Sitting of 5 August 1887

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Fifth Report—Army and Navy Estimates [No. 259]. Report—Town Holdings [No. 260].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 4] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Technical Schools (Scotland) * [358].
First Reading—Copyhold Enfranchisement * [359].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Metropolitan Police* [321].
Select Committees—Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c.) (Belfast)* [291], nominated; Bankruptcy Courts (Ireland) * [121], nominated.
Considered as amended—Irish Land Law [355], debate adjourned.
Considered an amended—Third Reading—Trustee Savings Banks* [334]; Settled Land Act (1882) Amendment* [339]; Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment* [34 2], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL—TRINITY COLLEGE LEASES.
  MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether tenants holding-leases renewable for over under middlemen to Trinity College, Dublin, can have their rents adjusted by the Irish Land Law Bill when passed, and if such tenants be debarred, as they would seem

  1349
  to be by a recent decision which held them to be perpetuity leaseholders, would the Government amend it for the benefit of those poor people; and, in ease of those Trinity College middlemen who have not given leases to their tenants, but would hold them to specific performance by a promise to take out lease after the passage of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 28, s. 29, would the Government take care that such tenants should not be deprived of the benefits of the Land Act by the action of Trinity College or their middlemen?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Persons holding under perpetuity leases could not apply for a fair rent any more than other leaseholders. The Bill now before Parliament does not apply to leases in perpetuity. Where a lease has not been given, but the tenant can be compelled to take one, he is in the same position as if he had a lease in fact.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE OF UNSEALED ENVELOPES.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the Postmaster General, Whether printed circulars in unsealed envelopes, with a halfpenny stamp, from the Continent, are passed unchallenged by the Post Office; whether similar circulars in similar envelopes posted in England are charged 1d.; and, whether, if this be the case, he will cause such changes in the postal arrangements as shall place the British trader on an equality with the foreigner in this important manner of advertising?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I understand that the facts are as indicated in the first two Questions of the hon. Member. Printed circulars in unsealed envelopes from the Continent are admitted into this country with a halfpenny stamp, in consequence of the provisions of the Postal Union which make this course obligatory. The question of allowing a similar practice in this country was full considered by my Predecessors, Lord Wolverton and Mr. Fawcett, who were advised that, in the eye of the law, an unclosed envelope having anything in it is, to all intents and purposes, a letter.

  RESTRAINTS ON TRADE—MINERAL WATER BOTTLE EXCHANGE SOCIETY.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that it was on 8th July proved, in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, before Mr. Justice Chitty, that by the Articles of Association of the Mineral Water Bottle Exchange Society, with 179 members as manufacturers, the employers agree not to re-engage for two years any servant who has left the employment of any member except with the consent of the late employer; whether he is aware that, at the present time, there are more than 40 persons in London suffering under this rule, and therefore unable to earn their livelihood in the mineral water bottle trade; and, whether the Government can take any stops to put an end to this agreement among the masters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have ascertained that the Articles of Association do contain the provision pointed out by the hon. Member in his Question; but I may observe that, according to a report of the proceedings before Mr. Justice Chitty, I find it was held that the rule in question was an unreasonable restraint on trade, and that a motion to enforce it was refused with costs. The case is now pending before the Court of Appeal. I have no information as to the number of persons in London now suffering from the operation of the rule. But in the event of the judgment of the learned Judge being affirmed by the Court of Appeal the agreement in question will be wholly inoperative, and I hope that the hardship which it may have occasioned may disappear.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND;—MR. J. E. BARRETT, J.P., CO. CORK.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has communicated with the Lord Chancellor in reference to the charges against Mr. J. E. Barrett, J.P., County Cork; and, if so, with what result?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)

  1351
  said: As I have already stated to the House, the case in which this matter arises is still sub judice; and the Irish Government have not yet communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: As this alleged misconduct occurred five years ago, and as it alleges against Mr. Barrett first fraud upon the Treasury, and then fraud upon the tenant, I would ask whether the Irish Government will, at least pending the decision in the case, cause Mr. Barrett to desist from adjudicating?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: This is a matter which is before the legal tribunals; and until they have arrived at a decision it is impossible to pronounce any sentence on a question like this.
  MR. SEXTON: Do we understand that in a case where perjury and fraud are alleged against a magistrate the Lord Chancellor declines to take any action until any legal proceedings connected with the matter have been disposed of?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was a maxim of the English law that a man should be presumed innocent until found guilty.

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND)—SUNKEN ANCHORS IN BANTRY BAY.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, considering the fact that his Predecessor in Office promised to give a liberal reward to any local fishermen who would raise the sunken anchors which are an impediment to the fishing industry in Bantry Bay, he will state the amount that will be given for such services?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Fifty per cent on the value realized, if the anchors are delivered to the Receiver of Wreck, and are not claimed by owners.
  DR. TANNERasked, would not something be done to save the trouble and loss which was caused to these fishermen by their nets being damaged on account of these obstructions?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I have already stated that a reward of 50 per cent will be paid for all the anchors recovered.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONsuggested that when the
  1352
  Fleet was in Bantry Bay these anchors might easily be recovered by way of experiment.

  COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY, ORKNEY —INSPECTION OF ACCOUNTS.
  MR. LYELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that the clerk to the Commissioners of Supply of Orkney has refused to allow a ratepayer, the Reverend John Jamieson, to inspect the public accounts of the county, and especially the account of expenses incurred in the prosecution of the Reverend Mathew Armour, Free Church Minister, Sanday, last year; and, whether the ratepayers of the County of Orkney have not the right to examine the accounts of the Commissioners of Supply when application has been made?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Rev. Mr. Jamieson is not a ratepayer chargeable with the general county assessment administered by the Commissioners of Supply. Accordingly, the clerk to the Commissioners was instructed to decline to allow him to inspect the accounts.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—CONTRACT FOR 150,000 SWORD BAYONETS.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an order for 150,000 bayonets has recently been placed with Messrs. Wilkinson and Co.; if so, whether that firm have hitherto had any experience in the manufacture of such weapons; whether the time for the delivery of the first instalment of the contract extends into the early part of next year; whether other competing firms were prepared to deliver such instalment at a much earlier date; and, whether a lower tender than that of Messrs. Wilkinson was not received? the hon. Member added another Question—Whether these bayonets would fit the new weapon which it was understood was about to be issued?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): An order for sword bayonets has recently been placed with Messrs. Wilkinson, the well - known sword makers; but they have not previously made sword bayonets of this pattern.

  1353
  The time for delivery of the first instalment does extend into next year. Offers were made to deliver at an earlier date and at lower prices; but only one came from an English firm, which has had no experience of sword-making. Others came from German firms; but I decided that preference ought to be given to British manufacturers. With regard to whether these bayonets will fit the new rifle, which I hope will soon be decided upon, in any case all these bayonets will be required for the rifles we have at present.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Wilkinson are not themselves manufacturers cither of bayonets or swords?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Messrs. Wilkinson are very eminent sword-makers.
  MR. PULESTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had yet received any Report as to the merits of the Lee and Lee Burton rifles, part of which had been published in The Times?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that he had received the Report, but had not yet had time fully to consider it.

  WAR OFFICE—6TH BRIGADE, SOUTH WEST DIVISION OF ARTILLERY.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the 6th Brigade, South West Division of Artillery, called out for preliminary training at Waterford last Easter, under the command of Major Cuffe, mustered only eight recruits at commencement and major portion of training; and, whether the staff in attendance at the said training numbered 16 staff sergeants, one regimental cook and assistant, and eight battery cooks?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The number of recruits at first was 15, which, increased to 45 by the end of the preliminary training. The staff referred to is the permanent staff of the regiment. The number in training of all ranks last year was 355.

  PUBLIC FOOT AND BRIDLE WAYS— CLAYBURY PARK AND BARKING SIDE.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the proposed closing, by the Middlesex magistrates,
  1354
  of two foot and bridle paths in Clay-bury Park, near Woodford Bridge, which afford the nearest way between Woodford Bridge and Barking Side; whether the Middlesex magistrates have bought Claybury Park for the erection of a large pauper lunatic asylum, and also a private asylum for paying patients; whether it is a fact that ample grounds could be reserved for the private asylum without interfering with either of the paths referred to; whether the agent of the magistrates called, with insufficient notice, a meeting on 2nd June at Woodford Bridge, to which only a favoured few were admitted; whether, at a full meeting of inhabitants of Woodford and Barking Side parishes, the parishes chiefly interested, on the 16th of June, the proposal to close or divert the paths was unanimously refused; whether an attempt was made in 1864 to close these paths, and at that time the jury in the case gave their verdict that the "paths were necessary;" and, whether, having regard to the circumstances, he will represent to the magistrates the desirability of so modifying their plans as to Claybury Park, as not to close or divert these ancient rights of way?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have had a Report from the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, from which I collect that there is through the property purchased by the magistrates one path which is a bridlepath and footpath combined, except for a short distance, where the bridlepath and footpath are divided. The magistrates have bought the property for the purpose of a pauper lunatic asylum for 2,000 patients, and of an asylum for paying patients. The path in question intersects the property for a length of 40 chains. For the security of the patients and of the public it will be necessary either to fence in the path on both sides or to divert it. The magistrates have thought it best to take the necessary steps for diverting the path and substituting for it a good road, which will be more convenient to the public. The necessary consents from the Local Authorities have been obtained. The Clerk of the Peace is not aware of the meeting of the 2nd of June. If the inhabitants are aggrieved they have means given them under the Highway Acts of appealing from the order diverting the path. I have no

  1355
  power to interfere with the discretion of magistrates in such matter.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISCHARGE OF CONSTABLE AUSTIN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Constable Austin, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, lately stationed at Coolykerane and Ballyvourney, has been discharged from, that Force; whether his wife, Abina Austin, was the girl upon whom it was alleged the aggravated assault was made by Moonlighters; whether his attention has been called to a letter written by Austin to The Cork Daily Herald, 30th July, stating that he was discharged from the Constabulary because he refused to force his wife to give false evidence against three respectable young men who were arrested at the instance of District Inspector Hill and charged with moonlighting on the occasion referred to; whether Austin has also stated—
  "That the officer, District Inspector Hill and the Head Constable went to a field away from the House where the outrage was stated to have taken place in order to frighten the girl and make her swear what they liked,"
  and that, in order to get rid of Austin, the authorities offered to recommend him for the Liverpool Force; and, whether a full inquiry will be made into the truth of these allegations?

