper one to be passed by that House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) was perfectly right when he asserted that it was not the business of the Government to look into this Bill; and the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman convinced him (Mr. Labouchere) that he had not looked into it. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) had given the House three reasons, and three of the most extraordinary reasons he (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to say that were ever submitted to that House, to justify the passing of a Private Bill. The first was, that they ought not to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because it was most unfair, upon the part of that hon. Gentleman, to interfere with a matter which did not concern him. That was to say, that no Member of Parliament must interfere with a Bill which did not personally concern him. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) had always thought that these were precisely the kind of Bills which hon. Members ought to notice, because it was usually thought improper for hon. Members to take part in Business in which they were personally interested. The second reason was, that the Judges had looked into the matter, and that they had endorsed the Bill. No doubt, certain Judges in Ireland had examined the Bill, in order to see that the conveyance, as a matter of law, was right; but it was no part of their province, and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would bear him out in that, to express any opinion as to the merit of any of the Private Bills which were brought into the House. The third reason was, that the House of Lords had passed the Bill. Now, the Bill had passed the Upper Chamber; but an Assembly of landlords would naturally pass a Bill to promote landlords' private interests. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) said that, under these circumstances, the Bill was unfit for discussion in the House of Commons. If so, why had it been brought into the House of Commons? If hon. Gentlemen chose to bring in Bills, and ask the House to pass them, they must accept the fact that the House
    1118
    was fitted to discuss and look into them. The hon. Member for Monaghan had gone further, and had given some details of the Bill. It was a very complicated Bill, and it would require at least six hours' consideration at the hands of any lawyer to make it out, and about a week on the part of anybody who was not a lawyer. Nevertheless, he (Mr. Labouchere) had been able to make it out in about 10 minutes. A very cursory examination had enabled him to arrive at the opinion that it ought to be rejected. So far as he could make out, the Bill had been introduced by a private gentleman who had an estate in Ireland. As his hon. Friend the Member for Salford had remarked, the hon. Member for Monaghan had understated the case. This was one of three estates which belonged to this gentleman, and which amounted altogether to 5,300 acres. Captain Harrison had now bought additional land in the neighbourhood of his estate. The hon. Member for Monaghan told them that that land was absolutely valueless to anyone. Nevertheless, under the Bill, the trustees were empowered to pay for it a sum not more than £18,000; and the trustees, having purchased this land, were to throw the fresh land into the settled estates. That was to say, that this additional land was to remain settled for 1,000 years with the other portions of the estate. Now, hon. Members in that part of the House were thoroughly opposed to the system of investing property in land for the benefit of persons who were yet unborn, or for persons who might not be born for even two or three generations. It was perfectly monstrous, after Parliament had passed Lord Cairns's Act to free settled estates, that they should settle additional laud for the period of 1,000 years. Now, what was proposed to be done with this land? The sum of £40,000 was to be raised on the old settled land, and, of this £40,000, £18,000 were to go in payment of the cost of the new settled estates, Captain Harrison selling the rest to the trustees himself. He (Mr. Labouchere) confessed that he was not able to make out from the Bill what was to become of the rest; but it seemed that there was some old mortgage to be paid off, and a sum of £6,000 was to be spent in improving the estate. It was further proposed to destroy some 23 cottages, and to lay out

    1119
    the land for villa purposes. He had certainly thought that it was desirable in Ireland to build more cottages and to improve them, rather than to destroy them. But in this Bill the House was asked to put an end to the very existence of a considerable number of cottages, so that they might be able to lay out the land on which they stood for villa purposes. Under these circumstances, in future, whenever any Irish gentleman took it into his head to increase his settled estates, and to convert cottages into villa residences, the House of Commons were to be told that the House of Lords had passed the measure, and that it was their duty to accept the decision of the House of Lords. Personally, he was altogether opposed to such legislation, and-he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he thought the arguments which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had just addressed to the House were reasons why they should not depart from the usual custom, but should rather consent to the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member said he had been unable to master the details of the measure, although he subsequently declared that a perusal of 10 minutes enabled him to comprehend its scope. Certainly, in such a case, the mastery of his hon. Friend did not commend itself to him (Sir Arthur Otway). The object of the Bill had been clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), and also by the hon. Member who moved the second reading of the Bill (Mr. Findlater). He was, therefore, not disposed to trouble the House, except to correct the misapprehensions of the hon. Member for Northampton, and of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). As a matter of fact, it was a very small portion of land indeed that was proposed to be dealt with by the Bill, and which could not have been dealt with by Lord Cairns's Act, as it was altogether of a nature which could not be brought under the provisions of that Act. The hon. Member for Northampton had spoken in defence of the interference of private Members in questions of this kind, and had objected to the House dealing with them, unless they did undergo full discussion. Now, he (Sir
    1120
    Arthur Otway) had no objection to any hon. Member taking part in the discussion of any Bill submitted to them; but he must appeal to the House whether, in the present state of Public Business, it was not to be deplored that hon. Members should take the opportunity not only once or twice, but repeatedly, afforded by the introduction of Private Bills dealing with very small matters, for entering into and instructing the House generally on the very large question of land tenure, and the custom of the country in regard to the land system. It was within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had, on several occasions, seized such an opportunity for instructing the House upon the question of land tenure. He (Sir Arthur Otway) thought the practice was very much to be deplored; and it was certainly not conducive to the progress of Public Business that, whenever a Private Bill stood upon the Paper, which dealt in any way with land, the hon. Member should avail himself of the occasion to enter into the general questions affecting the land system. It was only the other day that the hon. Member took advantage of such an opportunity for bringing forward a name which was never mentioned in that House except with the highest feeling of affection and veneration. The hon. Member on that occasion took advantage of the opportunity for casting reflections on the son of a most distinguished statesman. [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD said, he had done nothing of the sort.] He thought he was within the recollection of the House, and it would bear him out, that the hon. Member had referred in strong terms to a Bill introduced in the name of the present Sir Robert Peel.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He wished to know if the hon. Baronet was regular in referring to a previous debate?
    MR. SPEAKER: I did not understand the hon. Baronet to refer to a debate that has taken place on a former occasion; but simply to give an illustration to the House.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he had only a few more words to add, and he would only say that, so far as he was concerned, he found it difficult to understand why the course which the House

    1121
    usually took in regard to these Bills should not be followed in the present instance—namely, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the details, which the hon. Member for Northampton said they were unable to master, might be inquired into. The case, he thought, was one which should not be decided by the House, but should be submitted to the proper tribunal.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he wished to say a word in order to correct a misapprehension. He had stated that there were 53 acres of foreshore dealt with by the Bill, and about 21 acres of building land included in the settlement. That was the only portion of the property dealt with by the Bill which was unsettled; the 1,500 acres which had been referred to having been already settled.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he knew nothing whatever about the Bill, except what he had gathered from the speeches which had been delivered in the course of the debate; but he felt bound to state that the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) against the Bill convinced him that he ought to vote for it. In point of fact, the speech of the hon. Member was one which made him inclined to wish that the estate of every Irish gentleman could be settled in some way or other, because the hon. Member told them that out of £18,000 which the Bill authorized to be raised, £6,000 were to be spent in improvements. He sincerely wished that on every Irish estate, valued at £18,000, there could be a sum of £6,000 reserved for improvements; and, for the purpose of securing in this case that the £6,000 should be spent in improvements, he should certainly vote for the Bill. He should vote for it also for another reason—namely, that he did not like the interference of English Members in purely Irish matters. If there was anything wrong in the Bill, it should be left to Irish Members to attack it, and not to the keen-eyed vision of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). For that reason, and in order to secure the expenditure of £6,000 in improvements out of £18,000, he should vote for the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had examined the Bill carefully, and he thought it had
    1122
    been represented to the House as being very much worse than it really was. If hon. Members read the Bill, they would see that the late John Harrison, of Mertoun Hall, Holywood, near Belfast, left a strict settlement of his property. The real fact of the matter was, that one of the sons had died, and this was a family arrangement between the grandson of the late John Harrison, and the surviving son of that gentleman. He (Mr. Biggar) did not think that hon. Members who had discussed the question could have correctly read the Bill. At any rate, they had not accurately stated the real facts of the case. He know the estate very well, and he could imagine the advantage that the small town near which the estate was situated would derive from the outlay of £6,000 in the improvement of the property. At the present moment, the place to which he referred was in a very un-prosperous condition, and the value of property there had fallen something like 40 per cent during the last 10 years. He was, however, inclined to believe that if £6,000 was going to be raised under the provision of the Bill, it was hardly likely to be spent in the local improvement of the property. But he had no doubt that the object of the Bill was to simplify matters, and to allow Captain Harrison, who was the second son of the late John Harrison, to make some arrangements by which the property could be divided, and the profits likely to accrue from it realized. That was the real object of the Bill, and he did not think it would have any practical effect in perpetuating the settlement of estates.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—
    The Tellers being come to the Table, Mr. Findlater, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, stated that Mr. Cavendish Bentinck, Member for Whitehaven, being in the Left Lobby, had declined to Vote, not having heard the Question put.
    MR. FINDLATERadded that the number which had voted for the Ayes was 185.
    MR. SPEAKER: Did the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven hear the Question put?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question proposed was, "That the Bill be now read a second time," since which an Amendment has been made 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 not expedient to increase the area of Settled Land, as proposed by the Bill." Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman declare himself with the Ayes, or with the Noes?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: With the Ayes.
    MR. SPEAKERdirected the Vote of the right hon. and learned Getlemann to be added to the Ayes.
    The Tellers accordingly declared the numbers: Ayes 186; Noes 37: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 247.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he was very unwilling to intervene between the House and the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, because he was quite sure that the House was anxious to reach that Bill, as, indeed, he was himself. He would not, therefore, detain the House more than for two or three minutes, while he explained the reasons which had induced him to put down his Notice of opposition to the Bill. The House would remember that this Bill was opposed last Session, on the second reading, by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), and on the third reading by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). It was then referred to an Hybrid Committee. He understood that the conditions of every Hybrid Committee were such, that every question could be taken notice of by the Committee, without the necessity of the persons opposing the Bill appearing before the Standing Order Com-
    1124
    mittee to obtain a locus standi. It appeared to him (Viscount Folkestone) that a Bill going before a Committee of that sort would have all its provisions duly weighed and considered; and he had certainly supposed that the Tolling and Rating Clauses in particular would receive careful consideration. After the Bill had passed the Hybrid Committee to which he referred, it was opposed on the third reading; but it was eventually passed by the House with certain Rating and Toll Clauses inserted in it. But, to his astonishment, the Company came before the House this year, and asked the House, having already obtained the permission of the House of Lords, to sanction higher tolls than those which were asked for last Session. That certainly appeared to him to be a somewhat startling proposition. The Bill had passed, after certain opposition to it, with certain tolls allowed by the Committee to which it was referred; and yet, strange to say, the very next Session the Company promoting it came to the House and asked for an increase of those tolls. It must be borne in mind what sort of a Bill it was. It was a sort of Navigation Bill for a combined railway and canal; and the House were now told that the tolls inserted in the Bill last year were inserted by inadvertence. That appeared to him to be a somewhat extraordinary circumstance. He could not understand how Gentlemen who presumed to be business men, having charge of a largo measure of this kind, could have allowed Toll Clauses to be inserted in the Bill, so low that it would be utterly impossible for them to pay the Railway Company. If that fact were true, it appeared to him that there could not have been anyone of fair business capacity in charge of the Bill. He was told that the person who drafted the Bill took the Model Clause, and inserted the Toll Clauses that were laid down for country railways, which did not require so much capital for making them as a line of this sort, which ran through the heart of the Metropolis. He was further told that this fact was not found out last year until after the Bill had passed through Committee, and that the mistake had arisen solely through inadvertence. The person who was responsible for the inadvertence went, he believed, to the Office of the Chairman of Committees

    1125
    in "another place," and endeavoured to get the Bill re-committed, so as to have the Toll Clauses altered; but it was found to be impossible, and he was advised that the only course that could be taken would be to go to Parliament this year for another Bill, in which there should be embodied an enhancement of the tolls. That was the question the House had to deal with now; and, curious as it appeared to be, it was, nevertheless, the fact that the tolls the Company were now authorized to charge had really got into the Bill through inadvertence, and it would be impossible for the Company to carry on the line without an enhancement of tolls. He would not trouble the House by going into any details upon the matter. He had brought it forward in order to show the House what the facts were, and especially to call attention to the circumstance that the Railway Company was coming up now for an enhancement of tolls, although the Act by which the tolls were fixed was only passed last year. He desired, by the action he was now taking, to call the attention of the Board of Trade, in particular, to the facts of the case. Only this year a Standing Order had been passed requiring the Board of Trade to make a Report in regard to any Rating or Toll Clauses inserted in these Bills. He believed the Board of Trade was now required to present a Report in regard to every new Railway Bill, and every Bill which asked for further powers; but, generally speaking, so far, the Board of Trade had employed a stereotyped phrase stating—
    "That the Bill did not appear to authorize any tolls that were heavier than those which had been authorized for a like undertaking in former years."
    Now, he hoped the Board of Trade would take very particular cognizance of the facts of this case, and that, when the Bill went before a Committee, it would report to the Committee what the real facts were, and whether, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, the inadvertence was one which should be rectified or not. If the Board of Trade would do that, he had no doubt the question would be fully considered by the Committee, and that their decision would give complete satisfaction to the House. Under those circumstances, he did not propose to move the Amendment
    1126
    of which he had given Notice; but he thought the Bill ought to be permitted to proceed.
    MR. MONKsaid, that when the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) rose to address the House, he (Mr. Monk) had been under the impression that he intended to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months, seeing that the noble Viscount had put an Amendment upon the Paper to that effect. He (Mr. Monk) proposed to imitate the noble Lord in one respect—namely, in being as brief as possible in the statement he had to make. The history of this Railway Company was a remarkable one. The Company came into existence in the year 1882, and had now been in existence for some nine months. One of the objects of the Company was to absorb the Regent's Canal; and, in the opinion of many hon. Members who opposed the Bill who were able to form a judgment upon the matter, that object was one which would seriously interfere with the water communication of this country. The subject was considered by Parliament last year. The Bill was opposed on the second reading, and also on the third reading; and the advocates of the measure made out what was considered to be a favourable case, their case being that the poor workmen who resided in the neighbourhood of London would be conveyed at fabulously small fares by the new railway, and that the tolls charged by the new Railway Company should not be higher than those demanded on the Regent's Canal. The House was quite struck by the generosity of the Company, who came forward to ask leave to make the now Railway, and the Bill was passed by a very large majority. Then, as the noble Viscount told the House, before the Act had been in operation three months, the Company came again to Parliament, or rather gave Notice for two new Bills. Ono of those Bills had already passed both Houses of Parliament, and the other was the "Various Powers" Bill, asking Parliament to increase every one of the tolls, in the teeth of what happened when the Company obtained their Act last year. He (Mr. Monk) would tell the promoters at once that if they would withdraw one of the clauses of the Bill he would withdraw his opposition to it, and would not move

    1127
    its rejection. The clause he asked them to withdraw was Clause 5 of the Bill, which proposed that the cost of the carriage of coal should be raised from 1¼d. to 1½d. per mile; that all other goods in Class I. should be raised from 4d. to 11 d. per ton; that the charge for goods in Class II. should be raised from 1½d. to 2d.; in Class III., from 2d. to 3d.; in Class IV. from 2½d. to 4d; and in Class V. from 4d. to 5d. The increase of tolls contained in that clause was the ground, and the only ground, on which he should ask the House to reject the Bill. The noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts, in his remarks upon the Bill, informed the House that the scale of tolls, on the strength of which the Act of last Session was passed, and in reference to which an hon. Friend of his, who opposed the rejection of the third reading last year, waxed quite eloquent, when he spoke of the advantages the poor of London would derive from the passing of the Bill, in being able to travel more cheaply, and in having their goods conveyed on the same terms as by the Canal, had been found inadequate to remunerate this new Railway Company. The noble Viscount said that that scale of charges had been introduced by more inadvertence. But it was in consequence of that very scale of charges that the Bill passed, against a very strong opposition raised to it last year. He had himself presented numerous Petitions against the absorption of the great Canals of the country by Railway Companies. The promises of the promoters last year were, however, most profuse, and it was upon those promises that they obtained their Bill. A Circular had now been issued and delivered to hon. Members, informing them that the scale of charges inserted in the Bill last year was inserted through inadvertence and error, the words used in the Circular being "for inadvertence, and without sufficient consideration having been given to the subject." He would ask the House if it was likely that the astute gentlemen who financed the Company would not have given sufficient consideration to the amount of tolls proposed to be charged in the Bill? He declined to accept this excuse, although the noble Viscount had accepted it. He refused to accept the explanation, and he thought the House of Commons ought to require a
    1128
    much more satisfactory explanation of the matter, before they gave the Company power to raise their tolls one-fourth, and even one-third, above the amount at which they were fixed by the Act passed last Session. There was another important matter which he must not omit to mention. Section 39 of the Act of last year contained a provision that the Company should keep and maintain the railway thoroughly. He had opposed the Bill last year, because he felt certain that the Railway Company would neglect the Canal, and he wished to state to the House what the present state of a portion of the Canal which had been purchased by the Railway Company was. He referred to its condition in the parish of Marylebone, and he would ask the attention of his hon. Friends the Members for Marylebone to this statement. Dr. Winter Bligh had presented a Report, in which he stated that dead bodies of animals were left floating about the Canal, and that there was a poisonous and offensive deposit of mud three feet in depth; the water of the Canal was five or six times more impure than the water of the Thames; it was most offensive to smell, and it exuded the poisonous gases which accompanied decomposition. With cholera at our doors, was that a state in which the Regent's Canal should be left? Notwithstanding, the House was asked to give powers to the Company to increase its tolls, while it was neglecting one of its first duties. He had said that be would be very brief in making his objections to this measure. He thought he had made one a strong case against the Company; and he had already stated that, if they would withdraw Clause 5 of the Bill, he would withdraw his opposition to the measure. He objected altogether to a Bill of that kind going before a Committee as an unopposed measure. Such a Committee would be presided over by the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means; but he would not be assisted by an ordinary Private Bill Committee, to consider and inquire into the matters involved. If it were even proposed that the Bill should go before a Hybrid Committee, he would not move the rejection of the measure; but, as that would not be the case, he would move that the Bill be read the third time upon that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that he was not at all surprised that the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had called attention to the provisions of this Bill, which were certainly very exceptional; but, at the same time, his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was somewhat inconsistent in his opposition to the Bill, because he expressed himself as perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment, if the Company would withhold Clause 5; and yet he said that the insanitary condition of the Canal was so bad that the Company had not taken sufficient precautions to prevent the spread of cholera. Now, he (Mr. Chamberlain) must say that the withdrawal of Clause 5 would have no effect upon the sanitary condition of the Canal.
    MR. MONKsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to say that the sanitary condition of the Canal, unfortunately, had nothing to do with the present Bill; and, therefore, he could not make that a ground for rejecting the measure. He opposed the Bill on account of the increase of tolls which it involved.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was, no doubt, open to the remarks which had been made, both by the noble Viscount and his hon. Friend, that the Company, having obtained their Bill last year, with a particular Schedule of tolls, were now coming forward, 12 months later, with a Bill seeking to increase those tolls by 25, 30, and 50 per cent. Now, the circumstances of the case were briefly these—The undertaking of the Company was a very important one, involving the expenditure of some millions of money; but the success of it would do something to relieve the congestion of the traffic in some of the streets of the Metropolis, and would also provide a better access to the Docks. It was, therefore, an undertaking in the success of which the public were interested. The Company alleged, and he believed truthfully, that owing to the bad advice they received last year they
    1130
    had inserted in the Bill a Schedule of tolls that was altogether unremunerative, and much less than had been allowed for similar untertakings in the Metropolis, but that they only found out their mistake when it was too late to remedy it last year. Under these circumstances, they came to the House of Lords this year to ask for an alteration of the rates. The Board of Trade had made a Report on the matter, in which they called attention to the proposed alterations, and pointed out that the rates maintained last year were less, on the whole, than those which had been allowed to similar undertakings, although, no doubt, they were considerably higher than the rates allowed in the case of country railways. On the merits of the case, he did think the rates now proposed were such as would not be likely to be rejected by the Committee, if they had been included in the Bill in the first instance. The Report of the Board of Trade went on to say that it was unfortunate that, in a case which had been so much contested, provisions should be asked for to increase the rates, almost immediately after the Bill fixing those rates had received the sanction of Parliament. If it was the impression of the House, as it certainly was of the Board of Trade, that those rates were such as would have been allowed in the original Bill of the Company, if the Company had not been precluded, by inadvertence, from altering the rates, he thought it was a case in which the House might allow the second reading of the Bill to pass, with a view of having the case settled by the Committee to which the Bill would naturally be referred. The Report of the Board of Trade which was laid before the Lords' Committee would be submitted to the Commons' Committee; and he hoped that, under the circumstances, his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would withdraw his Amendment.
    MAJOR DICKSONsaid, he thought it was unfair for the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) to endeavour to prejudice the Bill by the statement he had made in reference to the sanitary condition of the Canal. He (Major Dickson) did not think the Canal was better nor worse than it had been for the last 50 years. The only reason which induced him to take part in the debate