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ABINA AUSTIN.
  DR. TANNER: I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter, signed Abina Austin, to The Cork Daily Herald of the 30th ultimo; whether Abina Austin was the same person for a moonlighting outrage upon whom three young men were arrested near Coolykerane, Millstreet, County Cork; whether it is correct, as stated by her—
  "That after she had declared that she did not know any of her assailants, District Inspector Hill went and visited her a second time, and endeavoured to induce her to give evidence against these men after their arrest;"
  what were the inducements offered; and, whether an inquiry will be made into those allegations?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: Constable Austin has been discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary. His wife is the same person who was assaulted by Moonlighters, who cut off her hair, and then poured tar over her head and neck. Austin was discharged for marrying without leave, he not having served seven years in the Force, and having, therefore, failed to fulfil the marriage conditions. Ten well-known bad characters were arrested on information supplied at the time by the girl. It is not the case that District Inspector Hill and the Head Constable tried to frighten the girl and to make her swear what they liked. In the course of his inquiries into the outrage the District Inspector saw her and all the members of her family on several occasions, and on one occasion he spoke to her in a field near her house. The Inspector General of Constabulary very much regretted that he had to discharge Austin; but he was obliged to do so to maintain a rule which is absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Force. The constable was a promising and well-conducted man; and for this reason the Inspector General suggested to the County Inspector that he should endeavour to obtain his appointment to the Liverpool Police.
  DR. TANNER: Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on how many occasions did this District Inspector Hill interview the girl; and what were the inducements which she states in her letter to The Cork Herald he offered in order to bring about perjury, so that he could convict these men?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: If I do not get an answer I must put it again.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am not aware that she stated any inducements were offered to her to give evidence, and certainly not to commit perjury.
  DR. TANNER: Have you seen the letters in The Herald.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, Sir; certainly not. I do not read The Cork-Daily Herald.
  DR. TANNER: I shall give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of The Herald, with these two letters purporting to come from these two people; and then, perhaps, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see if he can give

  1357
  me a satisfactory answer to the Question.

  EGYPT—RETURN OF ZEBEHR PASHA
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State' for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that Her Majesty's Government contemplate allowing Zebehr Pasha to return to Egypt; and, if so, whether any precautions will be taken to prevent his going to the Soudan?
  MR. DILLONasked, whether it was true that Zebehr Pasha had been made to sign a paper before he was released; and, if so, by what authority, and under what law, these conditions were imposed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It has been decided to allow Zebehr Pasha to return to Egypt. He has signed an engagement to remain in the place which shall be chosen by the Egyptian Government, to place himself under its surveillance, and to abstain from interference in political or military questions relating to the Soudan or otherwise. These conditions had been imposed by the Government of Egypt; and if the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) requires any further information it would be better that he should put a Question on the Paper.