    1131
    was that he might state that he had authority for assuring the House that the Schedule of rates inserted last year was inserted entirely from inadvertence, and that it was simply for the purpose of correcting this error that the present Bill had been introduced. He therefore appealed to the House to read the Bill a second time, and allow it to be considered by a Committee upstairs.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that, having been one of those who had joined in a strong opposition to the Bill last year, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the facts of the ease. In the first place, this Company, instead of being a Metropolitan Company, was part of the Great Western Railway Company; and, therefore, it was in exactly the same position as any of the great railways in the Metropolis. In the second place, when the Great Western Railway Company came before the House last year to obtain possession of the last link of the great canal system of the country, they did so, not on the ground that they were going to carry goods, but that they were going to carry passengers; but now, having got possession of the Canal under such representations, they came before the House to ask for increased tolls for carrying goods.
    SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, he could understand the objection, if the Company were now asking the House for an increase of tolls upon the Canal; but, as a matter of fact, the increase was asked for upon the railway on account of the inadvertence committed last year. As Chairman of the Committee which sat upon the Bill last year, he should certainly support the second reading.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had supported the hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Hicks) in his opposition to the original Bill of this Railway Company. It now turned 'out that the objections urged against the measure were very well founded, and not only so, but the House were in this position—that they were unable to discuss the merits of this most important question, because it was impossible to deal with Private Bill legislation in the House itself, except to the detriment of the Public Business of the country. He had simply risen to protest against this system, by which all the substantial interests of the
    1132
    country were sacrificed to the demon of over-centralization. They were told that there was no time to discuss the question, except to the detriment of the real interests of the country; and year after year important questions of this kind were scamped, simply that they might keep up the rights of a Central Chamber of legislation, which was totally inadequate to do the Business of the country.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    INDIA—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT, XIV. OF 1868—SUSPENSION OF ACT.
    MR. HOPWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for India. Whether it be a fact that, in June 1882, the Government of India asked the consent of the Secretary of State for India to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act, XIV. of 1868, on the ground that it was—
    "A measure that had never in practice been a complete success, which was odious in the eyes of our Native subjects, and in those of a large and influential class of Europeans;"
    whether a reply was given that the Secretary was at present unable to assent to the repeal of Act XIV.; but, in deference to the strong view held, would leave it to the discretion of the Government of India to suspend the operation of the Act; and, whether the Act XIV. of 1868 has been suspended; or, whether any further communication has passed between the two Governments on the subject?
    MR. J. K. CROSS, in reply, said, that with regard to the first part of the Question, with no intention to be discourteous, he must refer the hon. and learned Member for an answer to the Papers lately presented, which showed that the hon. and learned Member was right in his assumption. With regard to the latter part, no further Correspondence had passed between the Government of India and the India Office on this subject; but he understood the Act had been suspended in Calcutta.

    INDIA—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT, XIV. OF 1868—SUSPENSION OF ACT.

      METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY.
      DR. CAMERONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a Conference on Cholera Precautions of the Medical Officers of the Metropolitan Parishes, declaring that the important sanitary defect of the Metropolis specially calling for notice is its water supply, and asserting the need of watchfulness over all the reservoirs and mains of the Water Companies; whether the monthly reports on the composition and quality of daily samples of water supplied to London, addressed to the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and forwarded to Members of Parliament, emanate from the Local Government Board or the Water Companies; and, if from the latter, seeing the frequent discrepancies between the results set forth in these reports, and the reports of the Official Water Examiner to the Registrar General, whether he will consider the propriety of directing, at least temporarily, control analyses, and supplementing them by explanations for microbic impurities by the methods devised by Professor Koch and Dr. Angus Smith?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Board have had communicated to them the Resolution passed at the Conference of Medical Officers of Health referred to. The Board do not, however, find in the resolution that the water supply was referred to as "the important sanitary defect of the Metropolis." The members expressed their views as to the importance of a pure public water supply; and stated that, while the amendment of the water service in detail would receive the attention of the Medical Officers of Health, experience had shown the need of watchfulness over the reservoirs and mains of the Water Companies. The Board have brought under the special attention of the Water Examiner of the Metropolis the resolution of the Medical Officers of Health so passed. The monthly Reports referred to do not emanate from the Local Government Board, but are, as I have often stated, prepared for, and at the expense of, the Water Companies. The analyses on behalf of the Board are made by Professor Frankland, and the Board have full confidence in the results of his analysis. At present, the Board see no sufficient
      1134
      reason for obtaining control analyses. With regard to the supplementary examinations, the Board, some time since, arranged for samples of the water of the Metropolitan Companies being supplied to Dr. Angus Smith for examination, according to the method alluded to.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether the attention of the Water Companies had been called to the desirability of supplying the water direct from the mains by taps, in the manner he recommended a few days ago?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, attention had been called to the point, and that was all he could say at present.

      IRELAND—BOROUGH AND COUNTY VALUATION.
      MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board would have any difficulty in preparing a Return showing the number of tenements valued at £4 in Parliamentary boroughs in Ireland, distinguishing each borough; and also the number of holdings in each county in Ulster valued at £11 10s., or any intermediate sum up to, and excluding £12, distinguishing each county?
      MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the Local Government Board could prepare such a Return. In the case of the boroughs there would be no difficulty; but in the case of the counties there would be more trouble, and considerable time would be necessary. He did not think, in the latter case, that the Return would be presented this Session.
      MR. HEALYsaid, in that case, he would move for the Returns separately.

      IRELAND—CLARE SLOB RECLAMATION WORKS.
      MR. BIGGARasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What amount of money the Board of Works in Ireland have advanced on the Clare Slob Reclamation works, and to whom; who is now constructing the works; if it is a fact that, up to the present time, it has not been found possible to close the bank so as to exclude the tidal overflow; and, if the Board of Works are under any obligation to make further advances on

      1135
      the successful completion of the reclamation bank?
      MR. COURTNEY: Sir, this work was at first undertaken by a Company, who contracted for its execution at a cost of £55,000, of which the Board of Works advanced £45,000 to the Company; but that sum proving to be quite inadequate, and the Company being unable to raise further funds, the Board and a gentleman who had lent money to the Company entered into possession as salvage creditors. A second contract was then made for £23,000, of which the Board advanced £15,000 to the contractor; but, owing to storms and unforeseen difficulties, this also proved inadequate, and a further sum of £12,000 was promised to be paid when the work was perfected. The original contractor is the person engaged in constructing the works, which are now far advanced, and which are expected to be, and should be, finished before next winter's storms. The total amount advanced by the Board has therefore been £60,000; and, in addition to that sum, there is £12,000 to be paid when the works are completed. It is believed that if a much larger sum were advanced than has been, the value of the reclaimed land will be quite sufficient to cover the advances made and promised.

      NAVY—GREENWICH PENSIONS.
      CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many Seamen and Marines became eligible for the Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions under Orders in Council during the last twelve months, and how many of these have received them?
      SIR THOMAS BRASSEY (for Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN), in reply, said, that under the Order in Council of the 29th of June, 1878, the number of Greenwich age pensions was fixed at 7,500. The list was completed as vacancies occur. In the year ending March 31 last, 467 men had received pensions. At the same date 840 men had passed the qualifying ago of 55 years; but many were ineligible for a pension which was regarded as a charity, because they were able to support themselves.

      SCOTLAND—THE FORESHORE OF LEITH.
      DR. CAMERON (for Mr. DICK - PEDDIE)asked the President of the
      1136
      Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstance that the foul water from the irrigated meadows between Portobello and Leith is sometimes allowed, along a considerable extent of these meadows, to overflow on the foreshore, which is thereby rendered, at times, impassable; and, whether he will take steps to secure that the discharge from the meadows shall be confined to defined channels?
      MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that he had communicated with the owners of the meadows, but had not, as yet, received any answer.

      ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—THE COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.
      MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are considering the position of the Dublin Collector General from an administrative point of view, and apart from the legal question a Court may have to try, if their decision as to the retention of Mr. Byrne in office depends on whether the Land Commission feel themselves technically warranted in ordering a prosecution, or will it be determined by the usual considerations of public policy; and, can he state when he hopes to be able to announce the decision of the Lord Lieutenant as to the retention of Mr. Byrne in office, and that of the Law Officers of the Crown regarding the advisability of a prosecution?
      MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the matter is receiving the most serious consideration, and I will state the decision at as early a date as I can. The question of the retention of Mr. Byrne in office will not depend upon any action which the Land Commission may see fit to take in the matter.

      IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES.
      MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Johnston, Inspector of Fisheries, has made any reply to the remonstrances recently addressed to him on the subject of his recent speech, and how often similar remonstrances have been addressed to Mr. Johnston since his appointment; and, whether he has given any pledge to ab-

      1137
      stain from delivering similar speeches while he remains a servant of the Crown?
      MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Johnston has replied to the letter I wrote to him on the subject. So far as I have been able to ascertain, he was twice cautioned in 1879 by the Government then in Office, and reminded of his obligations as a permanent salaried officer of the Crown. I did not ask him to give any pledge; but cautioned him against the repetition of such conduct. I hope he will accept the warning; but if he does not he must take the consequences.

      THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — THE RECORDER OF DUBLIN.
      MR. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on 24th July, the Recorder of Dublin, at 1.15 P.M., adjourned his court to distribute the prizes at the Protestant Model Schools, although there are 900 cases listed at the present Sessions; whether upwards of thirty witnesses from Galway, Cork, Belfast, &c., have been attending court daily since 21st July; and whether all suitors are put to great inconvenience by such needless delays; whether it is a fact that the Recorder has, during the last two years, constantly adjourned court to attend "Prison Missions," Bazaars, &c., at the Christian Union Buildings; and, if anything can be done to prevent the loss and inconvenience entailed by adjournments entailed upon those attending court?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Sir, with reference to the inquiries on this Question, I have to state that the Recorder of Dublin was asked to preside at the distribution of prizes in the Marlborough Street Schools, which are the chief model schools of the Irish National Board, on Tuesday, the 24th instant, and, before receiving the Recorder's reply, the managers of the school announced in the papers that he would be the chairman. On Monday, the 23rd, he wrote to say that he could not promise to attend as chairman, but that he would be present for a short period, and try to address the meeting, if it would not cause any inconvenience to the suitors in his Court. On rising on Monday evening, one of the practi-
      1138
      tioners in his Court asked him if he proposed to adjourn earlier than usual on the following day, and the Recorder intimated that he only intended to adjourn for luncheon, from 1 to 3 o'clock, and that he would not adjourn at all if it would cause any inconvenience. On Tuesday, when adjourning for luncheon at 1.30, he asked all the practitioners present in the Court if it would cause them any inconvenience to adjourn till 3 o'clock. They unanimously intimated that it would not cause them the slightest inconvenience, and the Recorder thereupon left the Court at half-past 1 o'clock, reaching Marlborough Street at a quarter to 2. He returned to the Court at five minutes past 3, and stated that, lest his absence should disappoint anyone, he would sit on after the usual time of 5 o'clock, until as late as might be necessary. Accordingly, he did sit till between 5 and 6 o'clock, when every case listed had been disposed of. I am unable to state whether any witnesses were present from a distance; but I am assured that the Recorder took care that they should not suffer any inconvenience on his account.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not usual, when Questions are passed by, that they should be taken at the end of the list?
      MR. HEALY: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know, Sir, if it is usual or customary, when a right hon. and learned Gentleman occupying a seat on the Treasury Bench is answering a Question, that he should be interrupted in this manner?
      MR. SPEAKER: The ordinary course is to wait until the other Questions are got through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, was not in his place when the hon. Member for Monaghan first rose and asked the Question; and it had been put again when the right hon. and learned Gentleman came in. I think it would be more convenient to wait.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) will allow me to finish my answer. The hon. Member for Monaghan asks me whether, for the past two years, the Recorder constantly adjourned to attend bazaars and

      1139
      meetings of Prison Missions, and meetings in the Christian Union Buildings. The fact is, the Recorder has never attended a bazaar during the last two years, either at the Christian Union Buildings, or anywhere else. Within the past 12 months he has been twice in the Christian Union Buildings; but not during the sitting of the Court. He attended a meeting in the Christian Union Buildings this year. I do not know the precise date; but it was held at 8 o'clock in the evening, and he took the chair; and he also attended the annual meeting of the Prison Gate Mission, but that was in the evening, and he certainly never adjourned his Court for the purpose; so that the statement made is perfectly unfounded. His present practice is to sit until 6, 7, and even 8 o'clock in the evening, in order to finish the cases that are listed, so that people from a distance may not be put to inconvenience; and it is his custom, also, to appoint a special day for the hearing of such cases. I feel bound to say that Her Majesty's Government, in any Department of the Public Service, have no more faithful, zealous, and upright public servant than the Recorder of Dublin. He has devoted his life and energies to the discharge of his duties; and I cannot but think it hard that statements of this sort should be made without the strictest inquiry as to their truthfulness.

      ARMY—MESS PLATE.
      MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Circular Letter was recently sent to all or any of the Officers Commanding Regiments in the United Kingdom, inquiring whether any, and, if so, what, steps had been taken by the Officers of their respective regiments to vest their mess plate and other property in trustees; and, if he can state what action, or intended action, on the part of the authorities at the War Office, has led the Officers of so many regiments to take this step in defence of their private property?
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, reports having reached His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge that some regiments had transferred their plate to trustees unconnected with the Army, a letter was written to the General Officer Commanding the Home Dis-
      1140
      trict asking whether such was the case, and expressing His Royal Highness's opinion as to such a transaction. The General Officer Commanding the Home District made the inquiry of the regiments in his district, which is, I presume, the Circular Letter referred to. Two regiments have, I understand, taken this course; but I am not aware of any action, or intended action, on the part of the authorities which has prompted or could justify so irregular a proceeding.
      MR. TOTTENHAMasked whether this course had only been pursued in the Home District, or whether the same Circular had been sent to other districts?
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that he understood there was no Circular; and, as far as he was aware, no inquiry had been addressed to any but the Home District.

      INDIA (BOMBAY)—THE CHOLERA.
      MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that the district season reports for the week ending the 15th of May show the prevalence of cholera in many parts of Bombay; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the "Bombay Gazette" of that date declares that the disease has assumed "serious dimensions in several parts of the Bombay Presidency," and that, though the number of officially reported deaths from cholera during the week was 714—
      "This does not represent the total mortality from the disease, as, in several cases, the presence of cholera is merely mentioned, without any particulars being given;"
      whether, in the Hassick District, there has been 260 officially recorded deaths from cholera during the week ending the 15th May; whether, in the small town of Dhulia, there had been, during the same week, 181 recorded cases, and no less than 76 deaths; whether, in the small town of Coorla, in the neighbourhood of the city of Bombay, cholera had suddenly attacked 63 persons, of whom 38 died within a few hours or a couple of days; and, if special attention has been paid to this state of affairs among the Native population of Bombay?
      MR. J. K. CROSS,in reply, said, the figures quoted in the Question were correct. As regards the other parts of the Question, he had informed the House yesterday that cholera was very pre-

      1141
      valent in the Deccan Districts of Bombay, though the rest of the Presidency was unusually free from disease. The way in which the health Returns were prepared showed that, in comparison with the last 15 years, cholera, though severe, was not exceptionally virulent. He had received information that the cholera in the Deccan Districts, the serious nature of which there was no wish to underrate, was engaging the special attention of the Bombay Government.

      EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
      MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Cairo Correspondent of the "Daily News" to-day—
      "That he had been able to ascertain that, on July 24th, 1,200 deaths took place, whereas the official lists gave only 463;"
      whether no deaths are officially reported from towns or villages under 2,000 inhabitants; and, if any steps can be taken to obtain correct returns of the mortality?
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, my attention has been called to the statement referred to by the hon. Member, and I have already stated in the House that deaths no doubt take place which are unrecorded; but it is impossible, as I have already said, to test the accuracy of the statements which appear in the newspapers from day to day with regard to particular localities. The daily reports received are believed to include all deaths, wherever occurring, and there appears no means of obtaining any Returns more correct than those supplied by the competent Department of the Egyptian Government. The present is not a favourable opportunity for attempting to reform the Statistical Department of the Egyptian Government, which is responsible for these Returns. The subject of that Department is mentioned in the despatches presented to Parliament.
      MR. O'DONNELLasked if they were to understand that the deaths from cholera in Egypt might, in reality, be three times greater than the number given in the official records?
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, he could not commit him-
      1142
      self to any numercial statement of that kind. All he wished the House to understand was, that he did not wish them to believe that implicit faith was placed on every figure which was published.

      POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — LETTER CARRIERS AND THE NEW PARCELS POST.
      MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Are the rural letter carriers of Ireland, under the new parcel post system, to carry 33 pounds weight; and, if so, what increase of pay are they to get, and how much; how will he deal with rural letter carriers on circular routes who have from 14 to 16 miles to travel in single journeys, and may have to carry such weight to the end of their walk; what will become of parcels awaiting them at different places on their route; and, can arrangements be made that where vacancies occur in a post office, or extra hands are required, that rural letter carriers of over ten years' service shall get the preference?
      MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the importance of a letter carrier not being overburdened either with parcels or letters is fully recognized. As bearing on the question of fixing a maximum weight of 35 lbs., I may mention that the weight, including clothes, carried by a soldier, when in marching order, is now between 54 lbs. and 55 lbs. The pay of rural letter carriers is in all cases adjusted to the amount of work they have to perform. There is no rule excluding rural letter carriers from appointments as town letter carriers, and such appointments are not infrequently made; but the town letter carrierships are chiefly recruited from the telegraph messengers, and if it were not for this arrangement it would be difficult to find employment for the majority of the latter class.
      MR. HEALY: I would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the question of parcels, how many days in the year soldiers have to carry 55 lbs?
      MR. FAWCETT: The difference, no doubt, is very considerable; but I may say that the maximum weight has been very carefully considered, and has been in operation for a very long time. At the same time, instructions have been given to the officials to see that the Parcels Post in no ease interferes with the punctual delivery of letters.

      CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS (COMPULSORY EXAMINATION) — THE METROPOLITAN POLICE AT PLYMOUTH.
      CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is in Plymouth at the present moment a member of the Metropolitan Police appointed for the carrying out of the Contagions Diseases Acts; and, if so, whether he is under his control; whether this officer has received instructions not to carry out the provisions of an Act still in force; from whom did he receive those instructions; and, would it be within the power of the local authorities to order that officer to carry out the Law?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that, properly speaking, there was no member of the Metropolitan Police appointed to carry out the Contagious Diseases Acts in Plymouth. The only statutory authority for employing the Metropolitan Police outside of the Metropolitan District was the Act of 1860. That was an Act for the employment of the Metropolitan Police Force in Her Majesty's yards and military stations. The present position of the Metropolitan Police at Plymouth was governed, as he understood it, by the Act of 1869. At the request of the local authority an Inspector of the Metropolitan Police was allowed to render assistance so far as the voluntary submission of women was concerned; but not as regarded compulsory examination. Of course, if the local authorities desired it, the Metropolitan Police Officers would desist from that duty. In answer to the last part of the Question, he had to say that he conceived the Metropolitan Police at Plymouth were under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, and not of the local authority.

      PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he thinks that it is possible, at this period of the Session, adequately to discuss in Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill?
      MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Question was answered, he would ask if it was competent for the right hon.
      1144
      Gentleman to put such a Question as this, which was asking for an opinion as to what would be done by the House?
      MR. SPEAKER,in reply, said, he saw nothing irregular in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not conceive why they should not proceed with the Bill, which was fully discussed on the second reading, and which had been considered for many days in Committee, and by those lawyers who were not upon Circuit. He therefore hoped they should be able to take it without much discussion.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it had been so altered in its progress through the Standing Committee that when it came on for Consideration, as amended, he should move that the Order be read and discharged.

      SUEZ CANAL—CORRUPTNESS OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
      MR. ASH-MEAD-BARTLETTasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether complaints have been made by British shipowners that the local administration of the Suez Canal is partial and corrupt; and, whether the Commanders of British ships are frequently compelled, under risk of serious interruption to their passage of the Canal, to give douceurs and bribes to the officials?
      MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I hope the House—I would almost venture to hope that the hon. Member, upon reflection—will feel that this is a Question which it is hardly generous—indeed, I may say, hardly even fair—to put on the Paper in its present form. The hon. Member makes, or rather insinuates, an accusation, which is the most serious and offensive that could possibly be brought against officials in responsible situations, and he does this without giving any particulars whatsoever. He does not indicate the names of the persons whom he desires to accuse, and does not specify the particular acts of which he accuses them. All I can say in answer to the Question is, that I have not myself received any official information bearing upon this matter, and I am informed by Sir Rivers Wilson that the British Directors of the Suez Canal have not received any complaints of the kind; but I am also requested to say that, if

      1145
      the hon. Member will put me in possession of any particular charges, which he thinks he can bring against any particular official, they shall be thoroughly sifted by the British Directors.
      MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report upon the demands — unfair demands — made on British ships passing through the Suez Canal, issued by the gentleman who has for many years been agent for the Peninsular and Oriental Company there; and I shall bring to his notice the report, if he has not seen it. It appeared in The Times some days ago.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You said "partial and corrupt."
      MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the demand of a bribe for the passage of a ship through the Canal is not corrupt?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. Member is prepared to bring evidence that such a bribe has been demanded, he ought to bring that evidence forward, and not insinuate it.
      MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain that I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether complaints had been made to him of this practice, and that was a perfectly legitimate and usual Question. I have not yet understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny that no complaints have been made. Whether that be so or not, I will, at the earliest opportunity that may be afforded me, bring before the House the evidence on which I base this Question.
      MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In order that there may be no misunderstanding upon the matter, I beg to state that I have denied most distinctly that any complaints have been brought before me. [Mr. ASRMEAD - BARTLETT: You said official.] I have heard vague gossip very much in the nature of the Question of the hon. Member.

      NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES—THE FORTUNE BAY DISPUTE— COMPENSATION.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can explain why a Vote for £11,246, out of the sum of £15,000 paid by Her Majesty's Government to the United States in June 1881,
      1146
      as compensation for acts of violence committed by Newfoundland fishermen in Fortune Bay and other places, has been included in the Supplementary Estimates; whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies did not inform the House in October last that the Government of Newfoundland had agreed to propose a Vote to the Colonial Legislature for the amount so paid; and, on what ground it is proposed to impose on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom the payment of compensation for acts of this nature committed by the inhabitants of a self - governing Colony?
      MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asks for explanation of a Vote about to be submitted in Committee of Supply. That is somewhat inconvenient, if not unprecedented, as the answer necessarily involves statements of facts and arguments, most of which are subjects of controversy. The state of the case, shortly, is this—The sum of £15,000 was settled in diplomatic communications between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States. Of this amount, £150 was apportioned to Canada, and has been repaid, and the remainder was claimed from Newfoundland. The Governor, in compliance with the promise of my hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), duly brought the question of repayment before his Ministers on the meeting of the new Legislature this spring, but was advised by them that there was no hope of obtaining a Vote for the full amount, the inhabitants of Newfoundland having throughout strongly protested that they were not justly liable for any payment, and that the utmost he could hope to obtain was the sum of $17,300, being the value put by a local Judge upon the damages actually inflicted by the Newfoundlanders. Upon full consideration, Her Majesty's Government decided to accept that sum in discharge of their claim, and it has already been received here. As I have intimated, the people of Newfoundland have always disputed their liability, and it must be remembered that the amount paid was settled without consultation with their Government; and in reference to the last Question of the right hon. Baronet, I must remind him that we have practically no means of compelling payment by a self-governing Colony.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHgave Notice that he should oppose the Vote when it was proposed in Committee of Supply.
      SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked whether Papers would be laid on the Table, containing the Correspondence, before the Vote came on?
      MR. COURTNEY,in rely, said, if the hon. Member moved for them, he had no doubt they would be presented.

      MERCHANT SHIPPING-THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TONNAGE.
      SIR JOHN JENKINSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government is prepared to adopt the Report of the Royal Commission on Tonnage to put an end to the gross anomalies between the measurement and carrying capacity of steamships in the future?
      MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have considered and highly appreciate the valuable Report of the Royal Commission on Tonnage; and I am inclined, speaking generally, to agree with the recommendations of the Commission. My hon. Friend (Sir John Jenkins) will see that pressure of other work has rendered it quite impossible to deal with the question during the present Session. I hope it may be possible next year to deal with the whole subject of the law affecting merchant shipping; and, if so, this matter of tonnage will be one of the points which will come up for consideration.

      METROPOLIS WATER ACT, 1871—THE GRAND JUNCTION WATERWORKS COMPANY.
      MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR)asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the notice recently issued by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, requiring householders to put additional values, covers, guard hoses, &c., in their houses; and, whether those additions will not cause heavy outlay to the householders of the Metropolis, while, at the same time, preventing them from clearing out their cisterns or flushing the drains so easily as they can do under the present system?
      MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, the Board have obtained a copy of the notice which has been issued by the Grand
      1148
      Junction Waterworks Company. The Company, in view of a continuous water supply, have required that each supply-pipe shall have a screw-down stop-valve, and that the valve, if fixed underground, shall have a proper cover and guard box—not guard hose. These fittings are essential under a system of constant supply, which the Board desires to see adopted generally; and the requirements of the notice are in strict accordance with the regulations made under the Metropolis Water Act, 1871. The valve, &c., cannot, as it appears to the Board, in any way prevent the cleaning out of cisterns and the flushing of drains, and the expense of providing them is but small.

      INDIA (MILITARY EXPENDITURE)—THE BRITISH COMMISSION AT SIMLA.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would state the names of the British Commission which sat at Simla more than two years ago to consider the Military expenditure of India; whether it is true that the Report recommended the abolition of separate Staffs in the Bombay and Madras armies, and other large reductions in the Military expenditure; whether such Report has yet been published; and, if not, what has caused the delay in doing so; and, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?
      MR. J. K. CROSS,in reply, said, that the Simla Army Commission was composed of Sir Ashley Eden, Mr. Bernard, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Peter Lumsden, General Phayre, General O'Connor, Colonel Baker, Colonel Macgregor, and Major Newmarket. They recommended the abolition of the Commander-in-Chief in the Madras and Bombay districts, with their Staffs, and the substitution, for the present three Commanders-in-Chief in India, of one Commander-in-Chief and four Lieutenant Generals, each with a separate Staff, complete in all departments. That change would not cause any reduction of expenditure; but other changes recommended would have that result. Some of those changes had been carried out, as explained last year by the Secretary of State for War. The Report had not been published, because no final decision had been arrived at. He hoped to include a full

      1149
      account of this matter in his official Statement on the Indian Budget.

      CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE COMPULSORY CLAUSES — ENFORCEMENT IN THE SEAPORTS.
      LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the enforcement of the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and of the great increase of disease that has taken place in our seaport towns, as well as the abandonment by the Government of all legislation upon the subject this year, he can assure the House that, as far as lies in the power of the Government, police assistance shall be given, as heretofore, to enforce the Law; and that, pending future legislation, the health and efficiency of our Army and Navy shall not suffer by the departmental negligence of the Executive during the Recess?
      CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Prime Minister, Whether he is not aware that it is not only the health and efficiency of the Army and Navy, but the morality of those towns which were heretofore protected, that is suffering to an alarming extent, owing to the withdrawal of the provision for compulsory examination; that, in fact, there are hundreds of young girls and women on the streets of those towns who dare not have carried on their immoral trade had the Acts been in force?
      MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he was aware that the restrictions of the Acts, whatever they were, operated upon the population of the places subject to the Acts as well as on the troops who might constitute the garrison of those places; but if the assertion which the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price) conveyed in his Question were correct, it appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that it raised another question—as to whether the attention of the police had been properly directed to that state of facts, for they would have power to deal with such abuses as they arose. In answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), he had to say that he had consulted with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington); and he was of opinion, with his noble Friend, that the time which had elapsed since the Resolution against the compulsory provisions of the Act was adopted by the House
      1150
      did not disclose a state of things sufficient to warrant the Government in arriving at any positive conclusion, or in undertaking to announce any particular course of action. Comparing the increase which had taken place in subjected and non-subjected districts, the utmost effect which might be attributed to the suspension was that, of a strength of 40,000, there had been 27 additional admissions per week. Without further information as to the stations from which troops had lately come—Egypt, for instance—it was impossible to say how much disease was to be ascribed to the change which had been made. Some part of the increase, however, might he explained by the circumstances surrounding the removal of troops to different places. He would not, therefore, give an assurance that the same practice would have been adopted if the Resolution had not been passed. With respect to the last Question of the noble Lord, undoubtedly there would be no departmental negligence during the Recess on the part of the Executive.
      LORD EUSTACE CECILasked whether the Government would allow local authorities, upon application, to have the assistance of the Metropolitan Police?
      MR. GLADSTONEasked that Notice might be given of the Question.

      HARBOUR AT DOVER—CONVICT LABOUR.
      MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is in a position to lay upon the Table Plans and Estimates of the proposed harbour at Dover to be carried out by convict labour, in a form to enable the House to form a judgment upon the scheme, before a Vote is taken for the Convict Prison to be built at Dover?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that Papers had already been supplied to the House, which gave the plans and estimates for the proposed harbour. What the Government proposed was, to build a prison by convict labour. That would take three years to complete, before the harbour works would be commenced; and, therefore, during that period there would be time for re-considering and carefully going over the plans and estimates for the harbour. He only mentioned that, because it must not be taken for granted that the plans and estimates were absolutely and finally conclusive.
      MR. W. H. SMITHasked what course the Government intended to pursue should the Harbour be found almost impossible of construction at Dover?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that could not be taken for granted. Of course, the Government relied on their scientific advisers. As their advisors thought it to be possible, the Government had founded the plans on that advice.

      SUEZ CANAL—PRIOR CLAIM TO EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF M. DE LESSEPS.
      MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether lie will lay upon the Table the documents showing that, in 1872 (that is, when the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of the Government), a claim was made to a larger monopoly by M. de Lesseps than that lately claimed by him?
      MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that the Paper to which he referred in the debate of the previous evening would be laid upon the Table. He wished, at the same time, to say that the claim of M. de Lesseps in 1872 did not arise out of any transaction between him and the British Government; nor was it a claim of which the Government had any official cognizance. It came to their knowledge as a matter of information merely, as regarded communications that were taking place in Egypt, and between M. de Lesseps and the Khedive.
      MR. BOURKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how it came to the knowledge of the Government?
      MR. GLADSTONE: The Papers will show that much better, I think, than I can.

      LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE DUBLIN MURDERS TRIAL — THE ASSASSINATION OF CAREY, THE INFORMER.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked, Whether the accounts in the papers about the assassination of Carey, the informer, are true; and, whether he was at the time of his death under police protection; if not, when that protection ceased as far as he was concerned?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I will give the right hon. Gentleman all the information I possess. The Government have received no direct information themselves about this matter, nor could they have done so; but the agent
      1152
      of Messrs. Currie, the owners of the steam vessels plying to the Cape of Good Hope, communicated to me yesterday afternoon the following telegram:—
      "James Carey, Irish informer, shot dead on board the Melrose, 29th July, by passenger named O'Donnell."
      That is all the information I possess on the subject. I have no knowledge of the protection afforded to Carey by the police, that being a matter for the Irish police.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Can the Chief Secretary for Ireland state anything on the subject?
      MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have no information upon the matter; but I will to-morrow see the gentleman who is responsible for the police, or hear from him fully; and I will see if the information is of a nature which I can communicate to the House.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

      MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
      SIR MASSEY LOPESasked, Whether, in view of the numerous Notices of opposition to the National Debt Bill, that important measure will be brought forward at so late a period of the Session; if so, when?
      MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Government adhere to the intention which was explained by me on a former day, not very long ago, that, although this Bill is certainly an important Bill, and although it is true that several hon. Members have given Notice of their intention to oppose it, yet, in our view, the question raised in the Bill is a simple one. We do not look upon it as a Bill in relation to which it is likely that a great number of questions of detail will arise; and, therefore, conceiving it to be very closely connected with the efficiency and healthiness of, our financial system, we feel it our duty to take the judgment of the House upon it. I should hope that the Bill will be submitted for second reading on Tuesday next, placing it absolutely or substantially as the first Order. I may state that on Thursday we propose to proceed with Supply, taking the remaining English and Scotch Votes in Class II. and the Votes in Class III. on Law and Police; and likewise, if we can, taking the Scotch Education

      1153
      Vote. We shall also propose to proceed with Supply on Monday and Thursday next week. We shall give sufficient Notice of the Votes then to be taken. To-night, we expect to dispose of the Report of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, and of what remains to be done in Committee on the Scotch Bill. In that case, I come to deal with the Business for to-morrow (Wednesday). At present, that Business is menaced by the barrier of a discussion, which would undoubtedly be one of great importance, upon a Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) in relation to a new Standing Order affecting rates on railways. That opens a subject so wide that it is quite evident that it will excite a lively interest on the part of the numerous Gentlemen in the House connected with the various railways of the country, and I own I think that, if it came to be launched, it would be impossible, in the limited number of hours assigned, to make practical progress, or to obtain a judgment of the House upon the Standing Order. Taking that fact into view, and likewise the urgency of proceeding with Legislative Business, I am disposed to make an appeal to my hon. Friend, and to express the hope that he will feel himself justified in not pressing that subject to-morrow, but in waiting for a more convenient season for bringing it under the consideration of the House. I would also make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for Preston opposite (Mr. Tomlinson), that he would likewise be inclined to combine with my hon. Friend in allowing the House to deal with Legislative Business. If that should be the case, and if the two Agricultural Holdings Bills pass their present stage to-night, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) will to-morrow proceed to submit, for second reading, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and take the judgment of the House on that subject. It will be followed, in case it should not occupy the whole day, by the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped that the Prime Minister would invert the order announced yesterday, and take the Report on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill before the Report on the Bankruptcy Bill. It was important that the former
      1154
      measure should be proceeded with while the House was still full.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government would consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to the best of their ability, and he would announce, on an early day, the conclusion at which they might arrive.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind the Prime Minister that the hon. and learned Attorney General had promised a great many Amendments on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill to meet the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it was desirable that these should be considered while the attendance was full.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, whether, under no circumstances, it would be taken that night?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman riot to assume that, supposing they were fortunate enough to dispose of the two Agricultural Holdings Bills in sufficient time that night, the Government should not take the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
      SIR JOHN HAY: After what hour will it not be taken?
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Half-past 12 o'clock.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, when it was intended to bring on the Vote for Major Baring's salary?
      MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he could not state absolutely now; but the Government had the matter in view for an early day.
      MR. RAIKESasked, what Business would be taken on Friday; and, whether there was to be a Morning Sitting on that day?
      MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, there were Votes relating to the Transvaal and to Egypt, which must have precedence of further Votes for the Army. He thought the time had come when the Government might ask the House for the whole of Friday, and, possibly, for Saturday Sittings; but he would refer to that matter again in a day or two, when it might be necessary to include Saturdays in their calculations. He was reluctant to include next Friday, simply on the ground that the first Notice on the Paper for that

      1155
      day was one impugning the conduct and policy of his noble Friend the Viceroy of India (the Marquess of Ripon), and he would not like to make any request to the House which would seem to imply, on the part of the Government, any unwillingness that a subject of that kind should come under the notice of the House.
      SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a strong protest was entered against Saturday Sittings, at the time when the House was asked to give greater facilities to the Government for the despatch of Business, and the right hon. Gentleman, recognizing the great inconvenience of such Sittings, intimated that there would come a time, with the end of the Session plainly in view, when it might be expedient to have Saturday Sittings, rather than add a few days to the length of the Session. He understood the right hon. Gentleman would not ask for Saturday Sittings until he was in a position to tell the House when he expected the Session would end. In the spirit of the understanding then come to, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House now what was the earliest possible day when he expected the Session to close?
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not absolutely admit the perfect accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; still, it was not very far from correct. It was quite true he was desirous to postpone, as long as possible, the date for making an application so disagreeable as that of Saturday Sittings. He had not, in fact, yet made the application. It was only what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) that made him refer to the subject; but, when he did make the application, he would state all that appeared to him to bear on the case.
      In reply to Mr. PEMBERTON,
      MR. B. S A MUELSONsaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the Prime Minister, he would not bring forward the Standing Order which stood in his name to-morrow; but he begged to give Notice that he would do so early next Session.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would not to-morrow propose the Standing Order of which he had given Notice.

      EGYPT—HEALTH OF THE TROOPS.
      LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, If lie can give the House any information as to the health of our troops in Egypt; and, whether the statement is true which appears in the newspapers, that one-seventh of the men attacked with cholera die from the disease?
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, with the leave of the House, I will read a short telegram I received, before coming down to the House, from the General commanding in Egypt. It is dated this day, and says—
      "The general health of the troops good. Type of cholera less virulent at Cairo. Cases under treatment more hopeful."
      That is all I have received to-day. As I have before stated, all the figures and names are communicated to the newspapers as soon as they are received. A telegram, containing the nominal Return of deaths, arrived yesterday, after the meeting of the House, which appears in to-day's newspapers. I cannot answer off-hand; but I do not think the statement is accurate that one-seventh of the men attacked with cholera die from it.

      PARLIAMENT—THE STANDING COMMITTEES.
      MR. WARTONasked the Prime Minister, Whether, and when, he intends to submit to the House the Resolution on the subject of devolution—that is to say, on the subject of Grand Committees?
      MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he thought he had explained the intention of the Government with regard to the matter, at some length on a former occasion. What it was he would state very briefly—namely, that while this subject had in their eyes assumed an even increased importance from the experience of the present Session, they did not think the time or the circumstances convenient for making a proposal, and, consequently, they had decided to adjourn the consideration of the subject until next year.

      LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE INFORMER WALSH.
      MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the informer Walsh, of whom Baron Dowse remarked—

      1157
      "A worse specimen of humanity, if the word humanity could be applied to such a person, never in the whole course of my experience, which I am sorry to say is rather long, have I met with than this man Walsh. The jury should be careful before they believe the evidence of such a man,"
      has been rewarded by the Crown; if so, out of what fund; on what portion of the Estimates will his remuneration become a charge; how much money he has been paid; whether he gave information before or after his arrest; and, if it is intended to employ him as a witness at any future trial?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER),in reply, said, he had already answered the first part of the Question. This man was arrested on the 7th of January, 1882, and discharged on the 27th February, 1882. It was not until the month of February, 1883, that he gave any information on the subject on which he was examined afterwards. He was in St. Helen's, Lancashire, at that time, and brought to Ireland; and, up to the present time, he was supported as any other witness would be; but he had received no money whatever in the nature of reward or otherwise. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not aware of any circumstances under which he would be examined in another case by the Crown, although he could not say that circumstances would not arise to render that necessary.

      THE NATIONAL GALLERY—EXTENSION OF THE HOURS OF ADMISSION AND LIGHTING.
      MR. DANIEL GRANTasked the honourable Member for Cumberland, as one of the Trustees of the National Gallery, Whether any steps have been taken so as to light the Gallery as to enable it to remain open to the public until ten o'clock at night every week-day throughout the year, in accordance with the requisition very numerously signed by Members of this House, and forwarded to the Trustees at the Session before last?
      MR. GEORGE HOWARD,in reply, said, that the Trustees had not as yet taken any steps to meet his hon. Friend's demand. They were, however, anxiously considering the matter, and had made inquiries as to the safety and efficiency of electric lighting, and they were informed that, in both respects, improvements were
      1158
      likely to be made. They had, therefore, thought it advisable, as far as yet, not to take any steps on the matter; and he might say that they were anxious to avail themselves of any suggestions on the subject, so far as they did not involve any risk of injury to the pictures. They had observed what had been done in lighting the Museum at South Kensington. The last time he went there he found that the electric light had suddenly gone out in the Library. Any unfortunate confusion that might have resulted was prevented at South Kensington by the use of gas lamps; but that was a resource not open to the Trustees at the National Gallery. Gas would be very damaging to the pictures. Though the glazing of the pictures proceeded very steadily, it would be impossible to give a wholesale order for glazing, for the pictures required careful cleaning before they were glazed. If the Gallery was opened at night, it was feared, from the neighbourhood in which it was situated, that the rooms would be crowded by persons who did not go there for study. The case of South Kensington was not analagous, because that place was not near Leicester Square.

      NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) — NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS — GRATUITIES TO WIDOWS AND FAMILIES ON DECEASE.
      MR. M. BROOKS (for Mr. BELLINGHAM)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of snaking some provision by way of gratuity for the widows and children of such Irish National Teachers as have served under the Board for a long period, and have continued to discharge their duties up to death?
      MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I do not think I can hold out any prospect of such an arrangement; but it is a question rather for the consideration of the Treasury than of the Irish Government. At present, there is something like a fixed sum distributed among the teachers, upon which no additional charge could be imposed. Therefore, unless there was a balance from that sum, there could be no fund available for the gratuities referred to in the Question. Even, however, if there was a surplus, legislation would be required. It must be remem-

      1159
      bered that Irish National Schoolteachers are not in a different position in this respect from civil servants of the Crown.

      POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
      MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked the Postmaster General, Whether orders have been given to the Letter-carriers in some districts to provide themselves with a horse and cart, to enable them to carry parcels; and, if so, whether any money is to be found by the Government for the purchase of these vehicles?
      MR. FAWCETT: Sir, when it has been necessary to convert a walking into a mounted service, the practice has always been for the letter-carrier to provide the horse and cart, the Department making him a weekly allowance. That practice it is intended to continue when the parcels post is in operation. In those cases, and they very seldom occur, where it is found that a letter-carrier is unable or unwilling to provide a horse and cart, care is always taken to find him some employment elsewhere.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.
      AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.— [BILL 272.]
      (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Solicitor General.)

      FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
      [SECOND NIGHT.]
      Bill, as amended, further considered.
      Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
      MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the clause, in order to substitute the following new clause:—
      "Notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement subsisting between him and his landlord, a tenant may give notice, in the manner provided by this Act, of his intention to claim compensation under this Act, as though an agreement were subsisting between them, and thereupon all the Clauses contained herein as to compensation shall apply between such landlord and tenant, and all questions as to compensation shall be settled in manner provided by this Act, and the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement existing between the landlord and tenant, shall, so far as any question in respect of compensation between such landlord and tenant is affected thereby, unless the tenant shall make his claim thereunder, to the exclusion of the mode of
      1160
      compensation contained in this Act, become and be wholly void and of no effect: Provided always, That where, under any of the provisions of any such subsisting agreement of tenancy, the landlord has made any payment or outlay, or has given to the tenant any other valuable consideration in respect of the said tenancy, and the tenant shall, notwithstanding such agreements, give notice for compensation under this Act, such landlord may give notice of counter-claim in respect of any such payment or outlay, or other valuable consideration, in the manner prescribed in this Act."
      New Clause (Notice by tenant to claim compensation,)—(Mr. Staveley Hill,)—brought up, and read the first time.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he objected to the proposed clause, as being a distinct alteration of the Bill for the worse. The Bill proposed that it should rest with the Law Courts, if they chose, to set aside an agreement entered into between two parties; but what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) proposed was to leave it open to one of the parties to set aside the agreement without the intervention of a Law Court at all. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was astonished at such a proposal coming from the hon. and learned Member, and hoped he would not press it to a Division. It would be most unfair to give one party to an agreement the option of setting it aside after he had taken advantage of its provisions.
      MR. DODSONsaid, that he had nothing to add to what had been so well expressed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), further than to say that be could not support the clause, which would render all agreements between landlords and tenants so much waste paper. The clause, as proposed, would apply not only to agreements under Clause 5, but to present, past, and future agreements. The effect would be that no one would enter into an agreement at all, because either party would have the right to violate the agreement when he chose. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYconsidered the proposal a reasonable one. It was desirable that a landlord and tenant should he allowed to make a private agreement, as the landlord might give the tenant better terms than were proposed under the Bill. But, while that was provided

      1161
      by the clause, care was taken that the tenant under such an agreement should not have less compensation than was provided under the Bill. He could not see any hardship in the landlord and tenant having power to contract, so that the tenant should have the power to obtain compensation either under the Bill, or under his private agreement. Hon. Members, therefore, ought to accept the clause. It was an Amendment which he was sure was greatly desired, and would be welcomed by and meet with the approval of the majority of the tenant farmers of England as one that would do away with many causes of disputes and misunderstandings. For that reason, if his hon. and learned Friend went to a Division, he should support him.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the whole of Clause 5 was open to great objection, and he therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would take a Division on the question. There was an opinion outside the House, and one which would be strengthened by the course adopted in reference to the Amendment, that an understanding had been arrived at between the two Front Benches to defeat all Amendments, like the one under notice, which would tend to make the Bill a good one; and, in his opinion, the effect had been to prevent its being made as efficient as was desired by the country.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was surprised and disappointed to find that when an improvement was suggested from the other side of the House it should receive so little consideration from the Government. He hoped the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would go to a Division.
      MR. STAVELEY HILLexplained that it was the intention of his clause to apply to all agreements existing or in the future.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 255: Majority 192.—(Div. List, No. 248.)
      Clause 1 General right of tenant to compensation).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made, in page 1, line 9, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      MR. J. W. BARCLAY,in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, in line 14, after "tenant," the words "entitled to the benefit of the improvement," said, he proposed it with the object of making the standard of valuation as clear as possible for the benefit of country valuators.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, after the word "tenant," to insert the words "entitled to the benefit of improvement."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, which he thought would make the clause less plain than it was, and would give rise to entanglements.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. DUCKHAM,in moving, as an Amendment, the omission, in page 1, line 14, of the following Provisoes which had been inserted at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when the Bill was in Committee:—namely,
      "Provided always, that in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account anything that may be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"
      said, the principle of the Bill was that the compensation should be measured by the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant, and he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the House that the Bill should be restored to the form in which it was introduced by the Government. During the passage of the Bill through Committee, two Amendments were carried, which, in his opinion, were extremely detrimental to the interests of the tenant farmers. The first of these Amendments, which limited the amount of compensation to the outlay of the tenant, was altogether contrary to the principle of the measure, and since it had been carried it had been condemned by numerous meetings of agriculturists and by the agricultural newspapers. Mr. Clare Sewell Read wrote last week that by far the most

      1163
      mischievous Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Hertford. [Cries of "Agreed!" and "Divide!"] He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented counties throughout England should be so impatient that they could not hear him give the opinions of such a practical farmer as Mr. Clare Sewell Read. He trusted the House would consider the propriety of eliminating these two prejudicial Amendments from the Bill.
      Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "tenant," to the end of Clause 1.—(Mr. Duckham.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'Provided always, That' stand part of the Bill."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he would suggest that his question would be better discussed on an Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Dodson's) name on the Paper. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw his Amendment in order to allow him (Mr. Dodson) to move his. He thought that would be the more convenient and more intelligible conrse, and by it an opportunity would be afforded to the hon. Gentleman of practically voting for his own proposal.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he could not do that, because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would only make a bad matter worse. He felt so strongly on the subject that he would certainly go to a Division.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would also appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw the Amendment. He would point out to him that while he did so, he would still have an opportunity of supporting it by voting against the Amendment to be brought forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson).
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that being so, he would withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. DODSON,in moving the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, to leave out the words—
      "In respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the
      1164
      tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto there shall not be taken into account anything that may he due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"
      and to insert the following words:—
      "In estimating the value of any improvement in Parts I and 2 of the First Schedule thereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"
      said, the Government had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as an excess of caution; for, while they did not consider it in any way necessary as explanatory of the meaning and intention of the clause, they had consented to adopt it as a further safeguard against the landlord being charged for improvements which the tenant had really not made. At the same time, they had kept themselves free to alter the phraseology, and he had told the right hon. Baronet that they should, if necessary, take the liberty of considering whether the words of his Amendment would admit of improvement. The Government considered the words of the right hon. Baronet too indefinite—they might be construed as indicating a bias against the tenant, and as directing the valuers, in case of doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt to the owner. Accordingly, the Amendment bad been drawn up which he was now moving. They were in this clause only laying down the principle by which the valuers were to be guided, and were not laying down hard-and-fast rules. The words he now proposed were also necessarily rather vague; still, he thought they were more precise than those in the Bill, and, therefore, he moved their insertion. As to the words limiting the amount of compensation to be given to the tenant by the amount of his outlay, he should not delay the House by giving reasons for their omission, for it almost appeared to him that it was only necessary to state the proposition they involved in plain words, in order to make it apparent that it was not a fundamentally fair or just proposition. It practically said that if a tenant made improvements, though he might receive less, he was never to receive more than the amount of the outlay. That would exclude the skill shown by the tenant in executing the work wisely and successfully. There

      1165
      were many improvements that did not begin to yield a profit for a number of years, such as liming, the planting of orchards, the laying out of gardens, and the laying down of land in grass. If drains had been well laid, so that they would last a long time, the tenant might not derive benefit for three or four years; they might be as good when he left as on the day they were made; the price of labour and materials might have risen in the interval, and he was entitled to consideration for the increase in the value of the improvement he had made. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which provided that the compensation should not exceed the outlay of the tenant, had been voted for under a misapprehension, many hon. Members having left the House in the belief that the question it raised had been finally disposed of by the Division immediately preceding. Moreover, since then the Government had agreed to adopt that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. The measure of value was, in the opinion of the Government, the only sound one. It was a right and true measure, and fair to all concerned. He moved the present Amendment, with the view of restoring the Bill as regarded value to the original principle on which it was based, and at the same time of accepting loyally the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 14, to leave out all the words after the word "that," to the end of Clause 1, in order to insert the words "in estimating the value of any improvement in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil." — (Mr. Dodson.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he did not wish to interfere as regarded the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but, as the Amendment which had just been moved practically contradicted one which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was successful in carrying in Committee, he wished to
      1166
      offer one or two observations upon it. It was not out of any particular love for his Amendment that he objected to the Government re-opening a question which had been discussed and decided in a large and fully attended Committee; but he would warn them that in doing so they were setting an example which they must not be surprised if they found it taken advantage of in other quarters, and used against themselves. The Amendment now proposed divided itself into two parts—the first omitted the words which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) introduced into the Bill; and the second introduced a modification of the words suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to be of opinion that many hon. Members would not have voted for his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment had they known that the right hon. Baronet's was subsequently to be introduced, he was constrained to say that, while he approved of it as far as it went, the latter did not, in his opinion, quite meet the situation. What wore the inherent capabilities of the soil, and how were they to be defined? No doubt, the intentions of the Government and of the right hon. Baronet were excellent; but how would the clause, as they proposed to amend it, work in practice? For instance, a railway might be made in the neighbourhood of a farm. Would the increased value of the farm, in consequence of that improvement, go to the landlord or to the tenant? He believed that the Government would acknowledge that it should go to the landlord; but it could not do so, if the clause was amended in the manner proposed, as a railway was neither a tenant's improvement, nor could it be included among the inherent capabilities of the soil. That would show the weakness in the proposal of the Government in the Bill which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had wished to correct. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had not, he (Mr. A. J. thought, in dealing with the Amendment carried in Committee, fully grasped its meaning. The cases lie mentioned were not touched by the Amendment, for he deliberately accepted precisely the improvements on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his objection. If the Amendment were carried out, the