  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE ACT, 1886— ACREAGE OF HOP CULTIVATION.
  MR. NORTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government will publish, as soon as possible, the acreage of land now under cultivation for hops, as recently ascertained by the Land Commissioners under the provisions of the Extraordinary Tithe Act of 1886?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): As the survey and computation of areas is proceeding, but cannot be completed for some time to come, the Land Commissioners are not at present in a position to state the acreage of land under cultivation for hops. I presume there will be no objection to publish the information as soon as it is obtained.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CORPORATION OF DUBLIN—COSTS OF PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Corporation of Dublin have to pay in the first instance, on the order of the Clerk of the Peace, to any prosecutor or other person named in the order, such costs as the Judge or Recorder might award in cases of felony tried in Dublin; whether the Treasury in 1860 undertook to repay the costs of those prosecutions, and did they, in fact, do so down to 1885; if in that year, and frequently since, considerable portions of the costs awarded by the Judges and paid by the Corporation have been disallowed by the Treasury as being in excess of the "Treasury scale," although the Courts do not recognize this scale; were some of the prosecutions, in respect of which disallowances have been made, against fraudulent bankrupts from other parts of Ireland; by what authority, statutable or otherwise, do the Treasury; prescribe their scale of costs, or apply it to those repayments; and, will the Treasury simplify this matter in future by paying the costs direct to the person named in the Judge's order, or will they at least refund the full amounts paid by the Corporation?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I think, Sir, this information will have to be obtained from the Irish Office; and I must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone it.
  Subsequently,
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he must respectfully ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he could give him an answer to the Question, because he had already postponed a similar Question about a fortnight ago.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Government had sent for information to the Irish Office, and they hoped to be in a position to answer the Question on Monday next.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMATION OF IS COUNTIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  1359
  tenant of Ireland, What circumstances, in the condition of Ireland the Government rely upon in support of their proclamation of 18 Irish counties, under the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether any intimidation, relating to boycotting, police protection, or otherwise, alleged to exist in those counties, can be dealt with by Courts of Stipendiary Magistrates under Section 2 of the Act; whether the Government assert the existence, in any of those 18 counties, of such a degree of crime as calls for the enforcement of exceptional law; and, what evidence the Government offer, out of the records of the Summer Assizes, that, in any of those 18 counties, proof of crime is so withheld, or common juries have so failed in the vindication of justice as to render necessary the application of provisions for the establishment of Courts of Private Inquiry, and for the empannelling of special juries, and the removal of criminal trials, at the will of the Attorney General, to any other part of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, I have already given, in answer to various Questions, a general account of the circumstances which, in the opinion f the Government, justify the proclamation of 18 counties under the first four sections of the Crimes Act. According to the promise I made to the hon. Member, I am having prepared a Return which will give him further details of the facts relating to these offences, and which he is desirous to have. He asks me in second paragraph—
  "Whether any intimidation, relating to Boycotting, police protection, or otherwise, alleged to exist in those counties, can be dealt with under Section 2 of the Act?"
  I am in great hopes that Section 2 of the Act will prove very efficacious against this particular class of offences; but the Government thought that the other provisions of the Act might also be useful for the object; and, therefore, we have not contented ourselves with proclaiming the counties under Section 2, but also the other sections referred to. The hon. Gentleman asks me—
  "Whether the Government assert the existence, in any of those 18 counties, of such a degree of crime as calls for the enforcement of exceptional law?"
  1360
  If by the word "crime" the hon. Gentleman includes, as I presume he does, intimidation——
  MR. SEXTON: I mean crime as distinguished from intimidation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It varies very much in these counties. In some of thorn, if you take crime only apart from intimidation, there might not be necessity for the application of these subheads of the Act to the whole of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman asks me—
  "What evidence the Government offer, out of the record of the Summer Assizes, that, in any of those 18 counties, proof of crime is so withheld or common juries have so failed in the vindication of justice as to render necessary the application of provisions for the establishment of Courts of Private inquiry, and for the empannelling of special juries."
  I may say generally, in answer to the Question, that the intimidation which, as I have stated, we believe to exist in these counties is of itself sufficient ground to give the power of change of venue; but there were also specific cases of the failure of justice in several counties, as the hon. Gentleman was probably aware.
  MR. SEXTON: I think it is very important we should have before us specific details; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay before the House specific details, occurring at the Summer Assizes, in which justice has not been vindicated, either because of the paucity of evidence or the unwillingness of juries to perform, their duties? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the application to so many counties in Ireland of the provisions of the change of venue and the empannelling of special juries may be regarded as due to the apprehension in the mind of the Government that juries may not be trusted? I would also ask, what grounds the Government have for thinking that Section 2 of the Act, under which parties guilty of intimidation may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, will not be sufficient to meet the case of such offences; and, finally, I would ask what day we may expect to have before us the Return showing the number of parties Boycotted and under police protection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There have been some cases of failure of justice at the recent Summer Assizes in some of these counties. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down on the Paper I will give him some cases next week. I

  1361
  do not think it is a subject for a Return.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered one portion of my Question. I asked him, did the Government not think that the powers under the 2nd section were sufficient?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rely greatly on the 2nd section; but where intimidation prevails in any district you can have no security whatever that witnesses would come forward, or juries do their duty, and we are bound to take such powers as are necessary for the change of venue should we find intimidation.
  MR. SEXTONpointed out that under this 2nd section the Government had summary power of imposing six months' imprisonment without having any juries at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A good many of them would not be adequately punished by six months' imprisonment—murder, for example, or a serious outrage on the person, would not be adequately punished by six months' imprisonment, and in that case the offence would have to be tried before a jury.
  MR. SEXTON: What day shall we have the Return?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is being prepared in Dublin, and it will be laid before the House as soon as possible. A good many of the facts the hon. Gentleman asks for will be laid before the House in the ordinary course.

  CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS— WRITERS' HOLIDAYS.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, according to the Civil Service Regulations, 12 days' leave of absence with pay are annually allowed to Civil Service writers; whether it has been the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners, where holidays have not been taken by writers at the termination of certain periods of employment, to compensate them by payments in respect of such holidays; whether Mr. J. C. Woods, lately employed in the Public Record Office, Ireland, had before his resignation completed a year within which he has had no holidays; whether, on Mr. Woods' application to the Civil Service Commissioners for payment for the holidays due but not taken by him, he was refused on the technical ground—
  1362
  "That the payment of his gratuity terminated his connection with the service;"
  and, whether he will move the Civil Service Commissioners to reconsider their decision in this case, and have payment made to Mr. Woods of the money which seems to belong to him?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Under the Regulations as to copyists the Civil Service Commissioners may allow holidays with pay to copyists who are not serving in any other Department; but they do not compensate copyists by payments in respect of holidays not taken. Mr. Woods applied for a gratuity, under the Treasury Minute of December last, on the termination of his services as a copyist; it was paid to him on the 1st of July. He did not apply for pay in respect of holidays not taken till July 8. There was no precedent for complying with such a request, and the Civil Service Commissioners rightly declined it.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMATION OF "DANGEROUS ASSOCIATIONS."
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government has arrived at any determination with respect to putting in force the clauses relating to "Dangerous Associations" in "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no information to give to the House on the subject. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is impossible for the Executive to take any action in this matter without Parliament being made cognizant of it.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to communicate this information to the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Information will be laid before the House as a statutory necessity if anything is done. The House must be made cognizant of any Proclamation under the Act.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I am perfectly well aware of that; but what I want to know is, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make any communication on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should in no case expect to make any communica-

  1363
  tion to the House, as that is provided for by the Statute.

  RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY—VOLK'S ELECTRIC RAILWAY IN BRIGHTON.
  MR. PICTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Yolk's Electric Railway in Brighton, carrying passengers over a distance of one mile, from the Aquarium to Kemp Town, is assessed to the Railway Passenger Duty; and, if not, whether it is the use of electric power, or the smallness of the gauge, or the shortness of! the distance travelled, that forms the ground of exemption?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Mr. GOSCHEN): Voile's Electric Railway is not assessed to Railway Passenger Duty, the ground of exemption being that it runs upon a public way, and not on private property. Carriage Licence Duty, however, is paid in respect of the cars used by the Company.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL—CLAUSE 4.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In what manner he proposes to carry out the undertaking given in Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill, that quarterly Returns of notices issued under Clause 4 shall be laid before Parliament?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had promised to deal with this question on Report. He had put down Amendments on the Paper showing the method in which the Government proposed to do this work.

  SAVING LIFE AT SEA—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the unanimous Report of the Committee for Saving Life at Sea, the Government can introduce now a short Bill embodying the principal recommendations of said Report, or give facilities for the enactment of the Shipwreck Bill already introduced?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have not yet received a copy of the Report of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member. AJ
  1364
  recommendations which they may make shall receive careful attention. I do not apprehend it will be practicable to undertake any legislation during the present Session; but on that point, and also with regard to facilities for the discussion of the Shipwreck Bill, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH URLINGFORD, CO. KILKENNY.
  MR. MARUMasked the Postmaster General, When he will be in a position to give a favourable response to the Memorial addressed to him some time past by the inhabitants of the town of Urlingford, in the County of Kilkenny, requesting direct telegraphic communication as therein, and for the reasons therein set forth?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In October, 1885, my Predecessor considered the question of opening a telegraph office at Urlingford; and, after full inquiries, caused the Memorialists to be informed through the hon. Member that, as it was estimated that the revenue of the office would apparently fall very far short of the working expenses, it was out of his power to establish the office, unless a guarantee was forthcoming. The amount of the guarantee was fixed at £43 per annum for seven years.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CIRCULAR TO DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATES.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether it is true, as stated in United Ireland of the 4th instant, that a Circular Letter has been addressed from Dublin Castle to tire Divisional Magistrates throughout Ireland, which asks for—
  "Information ocncerning any particular portion of a sub-district which may be more disturbed, or in a more disaffected state than the rest, or in which there may be more marked improvement; any serious outrage deserving of special mention; evictions or oilier matters bearing upon the relations of landlord and tenant, and their bearing upon outrages and disturbances; boycotting and intimidation, National League, Labour League, or any organization for agitation;"
  whether he will state the object of the Government in collecting this information; whether it is intended to place

  1365
  those Returns, when completed, upon the Table of the House; and, whether he has any objection, meantime, to state the information, under the several heads of this Circular, furnished by the magistrates responsible for the County of Monaghan?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I do not think it would be consistent with public policy to give an answer to any Question about what is reported to be a revelation of something alleged to be a confidential document issued to the police.
  MR. SEXTONasked, if the results of these inquiries were to be reported to those Resident Magistrates who had power to hold a secret Court of Inquiry and Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and who might thus have to sit on cases about which they had already received Reports?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Executive would take no action whatever which could by any possibility leave ground to think that Resident Magistrates would so act.
  MR. SEXTON: May we understand that the Executive in Ireland will not induce any magistrate to commit himself by a Report to the Government on any matters in regard to which he may have to act judicially?
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, would the Resident Magistrates be sent from one district to another, in. order that they might get information beforehand regarding the characters of persons they had to try.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Resident Magistrates are never required to give Reports of cases which they have to try.
  An hon. MEMBER: Will they receive Reports about these persons?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They never get any Report.