      1167
      tenant would be able to get the full value of his outlay while lie remained, and the whole of his capital when he left the farm. Was not that a just arrangement? If it were not, he could not understand how the Government could refrain from bringing in a Bill dealing with house property, where a tenant, who had increased the value of his house, would have to leave without getting sixpence by way of compensation. How grossly unjust, on the theory of the Government, must be a law which they had refused to inquire into. Then, with regard to the landlord, he let to the tenant a most delicate instrument of production, in the shape of the land, which, by unskilful handling, might be so misused as to be greatly injured; for instance, lime might be so used as to greatly destroy the fertility of the soil, and yet, under the Bill, the landlord would have no remedy at all. It would, therefore, be very unfair to him to compel him to part with all control over his land with regard to certain improvements, at the same time that the tenant was allowed to speculate upon them. The Bill was founded on the principle of valuation; valuers were a necessary instrument for carrying it out; but he thought that every practical agriculturist would agree with him that they were very imperfect instruments. In the Highlands of Scotland there had been a custom that the stock on a farm was handed over to the next tenant, or to the landlord, at a valuation; the valuation was fair for the tenant, but it was 20 or 25 per cent higher for the landlord. There was danger that such a custom would arise here and of its becoming general. It it did, it would practically be a system of compensation for disturbance, and no landlord could take his land into his own hands without paying a heavy fine. Believing that that was not the desire of any one in the House, and that the tenant farmers would be the first to repudiate it, he should ask the House, recollecting what came sometimes from the germs of legislation, to resist this Amendment, and to abide by the Bill as it left the Committee.
      MR. SHAWLEFEVREsaid, that with reference to the remark of the hon. Members opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour), that the Government were re-opening this question on Report, after it had been
      1168
      settled in Committee, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would remind him that his Amendment was carried only by the small majority of 8, and that, too, after a considerable number of hon. Members had left the House under the impression that no further Division on the point would take place. He thought, therefore, they were quite justified in re-opening it. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the Amendment now proposed would not give adequate protection to the landlords, and he went on to quote some hypothetical cases, which were always difficult to answer. The hon. Member asked, if a railway coming into a district added to the general value of the farm, whether that would be considered a tenant's improvement? He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) should say not; but that was only his opinion. He presumed it was covered by the phrase "inherent capabilities of the soil." But even if such an improvement was not covered by those words, he should think a valuer, in assessing compensation for a tenant's improvements, would not be justified in reckoning such adventitious improvements. The fallacy which, he thought, underlay the whole argument and the Amendment of the hon. Member was this. He appeared to think that, under the principle of the Bill, the tenant would get the full value of his outlay in all cases; but he seemed to have forgotten that if, in consequence of the deterioration of the improvement, or from other causes, the value of the improvement was less at the time the tenant quitted his holding, the tenant would get less for that improvement. Their contention was, that when the reverse occurred—when, through the greater skill with which the improvement had been effected, or a rise in prices, its value was greater—the tenant ought to be entitled to enhanced compensation in proportion to his reduced compensation in the contrary case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford would come into effect rarely, for he would admit that the cases would be extremely rare in which the value of the improvements would increase; but whenever it did it, if this Amendment were left in the Bill, it was his confident belief that it would work such an amount of injustice and create such a sense of grievance and bitterness as would inevitably lead to demands for fresh legis-

      1169
      lation, which hon. Members opposite would do well to avoid. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, whom they were sorry not to see still in this House, particularly when they were discussing questions of this kind, spoke of the hon. Member's Amendment in this language—
      "The Amendment of Mr. Balfour is a most complete example of 'Heads I win, tails you lose' against the improving tenant. He may spend his money, and take the chance of losing it all, or the greater portion of it, if his expenditure has in any way failed; but if he has made a decided hit, than he never shall be paid more than his original outlay. The instances of an agricultural improvement in Clauses 2 and 3 being worth more than the prime cost are so exceedingly few that this niggardly precaution can only benefit about one owner in 100, whereas it will exasperate 99 tenants, who will chafe under a sense of injustice which they fancy may one day tell against them."
      That was his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) own opinion, and he believed if the words were retained there would be further agitation. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford.
      LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, that if he had been aware, when he voted for the hon. Member for Hereford's (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment, that the question would have assumed its present shape, he, for one, would not have voted for it. He considered that they had two main objects in view in the principle of the Bill. One was, that the tenant should receive a full and perfect return for his outlay on any improvements he made; the other was to encourage both landlord and tenant to increase the interests of agriculture generally. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) appeared to him to meet the necessities of the case, and he should consequently support it. He believed that, if it were agreed to, it would have the effect of stimulating them to lay out money upon agricultural improvements, and thus benefit the whole country. He thought both landlord and tenant ought to do all in their power to have this question decided now, so as to prevent its having to come before Parliament again.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he wished to point out that the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman was limited to the First Schedule of the Bill, and that, if it were adopted, it would make the clause actually considerably worse than when it
      1170
      was first introduced. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that in regard to all improvements under the First and Second Schedules, the improvements due to the inherent capabilities of the soil were not to be reckoned in calculating the compensation; but as no mention was made of the Third Schedule, the inference to be drawn was that, in regard to improvements made under that Schedule, improvements clue to the inherent capabilities of the soil were to be considered in the tenant's favour. He hoped the House would adhere to the decision they had already come to in Committee, for the Amendment as now proposed was not just. Anyone conversant with practical matters of farming knew how the fertility of light soils might be improved without any outlay on the part of the tenant; and it was, therefore, neither just nor fair that he should have a right to a larger compensation than the actual sum he had expended.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsupported the Amendment.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he would point out that there were certain improvements which grew in value from year to year, and to limit the compensation to the actual outlay of the tenant in such a case would be a great injustice.
      Question put.
      The House divided: Ayes 76; Noes. 166: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 249.)
      Question proposed,
      "That the words in estimating the value of any improvements in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil' be there inserted."
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he desired to propose an Amendment to the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman. He would ask why Part III. of the Schedule was not included in the Proviso? Surely it was just as true of improvements under the 3rd Part, as of the 1st and 2nd, that the tenant had no right to what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Of course, as the Bill stood, this Proviso had been applied only to one Part of the Schedule, for the simple reason that the other Parts were covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Unless this Pro-

      1171
      viso was applied to improvements of the third class as well as of the first and second, it was possible that a valuer, through ignorance, might attribute to the tenant, in estimating the unexhausted value of such improvements, something which really belonged to the owner of the soil. He was of opinion that the only guide which the valuers were to have under the Bill was the Proviso which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed, and it seemed to him that Proviso ought to apply to all classes of improvements; and he would, therefore, move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "Parts 1 and 2."
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "Parts 1 and 2."—(Sir Michael flicks-Beach.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'Parts 1 and 2' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reason for blaming him (Mr. Dodson) for not including Part III. in his Amendment. One reason for not doing so was the example of the right hon. Baronet himself, who, in the first instance, proposed to confine it to Parts I. and II.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; I did not.
      MR. DODSONsaid, it was the case, unless his memory deceived him; and by referring to the debate the right hon. Gentleman would find it was so.
      MR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Then I did not mean it.
      MR. DODSONsaid, another reason for leaving out Part III. was because the improvements mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule were in the nature of superior acts of husbandry; they were not of the same character as the works contemplated in the other parts of the Schedule, and therefore it had not been deemed necessary that this Proviso should apply to them.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was now more necessary than ever that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be accepted. He would explain that when his right hon. Friend moved his Amendment, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had already been carried. He
      1172
      considered the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) argument extraordinary and inconsistent. Because the improvements were matters of cultivation, it was no reason why the tenant should not have the value of them. For instance, on certain light soils turnips could not be grown without the application of artificial manure; but by spending £2 an acre on artificial manure the finest crop of turnips in the world might be produced. The cultivation of turnips was necessary to the four-course rotation, and it was impossible to say how much might depend upon the tenant's outlay upon artificial manure for the production of that crop. The whole value of the other crops might be affected by it. What was to prevent the valuer saying that he hardly knew how to value land artificially manured? He was exceedingly sorry that the House had reversed its opinion. When the Bill was first introduced the Government held the view that compensation should not exceed the outlay in the great majority of cases; but now—if he was to judge from the arguments of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the whole value of the improvements, however much they might exceed the expenditure, were to be claimed and awarded in every case. This, he thought, was a very serious matter indeed. It was a great question of principle. They might be told that no valuers would dream of awarding compensation of that nature; but he could not but remember that the same assurances that no evil results would follow were made when the Irish Land Act was passed. The Prime Minister himself, he believed, had then informed the House that no great reduction of rents would take place; but experience had shown the fallacy of relying on such assurances. He confessed be was afraid, if in future there were valuers of the character of the Irish Sub-Commissioners, that advantage would be taken of the loose wording of the clause, and compensation given to a degree infinitely greater than the Government had any idea of.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the Amendment was much more objectionable in principle than it would be in practice. He thought that considerable difficulty arose as to what was precisely meant in the Bill by the word "improvement." So far as he could

      1173
      make out, it did not mean the making better of the holding, but something done or applied to the holding. Without that interpretation he did not think the clause was intelligible. In practice, in every case, the incoming tenant would always pay something less than the actual cost of the improvement, except in such cases as liming the land or permitting it to lie fallow. He thought that, except in some cases, the incoming tenant might be called on to pay the full value.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTfailed to see on what principle the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had left out Part III. What was good in the case of the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule was good in the case of the 3rd Part. The valuers would naturally conclude that the total value was to be charged against the landlord, if Part III. was excluded. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) to accept the Amendment.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that there was a very strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House in favour of the words which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and he hoped the Government, on further reflection, would see their way to assent to them. If they were accepted a feeling of great protection would be created. There was nothing in them inconsistent with the principles of the Government, and they would act as a chock upon rash valuers.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must explain that he had introduced his Amendment in order to prevent any misapprehension arising with respect to Part III. in consequence of the course Government had adopted in reference to Parts I. and II.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the Proviso had been originally proposed to be introduced to meet cases in which, by a very small expenditure, large results might be produced, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. In illustration of the nature of the improvements to be dealt with in the manner proposed, it was stated that the removal, for instance, of a hedge might bring a considerable piece of land into cultivation, and so produce considerable results.
      1174
      But Part III. of the Schedule dealt with matters which were not connected with such a class of cases; and, therefore, to introduce the Proviso into Part III., would only lead to confusion.
      COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he thought it was necessary to exclude Part III. He thought the valuers ought to be restricted to valuing for the outgoing tenant, and he wanted to protect both tenant and landlord from rash valuers. He, therefore, hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).
      MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought that as it had been admitted by hon. Gentlemen who were really the representatives of the tenant farmers' interests that the Amendment could do no harm, and as it was a just Amendment, the Government might very well accept it.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was sorry the Government had ever adopted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) at all. The truth was, directly they introduced the question of the inherent capabilities of the soil, they introduced a subject of enormous difficulty. It was impossible to draw the line; and to put in this qualification would be simply to embarrass the valuer, and might lead him not to give the tenant fair and reasonable compensation.
      SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not to the point now before the House. He had argued against the Amendment which had been adopted by the Government in Committee—namely, that the inherent capabilities of the soil must not be taken into consideration by the valuer in certain cases. The hon. Member had contented himself with arguing that such a limitation was impracticable, and would only lead to difficulty; but the Committee had agreed to adopt this test of the value of the improvements, and the only question before the House was whether that test should be applied to Part III. of the First Schedule or confined to Parts I. and II. He thought the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) had been misunderstood. That hon. and gallant Member had argued that the whole Proviso was really unnecessary, as any valuer of sense and fairness must exclude

      1175
      the value which arose from the inherent capabilities of the soil; but he (Sir Henry Holland) understood him to admit that, if the Proviso was to be inserted with reference to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, it ought to be extended to Part III. He (Sir Henry Holland) must say that it appeared to him that the cases under the three Parts of the Schedule were alike in substance, though not in degree, as in all the cases they had the raw material—that was, the soil and the added material, whether drainage or manure. It was essential, then, that all cases should be treated alike as regarded the manner of testing the value of the compensation. He was afraid that, unless the Amendment were adopted, a lay valuer would say—"Parliament has given me this test specially in Parts I. and II., but has excluded it in Part III.; I must, therefore, not consider the inherent capabilities of the soil when dealing with a case under Part III." That was not intended; but he feared it would be the practical result, and he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment.
      MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he could not help thinking that, unless the Amendment were accepted, the whole Proviso should be struck out of the Bill.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that experience suggested that it was not advisable to lay down too tight a rule in these matters of manures and such things. The House must trust very much to the practice of farmers and the honesty of valuers, as well as to the progress of agricultural science, which had clearly developed this fact—that the value of artificial manures was chiefly pertinent to the crop which immediately followed, an opinion which was rapidly gaining ground amongst experienced men. He felt assured that anything the Government could do to secure honest valuers would be welcomed by landlords and farmers alike.
      MR. PELLsaid, he could not understand how the Government could refuse to extend the Proviso to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, for there were in that improvements which might give remarkable results, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. It was important, therefore, to impose some limitations upon valuers, with whose advertisements the papers would teem as soon as this Bill became law, for
      1176
      many persons were specially preparing themselves for this new occupation.
      MR. ECROYDsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as otherwise there would be great risk of wrong being done, the improvements included in the 3rd Part of the Schedule being precisely those which were most subject to variation in their effects, in consequence of differences in the quality of the soil, and in regard to which, therefore, a direction to valuers would he of special importance. It was also worthy of remark that in this particular class of operations there was the greatest danger of injustice being done to the incoming tenant, to whom, therefore, he hoped that the Government would give the safeguard provided by the Amendment.
      MR. FRANCIS FOLJAMBEsaid, that it was easy for Lincolnshire valuers, as they had precise instructions to guide them in valuing land, as between incoming and outgoing tenants. As an illustration of what might happen in the absence of instructions, he would mention an instance in which a tenant put three times as much manure on land as the crop could take up, and the valuer allowed for the full amount of its cost, instead of the manurial value.
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, that liming, one of the improvements in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, acted both as a food to the plant and as a stimulant to the soil; but if lime were applied to some soils, the effect was so lasting and prejudicial that they could tell for years afterwards that the soil had been over-limed. If a valuer came down to make a valuation where limo had been beneficially used, he ought to take into account the effect lime had upon the inherent qualities of the soil; and if his attention was called by Act of Parliament to the fact that the inherent qualities of the soil should be taken into account for the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule, but not for the 3rd Part, the valuer would not attempt to give all that was due to the inherent qualities of the soil. Ho, therefore, hoped the Government would improve the 1st Part of the Schedule as well as the 2nd and 3rd.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the question was one for incoming tenants rather than landlords. If the Amendment was not accepted, lie could conceive cases in which, if not otherwise

      1177
      directed, the valuer might take into consideration the inherent value of the soil, and the incoming tenant would have to pay not only the cost of the improvement made by the outgoing tenant, but also for the inherent value of the soil, the latter being the very thing lie would pay rent to the landlord for. He appealed to the Government to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), on the ground that it could not do any harm, and might possibly do a great deal of good.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 31: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 250.)
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he objected strongly to so much of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) as declared that "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil" should not be taken into account. If the words of the Amendment had the meaning they appeared to have, the consequences would be that the improving farmer would have no compensation whatever in respect to certain improvements mentioned in the Schedule. For instance, if he raised a crop without manuring the land, that crop would be justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, plus his labour; but, if he reclaimed land, it might be increased in value, and therefore he proposed to leave out the words lie had quoted and insert in their place the words "the inherent value of the soil." If the Amendment was not accepted, he feared the tenants would be defrauded of their just rights.
      Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment,
      To leave out the words "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities," and insert the words "the inherent value."—(Mr. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
      DR. FARQUHARSONsupported the Amendment, which was a great improvement on the principle which the Government unfortunately accepted. As to the inherent capabilities of the soil, a farmer's business depended on the development of the inherent capabilities of the soil by his labour and outlay; and by
      1178
      this unfortunate Proviso, he might, under certain circumstances, be prevented getting any compensation for improvements he had effected, and to which he had a right.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the idea of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and that of the Government was the same. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) understood the effect of the words as they stood, and the only question between them and the Government was as to which set of words should be adhered to, seeing that both meant the same thing. He (the Solicitor General) thought the language of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Dodson's) Amendment was best suited to the case. It must be remembered that this was a Proviso in an enactment which already said that the tenant must receive the value of the improvement be had made, and therefore the right of the tenant was secure. the Amendment only called the attention of the valuer to this—that he was to deal justly as between landlord and tenant, and not to give to the tenant what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Question again proposed,
      "That the words 'in estimating the value of any improvement in Parts 1 and 2 of the First Schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil' be there inserted."
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he rose to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson), who proposed the words in question as a concession to the views of those who represented the owners of land. He (Mr. Chaplin) believed, however, that their effect would be mischievous. As the valuer was directly instructed not to take into account, in the case of improvements under Parts I and II of the Schedule, what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, why should he do so in the case of improvements coming under Part III.? But that would be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
      MR. DUNDASalso believed that if the Amendment was not to apply to

      1179
      Part III. as well as to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, the Bill would be much better without it.
      MR. DODSONsaid, the Government had not thought these words necessary at all; but they had accepted them to satisfy those who feared that without them injustice would arise. Having accepted the Proviso, he felt bound to support it as it stood.
      COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he felt bound to bear testimony to the honourable way in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had adhered to his agreement in this matter.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he was afraid that the Amendment would give rise to considerable litigation.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 41: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 251.)
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 2 (Restriction as as to improvements before Act).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 1, line 26, before "Schedule," insert "First;" page 2, line 3, leave out "this," and insert "the said First;" and in line 4 leave out "the," and insert "this."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 3 (Consent of landlord as to improvement in first part of schedule).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 16, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 28, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 4 (Notice to landlord as to improvement in second part of Schedule).
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in moving, as an Amendment, to insert 6 per cent, instead of 5 per cent, as the amount to be charged by the landlord to the tenant for 25 years to repay capital and interest of money expended by the landlord in drainage, said, he did so in order to raise the question as to the rate at which interest was to be paid in such cases. As the clause stood, 3 per cent was the amount of interest to be charged. Now, no landlord could borrow money on mortgage at less than 4 per cent; and it was impossible to conceive any-
      1180
      thing more unjust than to require landlords to borrow money for drainage at that rate, and then forbid them to charge as much to the tenant who had compelled them to incur the expenditure.
      Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 39, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "six."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
      Question proposed, "That the word five' stand part of the Bill."
      MR. DODSONsaid, 3 per cent was as much as, or more than, landlords made on the purchase of land, and 5 per cent was a common and fair rate to charge for drainage. Besides, it ought to be remembered that no limit was put upon the time for which this interest might be charged. The point had been discussed very fully the other night in Committee, and the reasons which had induced the Government to adopt 5 per cent as the rate of interest had then been fully explained. He had agreed to an alternative Amendment, to enable the owner to recover his principal and interest in 25 years, at the rate of 3 per cent. He thought that was really a liberal proposition as regarded the owner. The tenant had nothing to do with the landlord's credit, or the terms upon which he could obtain money.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had made one of the most extraordinary speeches he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had ever heard. He protested against the idea that, because a landlord was willing to purchase land, on which he would only get 3 per cent of a return, he should therefore be compelled to make improvements at the same rate, whenever his tenant might require him to do so. Was it fair that a tenant should be able to compel a landlord to lend him money at 3 per cent, whereas the landlord could only borrow at 4?
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, it was unfair that the tenant should pay for the improvement at all. The proposal that the tenant should pay 5 per cent of the money was a fair one, and he hoped that would be adhered to. With regard, however, to the other proposal, that the tenant should pay off the cost in 25 years at the rate of 3 per cent, that was really causing him to bear the whole cost of the permanent improvement, both capital and interest, of which the landlord