  RAILWAYS (ENGLAND AND WALES)— STRIKE OF ENGINE DRIVERS, &c. ON THE MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade. Whether his attention has been called to the advertisement of the Midland Railway Company for engine drivers and firemen to till the places of their men, who threaten, to strike in consequence of a pending wage dispute; whether it is a recognised rule among
  1366
  Railway Companies to require their engine drivers to spend a sufficient time on the road as firemen, under competent engine drivers, in order that they should be thoroughly acquainted with the signals, junctions, crossings, &c, before they are allowed to take charge of a locomotive; whether a similar probation is required in the case of firemen; whether the Board of Trade exercises any control over public carrying Companies in such matters as the selection of servants charged with such serious responsibility as the safety of the lives of the public; and, if so, whether he will take step a to see that no danger may result to the public who may require to travel by the Midland Railway, from being placed in the hands of engine drivers and firemen hastily drawn from other railways, and consequently unacquainted with the signals and crossings of the Midland road?
  MR. LAWSONalso asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that it was reported that at a meeting of the engine drivers and firemen of the Midland Railway Company it was stated that the Company were now taking on men who wore incompetent and physically disqualified for performing the duties entrusted to them; and, whether he would take such steps as would adequately ensure the safety of the travelling public?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, I have to say that I have not received any information of the nature which he has described; but I venture to hope and believe that the Railway Company will not entrust important duties to persons who are not fully able to discharge them. But, perhaps, if I answer the first Question put to me, it may give some of the information which is desired. The working of the traffic on railways is entirely in the hands of the Companies, and the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in such matters as the selection of servants. They have, therefore, no legal authority to take any such stop as is suggested by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have, however, addressed a letter to the Midland Company expressing a hope that every precaution has been taken for the safety of the travelling public.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether it was within the competence of the Board of Trade to interfere with a Railway Company in a case whore a Director, anxious to obtain for his footman the post of station master—to obtain which it was necessary that he should qualify as a guard—got him appointed as guard, without any previous experience, in order to qualify him for the post?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I do not think that the Board of Trade would have any power to interfere in such a case, which I understand to he purely hypothetical.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It is a fact.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked whether, in case of an accident resulting to these trains, the Government would have power to investigate it; and if they had, would it not be better to prevent an accident than to inquire into it after it had occurred?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I have already stated that the Board of Trade has no power to interfere with the appointment or the discharge of their servants by Railway Companies. Its only control consists in seeing that the line is constructed according to the Regulations laid down, by the Board of Trade.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—CLERKS AT THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. M'CARTANasked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that every class of telegraph clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, except the second and lowest-paid class, have received considerable benefit under the Fawcett Scheme; whether the superintendents and assistant superintendents have had their maximum salaries increased on two occasions since 1881; whether, owing to the additional work imposed upon them by the introduction of the 6d. tariff, a further increases was under consideration; whether he can state if the clerks eligible for promotion into the first class haves longer service now than those who were previously promoted to the first class had when they were promoted; whether a margin to meet future requirements exists with regard to the
  1368
  senior class; and, whether, considering he treatment recently given to the Dublin clerks, he will see that the London clerks are similarly treated with regard promotion to the vacancies in the higher class?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that under the Fawcett Scheme alluded to the second class of telegraph clerks at the Central Telegraph Office receive equal benefit with the class above it. The scales of the superintendents and the assistant superintendents have not been raised on two occasions since 1881, and no further increase of scale is in contemplation over that given this year. The clerks highest in the second class have not longer service than those last promoted to the first last had at the time of their promotion. The class of senior clerks is now full. As stated on Monday, in reply to the hon. Member, the practice in London is some what different from that in Dublin, and it is not intended to fill all the places on he first class at once.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRE LAND) ACT, 1887.—PROCLAMATIONS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will cause to be circulated a statement of any further Proclamations under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," similar to that ordered to be printed 29th July, 1887?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Of course, if any further Proclamations are issued, I shall be glad to give any information.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: My Question is, whether we shall have circulated a similar form of Return?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall have on objection. I suppose if any further counties are proclaimed under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, the same information will be given to the House as I have promised to give of these Proclamations.
  MR. SEXTON: How will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of any further Proclamations under the first four sections of the Act, seeing that he has proclaimed all the counties in Ireland under them already?
  [No reply.]

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT SMITHBOROUGH, CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Under what circumstances it would be necessary, in creating the Post Office in Smith-borough, County Monaghan, a Telegraph Office, to run a wire from Clones to Smithborough; whether, in view of the fact that the wire which connects Belfast with Clones and Enniskillen passes within about 25 perches of the Smithborough Post Office, and that the carrying capacity of this wire is five times its present daily average, he will consider the advisability of taking Smith-borough into circuit upon this wire; whether by such an arrangement the £30, which was proposed as a guarantee for a year to cover the cost of extension and any possible loss to the Post Office Revenue arising from working Smith-borough Post Office as a Telegraph Office for that period, will not be more than sufficient to cover the cost of construction in bringing Smithborough into circuit on the Belfast, Clones, and Enniskillen wire, the cost of working for one year, and still leave a moderate balance to the credit of the Post Office, exclusive of the profits arising from the messages originating at and delivered from Smithborough; and, when will he be able to state the result of his inquiries?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that to place the Smithborough Office upon the Belfast, Clones, and Enniskillen wire would cause delay in the transmission of the messages passing over that circuit, and consequent complaint from the public. Even if the suggestion were desirable, but little saving, if any, would be effected in the amount of the guarantee required, as it would be necessary to increase the allowance to the Sub-postmaster, in order that he might be in a position to obtain the services of an assistant, competent to work the more difficult instrument which would be placed upon the circuit. I hope to be able to state the result of the further inquiries I promised, one day next week.

  BOARD OF TRADE—SUPPOSED TIDAL WAVE IN THE ATLANTIC.
  MR. ROWNTREE(for Mr. C. H. WILSON)asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the tidal wave, of a very dangerous character, reported to have been met with in the Atlantic; and, whether they will obtain as much information as possible in reference to its origin and effect?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have at present no further information beyond that in the newspapers; but they are making inquiries, and any information they may receive shall be laid before the House.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS—MINUTE RELATING TO BONUSES.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to reconsider the terms of their Minute of December last relating to Civil Service Writers, with a view of giving higher bonuses than those awarded under such Minute; and, if so, whether, in the interests of the Public Service, and with a view to giving contentment to a large class of Government employés, he will consider whether such increased bonuses could be given after a less service than eight years and a-half?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury Minute was the result of a prolonged and most careful consideration of the whole question; and I cannot hold out any hope of reconsidering the terms of the Minute.

  WAR OFFICE—ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT—COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
  MR. DE LISLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the recent Reports of the Royal Commission on Ordnance Stores, and the Report of Lord Morley's Committee, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Committee at once to investigate the present organization of the Ordnance Store Department of the Army, the War Office having long since de-

  1371
  cided that such a Committee was necessary, and that grievances exist in that Department which demand inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I do not think that another Committee would add anything substantial to the information we now have. I have already stated that the whole organization of these Departments is under ray consideration, and that I hope shortly to make known my proposals.

  POST OFFICE—DISMISSAL OF MR. J. MEUX, POSTMASTER OF HARVARD'S HEATH.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Postmaster General, Whether the will state specifically the reasons for the summary dismissal of Mr. John Meux from the postmastership of Hayward's Heath, which he had held for 19 years; whether Mr. Meux was found guilty of any, and what, irregularity in the performance of his duties between the 21st December, 1886, and the 13th February, 1887; if so, upon what evidence; whether it is the fact that Mr. Meux has emphatically denied the truth of allegations made against him of carelessness and irregularities, and asked to have an opportunity of explaining his conduct personally to the Secretary; why such request was refused; what are the sums expended by Mr. Meux on his office for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the surveyor as to accommodation; and, whether such outlay does not entitle him to some compensation?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that prior to December, 1886, Mr. Meux had been repeatedly cautioned as to the manner in which he performed his duties as Postmaster; and that in the course of an official investigation about the time mentioned it transpired that he had deliberately disregarded the Rules which provide security for registered letters. It was, nevertheless, decided, on the 21st December, to allow him one more chance; but shortly afterwards serious irregularities came to light, and while it is true they had actually occurred before the 21st of December, they showed so clearly that he was unfit for his post that felt bound, in the public interest, to take the office
  1372
  out of his hands. Mr. Meux's denial could not, of course, affect what are proved and actual facts. He has, moreover, made statements, both verbally and in writing, which are tantamount to a full admission of the charges against him; and I, therefore, considered it desirable to refuse his request for a personal interview, which could not possibly alter the facts on which my decision was based. Mr. Meux did expend certain sums in providing office accommodation for his duties; but he was well aware of the terms on which he held his appointment, and that he was in no respect entitled to compensation for such outlay in the event of his dismissal for misconduct.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— THE NORTHERN OUTFALL SEWER WORKS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have decided what process of precipitation is to be applied at their sewage outfall works; and, if so, what guarantee they have that the selected process will prove effective?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON, in reply, said, the Metropolitan Board of Works believed that the process of precipitation to be applied would prove effective, as it was founded on the results of long and careful experiments made for the purpose.

  ADMIRALTY—THE APPOINTMENT OF PRINCE LOUIS Of BATTENBERG.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state the name of the medical officer who certified that Prince Louis of Battenberg was physically fit for the Naval Service of this country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTOTN): Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated the other day, joined the Navy in 1868. The Board of the Admiralty of the day ordered him to be entered without the production of the usual medical certificate. Their decision has amply been justified by the result; insomuch that Prince Louis has always enjoyed exceptional health during the 19 years he has been in the Service, and has carried out

  1373
  his duties wherever he has been called upon to serve with zeal and energy.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Arising out of the reply of the noble Lord, I wish to ask him whether it is the fact that Prince Louis of Battenberg was submitted, in the ordinary course, to medical examination by Dr. Buckle, of Her Majesty's ship Britannia; that, as he was only known by a number by Dr. Buckle, Dr. Buckle rejected him; that subsequently two other medical officers of Tier Majesty's Service also examined Prince Louis of Battenberg, and that they also rejected him; and that, subsequently, the Prince was appointed by the direct intervention of Her Majesty?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated, failed to obtain the usual certificate——
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I point out that the noble Lord did not say that?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I said that Prince Louis of Battenberg was admitted by the Board of Admiralty of the day without the production of the usual medical certificate——
  MR. PICKERSGILL: That is quite a different thing.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: And that they ordered him to be entered without the production of such certificate. I can only add that the result has been very satisfactory—[An hon. MEMBER: To Prince Louis.]—inasmuch as in the record of his 19 years' service he has performed duties in different parts of the world with better health and with fewer appearances on the sick list than many other officers who obtained health certificates in the ordinary way.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which it seems impossible to pass by. The hon. Member opposite asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, at the conclusion of his second Question, whether Prince Louis of Battenberg was not appointed "by the direct intervention of Her Majesty." I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Question of that kind is not grossly out of Order, and utterly at variance with all the Constitutional practice and all the immemorial traditions of the House of Commons, in introducing the name of Her Majesty into debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly, the latter part of the hon. Member's Ques-
  1374
  tion was contrary to the established traditions of this House by bringing the name of Her Majesty and the Crown directly into the proceedings of the House in the way he did.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to express my great regret for having transgressed what is undoubtedly a Constitutional usage of the House; and I may say that I did not contravene the Rule of this House advisedly, but that I simply spoke on the spur of the moment.
  MR. CONYBEAREinquired, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would furnish to the House the Return of those officers who had been admitted to the Navy without medical certificates being granted?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It would be contrary to the usual Regulation to admit any candidate without a certificate.
  DR. TANNER: Are only Royal personages permitted to enter the Service without medical certificates?
  [No reply.]