      1181
      would reap the benefit for whatever length of time the drainage works might last beyond that period, and during which he would get a higher rent from the succeeding tenant in consequence.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 40, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "or not exceeding such annual sum payable for a period of twenty-five years as will repay such outlay with interest at the rate of three per centum per annum in the said period."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Mr. DONALDSON-HUDSON),in rising to move, as an Amendment to Mr. Dodson's proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after "rate," and to insert—
      "Per centum per annum at which the money can be borrowed from the Government or a Land Improvement Company in the said period,"
      said, his hon. Friend's Amendment was of a very simple character. It amounted to this—that the landlord should not be compelled to lend his money at a lower rate than that at which he could borrow it. It appeared to him that the proposal was perfectly obvious and fair.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
      To leave out all the words after the word "rate," and insert the words "per centum per annum at which the money can be borrowed from the Government or a Land Improvement Company in the said period,"—(Mr. Arthur Balfour,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be exceedingly unfair to the tenant.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he thought the Bill would be far better without the Amendment just proposed.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Original words inserted.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the, last Amendment, to insert the words,—"As an addition to and to be payable and recoverable at the same time and by the same means respectively as the rent of such holding."—(Mr. Gregory.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought it unwise to insert in the Bill provisions as to matters that could be settled by private arrangement.
      MR. DODSONsaid, that, in his opinion, the Amendment was of no great importance one way or the other; but he thought it was desirable that it should not be inserted in the clause.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 5 (Reservation as to existing and future contracts of tenancy).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 3, line 12, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 20, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      MR. DUNDAS,in moving, as an Amendment, to add to the concluding sub-section of the clause which substituted "fair and reasonable" compensation, secured by an agreement for compensation under the Act, words to the effect that such particular agreement should only be set aside on the ground that the compensation therein provided—
      "Was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions which existed at the time when such agreement was made,"
      said, he thought that would make it clear that the referee should look only to what was in the mind of the landlord and tenant at the time they made the agreement.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 25, to insert, at the end thereof, the words "For the purposes of compensation such particular agreement shall only be set aside on the ground that the compensation therein provided was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions which existed at the time when such an agreement was made."—(Mr. Dundas.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCIIELL)said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, for the clause, as it stood, really accomplished what the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) desired. He farther objected to the words, because they would exclude any mode of impeaching the agreement except the particular mode limited

      1183
      by the word "only." Even if the Amendment were accepted it could not be accepted in the proposed form.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought, if the Amendment was not accepted as it stood, other words embodying the intention of it should be inserted, for it was decidedly necessary that the object it aimed at should be secured in some way or other. The Bill was intended to direct valuers, and not lawyers, and would be interpreted by them, and its ambiguity ought, therefore, to be minimized to the greatest possible extent.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he hoped that before the Bill became law something of the kind to carry out the intention of the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) would be adopted, otherwise he was afraid the Bill would lead to ligitation amongst landlords and tenants.
      MR. ALBERT GREYjoined in the appeal. He said landlords would hesitate to make leases, if they knew that agreements, fair and reasonable at the time of making, might be upset by an out-sider at some future date.
      SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that, if the Government agreed with the principle of the Amendment, he would suggest that the words be accepted as an interpretation of what was fair and reasonable.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he was very shy of inserting merely precautionary words in the clause, through a fear that their effect might go beyond what was intended. The Government would, however, consider the point, and endeavour to devise some words to meet the apprehensions of hon. Members.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 25, to add, at the end thereof, the words "Either party to any such particular agreement may demand a reference under the provisions of this Act, and the referees so appointed shall have power to determine whether such particular agreement has secured to the tenant fair and reasonable compensation for any improvement made in the third part of the Schedule hereto; and, should the referees find that the compensation provided by the agreement is not fair and reasonable, compensation in respect of such improvement shall not in that case be payable in pursuance of such agreement, but under the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. James Howard.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "may," to insert the words "before the execution of such agreement."(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) was not so simple a bird as to walk into the trap prepared for him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). In nine cases out of ten questions arising under the Act would be settled by arbitration; but it was desirable to give the power of appealing to a Court of Law.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and umpire).
      SIR JOSEPH PEASE,in moving, as an Amendment, to insert words in the clause, providing that, if the parties did not concur to appoint a single referee, either party might give notice in writing that a single referee should be appointed. by the County Court where the claim was for less than £50, or by the Land Commissioners, where the claim exceeded that amount, said, he feared the tendency of the Bill would be to raise up a class of referees and valuers who would generally he unsuccessful farmers, and who would endeavour to live by fomenting disputes between landlords and tenants, and he did not want to encourage the growth of such a crop under this Bill.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 4, line 37, after the word "jointly," to insert the words "If the parties do not concur to appoint a single referee, either party may give notice to the other party in writing that a single referee shall be appointed by the County Court where the claim for compensation shall not exceed fifty pounds, or by the Land Commissioners for England and Wales when the claim exceeds that amount, then the single referee and any successor to him shall be appointed on the application of either party by the said Court or Commissioners, as the case may be."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. WAUGHopposed the Amendment on the ground that it would really increase the cost and the litigation.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he hoped there would be no change made in the Bill, which would in any way interfere with the appointment of an umpire by the Land Commissioners. It would be better to adhere to the Bill as it stood in that respect, for he considered it a most valuable part of the measure.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, lie was persuaded that the farmers would view the Amendment with dissatisfaction.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. PUGHproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out certain words, so that the clause should provide that in case one of the parties, having received notice, failed to appoint a referee, the party giving the notice should be able to appoint a single referee.
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, to leave out the words "on the application of."—(Mr. Pugh.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
      MR. DODSONopposed the Amendment.
      MR. GREGORYsaid, he would point out that the party giving notice would, by the present proposal, be rendered complete master of the situation, and able to appoint his own partizan.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 10 (Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.).
      Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Pugh.)
      Question proposed, "That Sub-section, (2) stand part of the Bill."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 13 (Power for referee, &c. to require production of documents, administer oaths, &c.).
      Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 14, to leave out the word "sworn," in
      1186
      order to insert the word "swearing."—(Mr. Wanton.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'sworn' stand part of the Bill."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 18 (Award to give particulars).
      COLONEL KINGSCOTE (for Mr. HENEAGE)proposed, as an Amendment, to omit the words "so far as reasonably may be." He maintained that the retention of these words would completely nullify the object of the clause. It was proper that the valuers should receive distinct instructions under the Bill as to what they were to do.
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 4, to leave out the words "so far as reasonably may he."—(Colonel Kings-cote.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Bill."
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsupported the Amendment.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the Government intended what was proposed by the Amendment to be carried out as far as possible; but it would be inadvisable to attempt to make it absolutely compulsory on the umpire to specify the details of his award.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would suggest that the words "so far as possible" should be substituted.
      VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsupported the Amendment. It was reasonable that the tenants should understand the principles upon which valuers acted. Nothing would cause more dissatisfaction to both parties than arbitrary decisions, without full specification of their reasons, on the part of the valuers.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the difficulty would be got over by omitting the words "so far as reasonable," and inserting the words "so far as possible."
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he trusted the Government would stand by the words as they appeared in the Bill.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought it would be undesirable to leave a loophole to the valuers. The suggestion of the Government was reasonable.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he hoped the Government would leave the words as they were.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendment made, in page 7, line 4, by leaving out the words "so far as reasonably may be," and inserting the words "so far as possible."
      MR. PUGHmoved an Amendment, as an addition to Sub-section "a," that the award should specify the several matters and things taken into account in the reduction of such compensation.
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 6, after "awarded," insert "and the several matters and things taken into account in reduction of such compensation."—(Mr. Pugh.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought the Amendment quite desirable in the interest of both landlord and tenant; and the Government would accept it as an improvement on the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
      On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, said Amendment amended, by inserting, after the word "account," the words "under the provisions of this Act."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 19 (Costs of reference).
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 16, to leave out the word "The," in order to insert the word "No."—(Mr.Pugh.)
      Question proposed, "That the word ' the ' stand part of the Bill."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 22 (Appeal to County Court).
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 36, to leave out the word "claimed," in order to insert the word "awarded."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question, "That the word 'claimed' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed. to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 28 (Power for landlord on paying compensation to obtain charge).
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that, in order to make the Bill work fairly, the landlord should be empowered to charge a holding with the expenditure which he might incur under the Bill in executing drainage when required to do so by the tenant. He begged to move an Amendment to that effect. There was ample provision made in the Bill, under which it would be impossible for a landlord to charge the holding improperly with any such expenditure; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) might see his way to accept the proposal.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 9, line 20, after "Act," insert "or on expending such amount as may be necessary to execute an improvement under the Second Fart of the First Schedule hereto, after notice given by the tenant of his intention to execute such improvement in accordance with section four of this Act."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the proposal a very fair one, and he had no objection to offer to it.
      Question put, and agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
      On the Motion of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 22, after "paid," insert "or expended;" in line 23, after "payment," insert "or expenditure;" and in line 26, after "paid," insert "or expended."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 33 (Application of Act to Crown lands).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendments made, in page 11, line 31, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 38, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 34 (Application of Act to land of Duchy of Lancaster).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, Amendments made, in page 7, line 12, before "Schedule," insert "First;" in line 16, before "Schedule," insert "First;" and in line 30, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 39 (Resumption of possession for cottages, &c.).
      On the Motion of Mr. BOLTON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 1, by inserting, after the word "road," the word "railway."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 41 (Limitation of distress in respect of amount and time).
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the clause, in page 14, to add at the end—
      "Except in the case of arrears of rent existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five."
      The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), however, had an Amendment on the Paper previous to this, which, if agreed to, would render it inappropriate. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was to add, at the end of the clause, this Proviso:—
      "Provided, That where it appears that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the payment of the rent of such holding has been allowed to be deferred until the expiration of a quarter of a year or half a year after the date at which such rent legally became due, then for the purpose of this section the rent of such holding shall be deemed to have become duo at the expiration of such quarter or half year as aforesaid, as the case may be, and not at the date at which it legally became due."
      He (Mr. Chaplin) wished to know whether it would not be competent for him to move his Amendment first?
      MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member's Amendment might be taken first; but he (Mr. Dodson) had two alterations to propose in it. One, which was more or less a question of drafting, was, after the word "rent," to add the words "in respect of a holding to which this Act applies;" and the other, which was a material alteration, was to add at the end, after the word "five," the words "to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed." If these latter words were not adopted, the Amendment would enable a landlord to recover more than six years' rent.
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would not move his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) would bring it forward in the amended form he proposed.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 14, at the end of Clause, add "except in the case of arrears of rent, in respect of a holding to which this Act applies, existing at the time of the passing of this Act, which shall be recoverable by distress up to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, to the same extent as if this Act had not been passed."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 14, at end of Clause, insert—"Provided, That where it appears that according to the ordinary course of dealing between the landlord and tenant of a holding, the payment of the rent of such holding has been allowed to be deferred until the expiration of a quarter of a year or half a year after the date at which such rent legally became due, then for the purpose of this section the rent of such holding shall be deemed to have become due at the expiration of such quarter or half year as aforesaid, as the case may be, and not at the date at which it legally became due."—(Mr. Dodson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was not sure whether he fully understood the effect of the Proviso; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) whether the terms "quarter of a year" and "half a year" were not too specific? Payment of rent would, of course, in cases to which the clause would apply, be deferred until after the time at which it became due. It might be deferred for three months and a-half, or four months; and it would seem as though, under those circumstances, the Proviso would not apply. He would suggest that the words should be "until the expiration of a period not exceeding half a year." That, he thought, would make the meaning clear, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to it.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, it would not be practicable to introduce the words in that form. In Committee, they had spent a great deal of time over this matter; and what had been pointed out to them was, that a half-year's rent was often not collected until the whole of the next half-year had expired. Though the rent was supposed to be paid quarterly, in many cases it was only paid half-yearly; therefore, there was always something duo to the landlord. The Govern-

      1191
      ment had promised to meet the cases put to them, and it was with the view of doing that that this clause had been drawn. It was impossible to meet cases of an indefinite lapse of time in these matters, for there might be a week or a fortnight one way or the other, either under or over the fixed period; yet it was necessary to have some fixed time other than the legal rent day. They appreciated the difficulty, and had not been altogether able to meet it, because sometimes there would be a little more than half a year, or a little more than a quarter of a year allowed. All they could do was to fix the running half-year or quarter. It was necessary to name some time which both parties would understand, otherwise there would be endless disputes as to whether the landlord was or was not entitled to distrain. They had endeavoured to extend the Proviso beyond these two periods, but had been unable to do it.
      MR. DUCKHAMsaid, the point had been considered by the Committee on the Law of Distress last year; and they recommended the period of six months, which would cover the period of two, three, or four months.
      MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the Amendment would hardly have the effect that was intended. There were many instances where the collection did not take place on the day it was due, but at a fixed period, according to the custom of the estate; it might be one, or two, and, possibly, more months after the rent day. What he wished to point out was, that the result of this Proviso would be that the landlord would derive no advantage from the clause, unless he habitually collected the rent a whole quarter after it was due. To his own knowledge, a great many rents were collected just within the period of three months, and in those cases the landlords would receive no benefit whatever from the clause. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the difficulty would be met if he were to use the words "a quarter of a year, or half a year, or any less period." That would enable the Government to carry out what he understood to be their intention when they announced the Amendment originally, and when they declared that their intention was to meet those cases where the rent was collected after it was legally due.
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the words "half a-year," to insert the words "or any less period."—(Mr. R. H. Paget.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. R. H. Paget) would see that it would be impossible to accept these words, as he (the Solicitor General) had been informed that the rent audit was not always on a fixed day. The difficulty would be to know from what day the year should count. They could not say it should count from the expiration of such less period, because the period might differ each year. One year it might be a week after the rent was due, another year a fortnight, another year a month, and so on.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could not consent to the insertion of the words "until the expiration of a period exceeding a quarter of a year or half a year;" for, as the clause now stood, it certainly appeared as though it were not intended to apply in cases where the rent was collected a day after the quarter of a year. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he intended the clause to apply to such cases; but he fixed the periods of a quarter and half a year. If the words he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) suggested were accepted, where the payment of the rent had been allowed to be deferred for a period beyond a quarter, but within half a year, the quarter would then be the period taken at the time at which it was due; and where the payment had been allowed to be deferred a short time after the half-year, the half-year would be taken.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that was the intention of the Government—what they meant the clause to say. He was willing to consider whether they could not make the provision clearer than it was, as he was anxious that there should be as much certitude as possible about it.
      MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that after the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he doubted very much whether the term of six months would be of any value.
      MR. WARTONsaid, that, even in cases where a landlord had been in the habit of giving a quarter or half a year's credit, he should not be deprived of his right of distraining immediately the rent became due. It seemed an injustice to take that right away. At the end of the Proviso were the words—"And not at the date at which it legally became due." He did not himself see the importance of these words, and would, therefore, propose to strike out the word "not," and substitute the word "or."
      Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and not," in order to insert the word "or."—(Mr. Warton.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'and not' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      MR. DODSONsaid, they would be led into great difficulties and inconveniences if they accepted this Amendment. A tenant would never know when a distraint was to be issued against him. The Government had proposed to consider whether they could do anything to meet the case of an intermediate period being allowed by the landlord; but they certainly were most unwilling to accept an Amendment which was sprung upon them, and which raised new Questions.
      LORD BURGHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) would make it clear that the year's rent the landlord had power to distrain for was the year's rent plus six months' arrears, or, altogether, 18 months' rent?
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Original words inserted.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 43 (Remedy for wrongful distress under this Act).
      MR. WAUGHsaid, he wished to amend the clause by inserting, in page 15, line 28, after "or"—
      "(c.) As to any claim by the tenant against the landlord, or by the landlord against the tenant, not otherwise provided for by this Act, which could in any action by or against the other of them be the subject of set-off or counter claim; or (d.)."
      1194
      When the landlord sued the tenant for rent, the tenant had a right to set up any claim or set-off that he thought fit; but when a distress was issued, the tenant had no right to set anything off against the rent. If the landlord had obtained a sack of corn from the tenant, the latter could not set that off against the rent. His (Mr. Waugh's) object in moving the Amendment was to place the tenant in the same position as to distress as he was in regard to an action at law, in order to save the expense of his bringing a cross action against the landlord. If the Amendment were accepted, he should add other words to it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 15, line 28, after the word "or," to insert the words "where a distress has been levied as to any claim by the tenant against the landlord, or by the landlord against the tenant, not otherwise provided for by this Act, which could in an action by or against the other of them be the subject of set-off or counter-claim; or (d)."—(Mr. Waugh.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not think it would be possible to accept the words; and, no doubt, the hon. Member would see that they alone could not carry out the object he had in view. The hon. Member's view was that where the landlord had rent owing to him, and had, therefore, the right to distrain, the tenant should be allowed to set off as against the claim for rent any claim he had against the landlord, and the landlord should only be able to distrain for the balance. A Court of Summary Jurisdiction, or the County Court, was to be able to determine the claim against the landlord, which would be set-off as a counter-claim in an action. As the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware, in a counter-claim in an action a man could set up anything. A landlord, having certain information given him about a tenant, might put in a distress, and the tenant would be able then to make a counter-claim against the landlord for libel. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; that could be set up as a counter-claim, according to the Amendment. There was hardly any limit to what a man could set up as a counter-claim; so that if an Amendment of this sort were to be adopted it would have to be rendered much more complete than this. With all sympathy

      1195
      with the hon. Member's object, he could not accept his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      On the Motion of Mr. WAUGH, the following Amendment made:—In page 15, line 31, after "by," insert "the county court or by."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 45 (Limitation of costs in case of distress).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 16, line 9, leave out "fourth part of the," and insert "second."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 48 (Bailiffs to be appointed by county court judges).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 16, line 38, leave out "under this Act," and insert "on any holding to which this Act applies;" and, in line 39, leave out "such," and insert "a bailiff."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 50 (Exception of non-agricultural and small holdings).
      MR. BOLTONsaid, he wished to propose to add to the clause the words—
      "Nor to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment of the landlord."
      The object of the Amendment was to exclude from the operation of the Act all holdings held by men in the employment of a landlord whose right of occupation ceased with the termination of their employment. He would ask permission to substitute the word "or" for "nor."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 17, line 18, at end of Clause, add "or to any holding let to the tenant during his continuance in any office, appointment, or employment of the landlord."—(Mr. Bolton.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. DODSONsaid, the Government were ready to accept the Amendment.
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not think these words really conveyed the intention of the hon. Member. They were not governed by the word landlord—at any rate, "office" and "appointment" were not; so that if a
      1196
      man held any office or appointment under a landlord he might be held not to come under the words as proposed.
      Question put, and agreed to; words added accordingly.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 51 (Avoidance of agreement inconsistent with Act).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 17, line 22, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 52 (Right of tenant in respect of improvement purchased from outgoing tenant).
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 17, line 28, after "Act," insert "or of any agreement or custom sanctioned by this Act, or under or in pursuance of 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875.'"—(Mr. Thomasson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. DODSONsaid, that, as a matter of drafting, he preferred to retain the Bill as it was.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 56 (Interpretation).
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendments made:—In page 18, line 26, leave out "or at will; "in line 27, leave out from "a tenancy at will" to ''Act," in line 30, both inclusive; in page 19, lines 18 and 19, leave out "twenty and twenty-one," and insert "twenty-two and twenty-three;" and in line 19, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) to look at his Bill as he held it up. The right hon. Gentleman was about to move an Amendment to page 19; but there was no page 19 in the Bill, or in the copy which had been supplied to him. Page 19 was blank, and the next page he had was 19½, containing Clause 59 a. There was nothing on his Bill between Clause 56 and Clause 59 a. Was there any hidden meaning in this?
      MR. DODSONsaid, that if the noble Lord would look a little more closely at his Bill he would see that it was right, and that the Amendment which was about to be moved would come in.
      VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the Amendment did not come in properly in his copy of the Bill, which had evidently been wrongly bound up.
      Schedule.
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 20 line 1, before "Schedule," insert "First."
      MR. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. PUGH.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to Order. He wished to move an Amendment at the end of the 1st Part of the Schedule.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, that Mr. Pugh had precedence.
      MR. PUGHsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to line 12. It was not unusual for a tenant to set up a waterwheel, and to do that he had to make a pit, which was a very costly process. He (Mr. Pugh) did not find anything in the Schedule referring to an improvement of that kind. It should be a fixture; and he would, therefore, propose to insert after "works," "for the application of water power or."
      Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 12, after "works," insert "for the application of water power or."—(Mr. Pugh.)
      Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
      On the Motion of Mr. JAMES HOWARD, the following Amendment made:—In page 20, line 11, after the word "orchards," insert the words "or fruit bushes."
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would now beg to move an Amendment which he should have moved at an earlier stage if he had known what he now knew. The Amendment was to put drainage in the 1st Part of the Schedule.
      MR. DODSONrose to Order. He would take the opinion of Mr. Speaker whether, the Committee having decided by Clause 4 that drainage should be dealt with separately, and in a different manner to the other improvements, it was competent for the hon. Member to
      1198
      make the proposal be (Mr. Dodson) understood he was about to make — namely, to include drainage in the let Part of the Schedule?
      MR. SPEAKER: The House having passed the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted, clearly it is not now competent for the hon. Member (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to propose anything which would really involve a new arrangement of the Bill.
      MR. STORERsaid, he had placed two Amendments on the Paper which were not printed. The first was, in page 20, line 23, after "manures," to insert "not more than two years before the determination of the tenancy." He did not know whether he was under a correct impression; but he believed there was no limitation of time in the Bill. That could not be through inadvertence, because there was a limitation to every part of the Agricultural Holdings Act, from which this Bill appeared to be taken. It might not, perhaps, be necessary that there should be any limitation under Part I. or Part II., or under some portion of Part III.; but that Part which applied to manures and to cake consumed by the cattle ought to have some limitation as to the time the application of manures might be supposed to have existed. He hoped he bad made his meaning clear. He should like to insert, after the word "manure," the words "not more than two years before the determination of a tenancy."
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 20, line 33, after the word "manure," to insert the words "not more than two years before the determination of the tenancy."—(Mr. Storer.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. DODSONsaid, Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment, which would be contrary to the principle upon which they had gone hitherto, which was that these matters were not to be minutely prescribed for by the Act of Parliament, but that they should lay down a principle of compensation according to value, and then leave it to experts and those interested in the locality to take the proper measures for ascertaining what the compensation should be.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought they should accept the Amend-

      1199
      ment. Compensation for manures depended on the quantity applied to the soil.
      MR. STORERsaid, that after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) he would not persevere with his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. STORERsaid, he would move the next Amendment for the express purpose of giving hon. Members who voted in the Committee, under, he thought, a misapprehension as to the effect of the words, a chance of correcting themselves. In Committee, he had proposed to insert the word "horses;" but his proposal now was to leave out of line 34 of the Schedule, in page 20, the words "cattle, sheep, and pigs," and insert "animals." Many hon. Members had told him they had gone into the Lobby under a false impression as to what would be the effect of these words; and he thought that mistake had been brought about by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who appeared, in the interests of the landlords, to be averse to the insertion of these words. Everyone who considered the nature and scope of the Bill must see that these words were in accordance with it. It could not signify what the animals were that a tenant kept on his farm in the ordinary course of farming—whether they were those mentioned in the Bill, or whether they were hired horses, or other animals which he was constantly in the habit of using on the farm. No one knew better than the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire that, in his county, it was the common practice for farmers to farm horses as a part of their ordinary trade. He had known farmers of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Yorkshire, who kept as many as 40 or 50 horses on their land at a time, bringing them up for the large fairs which supplied the manufacturing districts and London. No doubt, they consumed a large quantity of corn, and sometimes a little cake, and left valuable manure behind them. Were the farmers to be deprived of the benefit of that manure? They ought not to be. The tenants of the country were looking to this Bill to give them some advantage, and great hardship would be felt if they did not give the benefit of these manures, which to 99 out of 100 tenants would be
      1200
      the very cream of the Bill, the rest of it being of no value to them. There was not one tenant out of 100 who could effect the material improvements on his landlord's property with which the Bill dealt; but the one thing they were all obliged to do, to carry on their farms, and which it ought to be the landlord's interest to urge them to do, was to make the best manure possible on their holdings. When they did that, it should be the object of a Liberal Government, at all events—and he trusted of the Conservative Party also—to allow them all the compensation to which they were justly entitled. If the House refused this, they would be refusing to very many tenants the only advantage that the Bill could possibly give them.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 20, line 34, to leave out the words "cattle, sheep, and pigs," in order to insert the word "animals."—(Mr. Storer.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      MR. DODSONsaid, the matter under notice had been discussed at sufficient length the other night. The hon. Member, however, had improved upon the position he had taken up on the last occasion, as he now proposed to use the term ''animals" generally—a term which would, of course, include not only the horses which were part of the necessary machinery of the farm, but race-horses, harriers, pointers, setters, poultry, pheasants, and all other animals the tenant might keep.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDhoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Storer) would press his Amendment to a Division. The hon. Member had asserted a very sound principle—namely, that food brought on to a farm and consumed by any animal should be taken into account in any award for compensation. But what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) said amounted to this—that the arbitrator and referee should take the whole amount into consideration. That was only an element to be taken into consideration, according to the Bill; and whether the food was consumed by a bullock, or a sheep, or a pig, or a growing horse, mattered very little. In the Fen Country the farmers raised young cart horses for sale; and

      1201
      the manure from these animals kept in yards was quite as valuable as that from other animals.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. STORERsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which he hoped would meet with a better fate than the last Amendment; otherwise the farmers would have to consider before the next General Election who their friends were. After the word "cake" he proposed to insert "corn." On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had intimated that "corn" was covered by "cake" or "feeding stuff;" but it was well known to agriculturists that that was not the view taken by valuers, and they had never taken "corn" into account at all. There might be several words introduced; but no doubt "corn" would cover them. Owing to the low prices of cereals, farmers were obliged to turn their attention, as far as possible, to the breeding of stock; and, under this Schedule, they would have to purchase great quantities of corn. They already paid for maize, and meal, and other cereals, for which, unless it was understood they should be repaid under this clause, they would get no compensation whatever. It was not the custom of valuers to take into consideration these things; and although it might be very well for the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) to put such implicit faith in the valuers, this was a grievance which had been long felt by the farmers, and everyone had supposed that it would be remedied by this Bill. The farmers considered they had not had sufficient compensation for unexhausted manure left on the land; and he wished to rectify that grievance as far as he could by this Amendment. It appeared not to be in consonance with the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he hoped the Government would consider the necessity of putting some words into this clause, which would give full and fair compensation for what a farmer would be obliged to leave behind.
      Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 34, after the word "cake," to insert the word "corn."—(Mr. Storer.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'corn' be there inserted."
      MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, to his great regret, he was obliged to differ from his hon. Friend (Mr. Storer), as he had an Amendment to precisely the opposite effect. The hon. Member had threatened them with a General Election; but that would not deter him from opposing an Amendment which was not necessary, and which would be mischievous if adopted. His first objection to it was that to give compensation for corn would lead to fraud to a greater extent than anything else he knew of. It had been found necessary in the Bill to insist that compensation should not be given for anything not produced on the holding. What would happen in the case of corn? Two neighbouring famers, if they were rogues, might exchange their corn. If this Amendment was adopted, a farmer would claim full compensation for all corn that was grown upon his farm. Who was to say for what purpose it had been used? It might be used for seed. [Mr. STORER: There would be "witnesses."] How could witnesses for every quarter of corn be produced? It would be absolutely impossible. The corn might be used for seed, or given to horses, which were practically part of the machinery of the farm. Compensation might as well be asked for for coal used to work machines. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had, the other night, quoted the case of a Lincolnshire farmer who was anxious to see this proposal adopted; but that case was an exception which proved the rule, and he had never heard of any other man asking for compensation for corn. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the Government would not accept the Amendment.
      MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he had had a great many letters from the county which the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) represented (Lincolnshire), showing that the case he had quoted was not the only case by far in that county of farmers wishing for compensation for corn. They complained that in Lincolnshire it was the custom to limit compensation to oil-cake, which might be foreign, and to shut out corn, which might be produced on the holding. He believed that was a very general ground of objection to the custom of Lincolnshire on the part of thousands of farmers; and he hoped the House

      1203
      would very carefully consider this point before coming to a decision.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would exclude Indian corn, which was a very valuable, and frequently the cheapest food; but if it did that, then it would exclude all extraneous food. Refuse or manure remained very much on a farm; and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment now before the House as a compromise; otherwise farmers would be placed at a disadvantage, and prices would be lowered.
      MR. DODSONsaid, both these Amendments had been discussed the other night, and he hoped the Schedule would be retained as it stood.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. CHAPLIN,who had the following Amendment upon the Paper:—In page 20, line 35, after "stuff," to insert "not being corn, and," said, that, as he understood the Government would not accept his Amendment, and as the balance of opinion appeared to be in favour of the Schedule as it was, he would not press his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed, in page 20, line 35, after the word "holding," to insert the words "or mole ploughing."—(Mr. Duckham.)
      Question, "That the words 'mole ploughing' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
      On the Motion of Mr. DODSON, the following Amendment made:—In page 21, line 1, leave out Part IV., and insert "Second Schedule."
      Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

      AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 190.]
      (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

      COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th July.]
      [THIRD NIGHT.]
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Regulations as to Estimates of Improvements.
      Clause 6 (Set-off of benefit to tenant).
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he did not see anything in the clause which
      1204
      gave a landlord the right to claim compensation from a tenant for the breach of any stipulation, and he should propose to omit all the words after "nothing."
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, to leave out from "nothing" to end of Clause.—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the object of this Proviso was to define the period over which the claim of a landlord was to be set off or dealt with in account. The object of the Bill was not to create a right to claim on the part of the landlord, but to provide the extent to which it could be entered in the account. It seemed fair and reasonable that there should be a certain period over which claims for deterioration should be so dealt with; and four years appeared to the Government to be a fair time.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had not given a fair representation of the matter. Notwithstanding anything in this Bill, a landlord would have a right to set up a claim for deterioration for a much longer period.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, what was provided was, that this Act should not help a landlord to compensation for deterioration applicable to a period prior to four years. The whole of the clause was directed to the time with reference to which conditions under the compensation account should be stated; and it seemed a fair and reasonable provision that there should be a time fixed, claims arising prior to which could not enter into the statutory compensation account.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the Proviso was entirely delusive, because the landlord would make his claim under the Common Law; and, therefore, he contended that the clause was delusive, and calculated to deceive tenants.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONproposed, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 34, to substitute "a matter of husbandry" for "cultivation or management." He said those were the words used in the English Bill, and also in the

      1205
      Act of 1875; and they appeared to him to be much more suitable.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "cultivation or management," in order to insert the words "a matter of husbandry."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'cultivation or management' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, cultivation and management were provided for in the clause; it was not limited to cultivation alone.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to explain whether it was a mere breach of the stipulations that was to be claimed for.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he was at a loss to understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had selected the term "four years." He did not think there was anything to be said in support of four years, and instead of that term he would move that the landlord should be able to claim for deterioration within six years of the determination of the tenancy.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "four," and insert "six."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the period to be chosen in a matter of this sort was necessarily arbitrary. It was quite true that, in many parts of Scotland, six years would be better than four. Four years, however, seemed to the Government to be a fair average to fix upon. There was great diversity of opinion as to the precise time that should be taken; but, while admitting that the period of four years was arbitrary, it did appear to the Government to be the period in which deterioration could be readily and promptly ascertained.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, hon. Members had reason to complain of the obscurity with which the Bill was drawn. He did not know exactly what this Proviso meant; but, as a tenant, he thought
      1206
      the presumption was against the tenants. Holding those views, he would very much like to see the whole clause struck out of the Bill.
      MR. RAMSAYsaid, he understood that when any claim was made by a proprietor for deterioration, he did not take into consideration any definite period, but the sum which would he requisite to place the farm in order. If that were the case, they might make the period six, or even seven years.
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, he thought it was decidedly a protection to the tenant that some period should be specified, though he should prefer to see the four years reduced to two. Provision was made in the Bill for compensation for breach of stipulation; and he maintained that whenever that took place, the landlord should at once call the attention of the tenant to it, and insist that matters should be put right.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
      Procedure.
      Clause 7 (Notice of intended claim).
      MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Government did not propose to go further that night. It was now past 1 o'clock, and many hon. Members were in the House until nearly 5 yesterday morning. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. I Members who growled were not there until 5 o'clock yesterday morning. The House was required to meet again at 12 o'clock; and, therefore, under the circumstances, it was most unreasonable they should be asked to sit longer. Hon. Members ought to have some consideration for the Speaker, who sat there 13 hours last night, and who would have to be in the Chair at 12 o'clock to-morrow. Though the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chair at that moment, he was waiting the convenience of the Committee. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) begged to move that Progress be now reported.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would not press his Motion. The Scotch Members had given most

      1207
      unremitting attention to the English Business for some time past, and it was hardly generous that they should not be allowed to transact their own Business when they were unanimous in a desire to do so.
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, he was one of the few Members who sat up until 5 o'clock yesterday morning; but as he was very anxious to see this Bill passed, he was quite ready to sit up until 5 o'clock this morning.
      MR. WARTONsaid, it was stated that the Bill would not be brought on after half-past 12; but, as a matter of fact, it was brought on at nearly 1 o'clock. [An hon. MEMBER: That was another Bill.] Anyhow, what he had stated was what he had understood. He had the greatest respect for the Scotch Members; and, in their own interest, he would suggest that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed till to-morrow. They would then, between 12 and 6 o'clock, be able to get through both this and the Local Government (Scotland) Bills.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would not persist in the Motion to report Progress. The Scotch Members had been waiting up for two or three nights together in order to take the Bill; and he hoped that now they had a chance they would be allowed to do so. It was well he should remind the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that it was the Local Government (Scotland) Bill that the Government promised not to take after half-past 12.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he must confess that he was very exhausted. He hoped the Government did not mean to rush the Bill through indefinitely; indeed, it was hardly fair that the Scotch Business should be transacted very late at night. Scotch Members must remember that if Progress were reported now, they would be able to resume the consideration of the Bill at 12 o'clock tomorrow.
      MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that as it seemed to be the wish of Scotch Members to proceed, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion. He, however, did not consider the position he had taken up unreasonable.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved, as an Amendment, in page 3, to leave out "two," in line 38, and insert "twelve." His object in proposing this Amendment was to give the incoming tenant and the landlord more time to arrange the terms on which the holding should be taken than they would have under the Bill as it was now drawn. If they adopted the proposal of the Government they increased the notice to quit from one year to two. The House of Commons passed that last year without a dissentient voice, and he imagined they would pass it this year at the instance of the Government. In consequence of having only two months' notice of a claim for compensation, the landlord and tenant would be in a state of uncertainty for 22 months after receiving notice to quit. During the whole of that time, the landlord would not know what the tenant intended to do with regard to compensation. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) thought it was desirable that notice should be given of a claim to compensation 12 months before the determination of a tenancy.
      Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "two," and insert "twelve."—(Sir Alexander Gordon.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must point out that the clause had nothing to do with the removal of the tenant; it had merely to do with the time within which he was to make a claim for compensation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) was therefore in error in supposing that there would be any impediment or bar to the landlord re-letting his farm to a new tenant. If they adopted the Amendment, they would put a great deal more on the tenant than would be put upon him by two months. A tenant might not know whether he would have good grounds for a claim 12 months beforehand; and, therefore, he (the Lord Advocate) submitted, it would put too great restraint upon the tenant to adopt the Amendment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out "fourteen days," in page 4, line 2, and insert

      1209
      "one month." He thought a fortnight was rather too short a time in which a landlord might make a counter-claim.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out "fourteen days," and insert "one month." — (Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'fourteen days' stand part of the Clause."
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that as soon as a tenant gave notice, a landlord ought to be in a position to see the state in which the tenancy was left. Fourteen days' notice was too long.
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)opposed the Amendment. He considered that it would be found the landlord would have plenty of time in which to make a counter-claim.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if his memory served him aright, it was thought judicious to strike out the words "as far as reasonably may be" in the English Bill, and introduce the words "so far as possible."
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that was done on Clause 16.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that if the words were introduced in Clause 16, it might be wise to introduce them here.
      MR. WARTONconsidered there was great force in the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour). It was quite true the alteration was made in a later part of the English Bill; but the principle involved was the same throughout. The Amendment appeared to him to be very desirable.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged to move, as an Amendment, to omit in lines 5 and 6 "as far as reasonably may be," and insert "so far as possible."
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "as far as reasonably may be," and insert "so far as possible."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      Question proposed, "That the words as far 'as reasonably may be' stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was afraid that to adopt the Amendment might, in some cases, shut out just claims which would
      1210
      arise. It was possible that a person might not, through oversight or omission, make a claim he was justly entitled to make.
      MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought it would be an advantage that the claim, as far as possible, should be stated; and, therefore, it might be wise to accept the Amendment. The landlord would have previously obtained from the tenant the particulars of the claim he made against the landlord; therefore it was proper the tenant should have the particulars of the counter-claim made by the landlord.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 8 (Compensation agreed or settled by reference) agreed to.
      Clause 9 (Appointment of referee or referees and oversman).
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the clause provided that—
      "If before an award is pronounced one of two referees dies or becomes incapable of acting, or for seven days after notice from the party appointing him of his appointment fails to accept the reference and to act, the party appointing him shall appoint another referee."
      He thought seven days was a very short notice; and he, therefore, begged to leave out "and to act."
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out "and to act."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'and to act' stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he did not think it was reasonable to require that the referee should act within seven days of his appointment; and, therefore, he could not, on behalf of the Government, accept the Amendment.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was of opinion that it would be impossible for farmers to carry out the reference in seven days. Lawyers did not usually act so expeditiously, and he did not see why farmers and country lawyers should be expected to proceed so promptly.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) that it

      1211
      would be impossible for farmers to carry out the reference as quickly as the Act required.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he was sure it would not be too much to require that the referee, as soon as he accepted the reference, should take some steps for executing the work. It was not unreasonable to call upon him to accept within seven days.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, the provision was that, after the appointment of the last of the referees, the award must be given in within 28 days, so that there was plenty of time. However, he would not press the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out, after "appointed," in page 4, line 36, all the words down to "oversman" in line 42, in order to insert the words, "and differ in opinion." He thought this would simplify matters, and he did not see any reason for the appointment of an oversman unless a difference of opinion arose between the referees; and in that case the easiest way of appointing an oversman was by reference to the authority referred to in the section. He submitted this point to the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate.
      Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, leave out after "appointed" to "oversman," in line. 42, and insert "and differ in opinion."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, it was generally found in practice that it was much more convenient to appoint the oversman before the arbiters.
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought there were practical objections to appointing an umpire before the arbiters differed; because, if one of the arbiters knew that the views of the umpire were inclined in his direction—and, of course, such things came to be known throughout the country—then he would hold out for much stronger terms than he otherwise would do. Besides, there was the question of expense.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether the word "sheriff" in the clause meant the sheriff of the county, or the sheriff substitute?
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was proposed to add to the definition, so that the sheriff substitute would be included in the term.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause 10 (Mode of submission to reference) agreed to.
      Clause 11 (Power for referee, &c. to require production of documents, administer oaths, &c.).
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONmoved the following Amendment:—
      In page 5, line 18, at end, add "each party shall be entitled to inspect the documents produced by the other party, and to challenge the accuracy of such documents within fourteen days of their being deposited with the referee, or oversman, or sheriff, as the case may be; and any examination of parties or witnesses, whether on oath or otherwise, shall take place in presence of the opposing party, or his agent, if he desires to be present, sufficient notice being given to him for that purpose."
      He thought the Committee ought to bear in mind that they were appointing a number of persons to act in a judicial capacity, and to take oaths—to act as Judges, in fact.
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he must point out that the proposed Amendment was quite unnecessary, because everything it proposed to do must take place. It was the undoubted right of any one party to a reference to examine the documents produced by his opponent; and, certainly, no referee could take the evidence of a witness on one side of the case without the presence of the other party. It would be very undesirable to embody in the Bill provisions which were already in operation under the Common Law.
      SIR ALEXANDER GORDONexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment., by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 12 (Power to proceed in absence); Clause 13 (Form of award); Clause 14 (Time for award or reference); and Clause 15 (Reference to and award by oversman) severally agreed to.
      Clause 16 (Award to give particulars).
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, he would point out that the words in line 9, "as far as reasonably may be," ought to be "as far as possible;" and he moved the substitution of the latter words for the former.
      Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 9, to leave out the words "reasonably may be," in order to insert the word "possible,—(Mr. M'Lagan,)—instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was true that this case was not quite the same case as the other; but the same considerations should apply to it. There were strong reasons for requiring specification, so that the parties might know precisely what the arbiters had done; but, at the same time, if the Amendment now proposed were carried, awards which were substantially good might be rendered liable to challenge by the parties decided against, who might come forward and say that it might have been possible, although it might not, perhaps, have been reasonable, to split up the items more than was done. That was clearly a thing to be avoided; and it appeared to him that if the arbiter, exercising an honest and fair judgment, set out the particulars or details as far as might be reasonable, that ought to be a good award, and it should not be open to challenge.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the question was discussed in the English Bill, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) took a very different view of it from that now taken by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. It would be convenient if the two right hon. Gentlemen would consult with each other, so that they might take up a particular
      1214
      line and keep to it. That would certainly conduce to greater uniformity.
      MR. M'LAGANsaid, he should not have moved the Amendment if it had not already been made in the English Bill.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:— Ayes 63; Noes 14: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 252.)
      MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wished to know what was meant by "acts and things?" The Bill only provided for compensation for improvements, and the award would specify what the compensation was for. What, then, was meant by these "acts and things?"
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that if the hon. Gentleman would refer to Clause 6 he would see what it was that these words referred to, and also at line 11 of the page with which they were now dealing. Improvements, no doubt, were the primary idea; but there were other claims which might have to be made, as, for instance, for deterioration of the land; and, therefore, these words were necessary. There were things done and things omitted that had to be provided for.
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELLmoved the following Amendment:—
      In page 6, at end of Clause, add—"Nothing in this Act shall enable a tenant to obtain compensation in respect of any of the material specified in the third part of the Schedule used or applied more than six years before the termination of the tenancy in relation to lime and marl, or four years before such termination in relation to the other substances specified."
      He said, this was a matter of some considerable importance, for was it to be supposed that there was no limit to the utility of these manures, or other substances? The tendency of modern scientific agriculture went more and more in the direction of the application of a particular kind of manure which would be exhausted by the crop; and there ought to be some indication in the Bill of an intelligible rule which should be applied to manures of a more or less permanent character. His feeling was in favour of the six and four years mentioned in the Amendment; but he attached no great importance to the particular number of years, and should be inclined to agree to any other number that the right hon.

      1215
      and learned Gentleman's experience in agriculture might lead him to deem to be desirable.
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he must point out that the Amendment, supposing it to be good in substance, was inappropriate to the clause. The clause related to the particulars to be given in the awards—it was not a clause defining the conditions under which compensation was to be given, or for what compensation was to be given. It would, he thought, be a mistake to lay down a hard-and-fast rule in the Bill as to the time over which the claim should extend. He dared say it was only very seldom that anything in the nature of manure applied six years before would still be found valuable; but that was clearly a matter for the arbiter to determine. If there were any manures which, in the judgment of those who had to decide the question, survived for more than six years, there was no reason in principle why compensation should not be given for them. On these grounds he opposed the Amendment.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 17 (Expenses of reference).
      SIR HERBERT MAXWELL,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 23, to leave out from "paid" to "paid" in line 30, in order to insert the words "by the parties in equal proportions," said, he did not see why the expenses of every application under the Act should not be borne equally by both parties. That, it seemed to him, would remove one element of uncertainty from the cases that would arise. Of course, it was desirable, in all questions of this sort, that each party should learn how he stood, and that there should be as little as possible of uncertainty in the circumstances. It seemed to him to be perfectly reasonable that the parties should be made to share the expenses, and that would really tend to limit the expense; because, so long as there was any chance of one of the parties being exempted from expense, there would always be a tendency to further litigation and to au increased expenditure. It was better
      1216
      that the expenses should be equally shared between the parties.
      Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 23, to leave out from "paid" to "paid" in line 30, and insert "by the parties in equal proportions."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. ASHER)said, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because he very much doubted whether it would not act in precisely the opposite direction to that suggested by the hon. Baronet. Those who had had experience in connection with disputed matters would realize this—that there was no more salutary check upon litigation in regard to claims that were not well founded than the consideration that those who put them forward would be paid half the expense incurred.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 18 (Day for payment) agreed to.
      Clause 19 (Appeal to sheriff).
      On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—
      In page 6, line 37, leave out from "Where" to end of Clause, and insert "the sum claimed for compensation exceeds one hundred pounds, either party may, within seven days after delivery of the award, appeal against it to the sheriff on all or any of the following grounds:—

      (1.) That the award is invalid;

      (2.) That compensation has been awarded for improvements, acts, or things, or for breaches of stipulations or agreements, or for committing or permitting deterioration, in respect of which the party claiming was not entitled to compensation;

      (3.) That compensation has not been awarded for improvements, acts, or things, or for breaches of stipulations or agreements, or for committing or permitting deterioration in respect of which the party claiming was entitled to compensation;

      and the sheriff shall hear and determine the appeal, and may, in his discretion, remit the case to be reheard as to the whole or any part thereof by the referee or referees or oversman, with such directions as he may think fit.
      "If no appeal is so brought the award shall be final.
      "The decision of the sheriff on appeal shall be final."
      On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 41, after "pounds," leave out "such," and insert "either."
      MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—In page 7, line 2, after "case," to insert "on any question of Law, or of rejection or admission of evidence." The object of the Amendment was to limit the appeal; for there was a danger, when an appeal was given from the arbiters, that they would be less careful than they otherwise would be. The appeal, therefore, ought to be limited to questions of law; but as there seemed to be a difficulty about proposing anything which would make this Bill different from the English one, he should not move his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 20 (Recovery of compensation).
      Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 12, to leave out "fourteen days," and insert "one month." — (Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
      Question, "That the words 'fourteen days' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clause 21 (Appointment of guardian) agreed to.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      REVENUE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.— [BILL 269.]
      (Mr. Courtney, Hr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Bill was one of a very exceptional character, and contained some peculiar provisions. For instance, there was a provision making the master of a vessel liable to a penalty for matters with which he had nothing to do. But a much more important part of the Bill, which he thought ought not to have been introduced at that late
      1218
      time of the Session, had reference to the funds of Friendly Societies. Though the Bill had been for a number of days before the public, sufficient time had not been given for its consideration; and he thought some explanation ought, at least, to be given before the House was asked to reduce the interest on the funds of Friendly Societies invested in Government securities. It was his belief that the cost of managing these funds was not so great as to absorb the difference between 2½ per cent and the present rate of 2d. per day. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      MR. WARTONsaid, it was too bad, at that time of the morning, to propose alterations which would work cruel injustice to Friendly Societies. This sort of thing was becoming intolerable. There were considerations higher than Friendly Societies. People invested their small savings, and a proposition of this sort ought to be brought forward before a sufficiently large House to give it proper consideration.
      Question put.
      The House proceeded to a Division:—
      Mr. SPEAKERstated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Three Members only having stood up, Mr. SPEAKER declared the Noes had it.
      Original Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 4: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 253.)
      Bill committed for Thursday.

    MOTION.

      HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to provide for the maintenance of the New Streets at Hyde Park Corner, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Mr. COURTNEY.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 275.]
      House adjourned at a quarts after Two o'clock

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations) * (166); Railway Passenger Duty, &c. * (167); Parochial Charities (London) * (168).
Committee — Companies (Colonial Registers) * (150).
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *, and passed.

EMIGRATION (IRELAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD EMLYasked the Lord President, Whether any decision has been come to upon the emigration scheme to which he referred in April last? The noble Lord said, he was sure that many of their Lordships who took an interest in this matter must recollect the very able speech made in the month of April on the sufferings of the poor in the congested districts in the West of Ireland by the noble Earl who was not now present (the Earl of Dun-raven). It was not necessary for him to repeat the description which his noble Friend gave of the miserable and utterly hopeless sufferings of that population, who were continually on the verge of starvation, who had no means of help of themselves, and the produce of whose land was utterly insufficient to support them and their families. A very shrewd friend of his who lived in one of those districts described to him their condition in a very few words. He said—"In a good year, the people begin to starve in May; in a bad year, they begin to starve somewhere about February." His noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Lord Carlingford), in replying to the speech to which he alluded, fully admitted the truth of all his statements, and said, speaking on the part of the Government, that the only way to remedy this state of things, most shocking to humanity and also dangerous—as his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, who was present, knew—to law and order, was by emigration. Now, the question of emigration had been so often debated in their Lordships' House that he should not trouble their Lordships by making any remarks about it, but would only just say that he confirmed what the Lord President said, that there was no other way possible to relieve that population except by emigration. With regard to the remedy suggested in the question of waste lands, he thought that was a remedy which had disappeared from the consideration of people of any intelligence, for the simple reason that they all knew that, under the present state of things, not only in Ireland, but also in the rest of the United Kingdom, the existing cultivation was not progressing, but retrogressing. Another school of persons had sprung up who substituted another
  1106
  plan, which was more absurd, on the question of waste lands. This was, that there was a great number of farms already occupied by farmers which were imperfectly and improperly cultivated, and the proper thing to do would be to take away portions of those farms and devote them to this surplus population. If such a thing were attempted, however, he was quite sure that the occupiers of those farms would show, in a very strenuous manner, their views of the rights of property by resisting forcibly any attempt to deprive them of any portion of their land. But even if they did not do so, just let their Lordships consider what difficulty and delay such a process as that would lead to. In the first place, those people would have to be compensated, and then they would have to get houses and farms for these poor people. Then, who would supply them with capital to cultivate the soil, and who would give them the skill to cultivate it? It seemed to him utterly absurd to entertain such a proposal, and it was utterly impossible that they could deal with these poor people in any way except by assisting them to emigrate. The statement of the Lord President certainly gave the greatest satisfaction to him and to other noble Lords who believed with him that Her Majesty's Government had received a proposal from certain persons in Canada to carry out on a largo scale a great system of colonization in that country. There was no secret now as to what that proposal was. It was a proposal made by a most powerful, wealthy man in Canada—Mr. Stephen—who really possessed enormous tracts of land—not hundreds of thousands, but millions of acres of most valuable land, and who offered Her Majesty's Government to transplant to that country from Ireland, without causing any expense beyond the actual outlay, 10,000 families upon the Government giving him a guarantee. He could speak from authority of the value of the ground in question, because one of his personal friends—Colonel Butler, who was one of the discoverers of the North-Western District — had assured him that the quality of the land was most remarkable and exceptionally good, and there was not the slightest doubt that with the access of the railways and cultivation the value of that land in a few years would have increased in a

  1107
  fabulous way. He did not know whether their Lordships were aware of a small Canadian Land Company which was established in London in the year 1826. What were their shares worth now? For every £1 paid they now paid £95. He wanted to learn what reason there was for the delay in coming to terms with Mr. Stephen? With the liberal action of the Canadian Government, in addition, it did seem to him the most short-sighted policy of the Government to higgle over the proposals made to them, and to run the risk of their being withdrawn. Such an event would be the greatest possible misfortune to this country. He thought it would be really criminal not to take advantage of this opportunity, and he earnestly hoped his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary would give an assurance that the Government was carrying out the scheme, and that there was a hope of its soon being accomplished. It was a matter of the most vital importance at the present time. There was a great deal of unassisted emigration going on amongst the young men and women, who were the bone and sinew of the country. This was a very great loss, and he did not wonder at complaints being made about it. He wished from his heart that, by finding employment for them at home, we should keep the well-to-do young men and young women who were flying from our shores; but for the population of the congested districts there was no alternative but emigration or extreme misery, and those who, from whatever motives, political or sentimental, tried to keep those wretched people at home were forbidding the naked to be clothed and the hungry to be fed. He begged to ask the Question which stood in his name on the Notice Paper.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I quite agree in spirit and in substance with the remarks that have just been made by my noble Friend. I think with him that emigration is the only real remedy for the distress which exists in what we may call the congested districts. All the other plans for the relief of that distress are in comparison very imperfect and temporary expedients. I may go further and say, on behalf of my Colleagues, as well as myself, that we have been and are anxious to promote emigration of the kind which has been described by all reasonable and
  1108
  practicable means. Perhaps I shall best answer the Question put to me by stating very briefly what has taken place in regard to this matter. My noble Friend is quite accurate in his reference to Mr. Stephen, who, as many of your Lordships know, is a gentleman having very large interests and very considerable influence in the North-Western country. He is Chairman of one of the leading railways, and he is a person upon whom we can perfectly rely, and with whom we should have no hesitation in dealing. His proposal was that the British Government should advance £1,000,000 sterling for 10 years without interest; and his calculation is that by means of that loan, to be repaid at the end of 10 years, 10,000 families, or, speaking in round numbers, 50,000 persons, could be taken out and settled, each family on 160 acres of land, and be provided with houses and other necessaries for their first start. According to the plan of Mr. Stephen, the money was to be advanced by the British Government directly to the various Companies who, he believed, would undertake to carry out the scheme. We have assented in principle to that proposal; but we have assented to it with one important modification. We propose that the loan should be made, not direct to the Companies, but to the Canadian Government, which would then be free to employ any agency which they might think desirable, and which would hold itself responsible for the repayment of the advance at the expiration of the proposed term. We do not think this an unreasonable proposal, because it is quite clear that, although it would be a considerable gain to Ireland to obtain the removal of this surplus population, there would be, at least, an equal gain to the Colony in the peopling of a large area which is at present unsettled and useless. However, the Canadian Government have not at present seen the matter in that light, and they have so far refused to incur responsibility for the repayment. Some negotiations have taken place; but they do not seem disposed to give way. They say that they believe the Companies are able to give satisfactory security, but that they themselves, as a Government, are not disposed to interfere in the matter. That is the cause of the delay which has occurred. There has been

  1109
  no higgling with Mr. Stephen. The only question is whether the Canadian Government will agree to carry out the arrangement in a manner which we consider fair. The negotiations are not at an end, and I must say that we have by no means abandoned the scheme or given up the hope of carrying it to a successful conclusion.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882.
  1. (Proclamations.) Proclamation for the employment of additional constabulary in the parish of O'Brennan, County Kerry;
  2. (Warrants.) Three Warrants imposing charges in respect of additional constabulary upon certain districts; together with the necessary statement of particulars in each case;
  3. (Forfeited Newspapers.) Order for the forfeiture of copies of "The Irish World." newspaper of the 21st of July 1882:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.