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES—SEIZURE OF THE SMACK "LADY GODIVA"—THE PAPERS.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table all the Papers relative to the Grimsby smack Lady Godiva?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): There will be no objection to the presentation of the Papers as soon as the Report of the trial has been received.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION —SEIZURE OF THE SMACK "LADY GODIVA."
  MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will undertake, on the receipt of the judgment in the case of Funnell, skipper of the Lady Godiva, not only to consider his claim for compensation for false imprisonment and loss in connection therewith, as well as for the injuries sustained by the vessel, but also to consider and enter into communication at the earliest possible moment with the German Govern-

  1375
  ment in regard to the treatment of Funnell in prison whilst awaiting trial, and during both the preliminary inquiry and the trial; and, whether they will in quire into the alleged breaches of the North Sea Fisheries Convention by the German cruiser, which were not brought forward at the trial owing to the fact that no notice was given either to the British Consul or to Dr. Israel, who had been retained for the defence, but which are of the greatest and most urgent importance to the whole fishing trade of the United Kingdom?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I can only repeat the answer given on the 2nd instant by the Secretary to the Board of Trade to a similar Question. The Report of the British Consul at Hamburg on the whole case has not yet reached us; and until we receive it I am unable to say what steps Her Majesty's Government may think fit to take in the matter.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS— DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LAND.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a letter from the Clerk to the Board of Works for the Wandsworth District, advising him that the following Resolution was agreed to, nem. diss., at the last meeting of the Board—namely,
  "That the Government he requested to appoint a Commission to inquire into the past and present system of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in reference to its dealings with surplus or any other lands, and other matters collateral thereto;"
  and, whether he will now consent to the appointment of a Commission?
  COLONEL HUGHESinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Metropolitan Board had appointed a Commission to investigate matters, and that the proceedings of the Commission would be public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that the Government had received a Resolution from the Wandsworth District Board of Works on the subject referred to in the Question. He understood that the whole subject was under investigation by a Committee.

  ADMIRALTY—THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES—REPORTED ACCIDENTS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can give any information relating to the reported accidents on some of Her Majesty's ships in the naval manœuvres; and, whether he can furnish any additional information as to the progress and result of these naval manœuvres?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I regret to say that there have been two accidents, one on board the Curlew and the other on board the Black Prince. I have received no detailed information; but I understand that there has been an accident to a Nordenfelt gun, six men having been injured, one seriously, and that the remaining five are progressing well. Two men, I am afraid, have lost the sight of an eye. One of the Squadrons—the D Squadron—has been placed to the North of the Irish Channel; the B Squadron to the South of the Irish Channel; and the third, or A Squadron, off the French Coast. There is no news of the C Squadron; hut as regards the B Squadron, we have received a telegram that it has captured all the Squadron of the enemy and frustrated his objects. Admiral Fremantle reports that, after having taken Falmouth, he forced the entrance to the Thames at daylight and anchored off the Nore. He claims to have sunk the I torpedo-boats, while the torpedo-boats j claim to have sunk half his Squadron. Finally, he has been pursued in the Thames by Admiral Hewett's Squadron,; and I believe that the whole of his Squadron has been captured. I have not yet received the Report of the umpires.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask the noble Lord if he can give us an estimate of what will be the cost to the country of these tomfooleries?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The cost, Sir, will not entail a Supplementary Estimate. I should say that no part of the expenditure incurred in connection with the Navy will be more useful to the men in teaching them how to perform their duty and handle their ships.
  SIR FREDERICK MAPPIN: Can the noble Lord state where the guns were manufactured?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I said I one Nordenfelt. I did not say that the accidents were due to any defect in the gun; but I have no detailed information.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS—MONOPOLY OF LENTICULAR APPARATUS.
  MR. LEA(for Mr. T. W. RUSSELL)asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that a Birmingham firm has the monopoly of supplying lenticular apparatus for lighthouses in England and the Colonies, and that competitive; tenders for that description of lighthouse apparatus are never sought for by public advertisement, or otherwise, by the Board of Trade or the Trinity House; whether, very recently, efforts, have not been made to extend this monopoly to Ireland and Scotland; and whether it would not be for the interest of the Public Service that this monopoly should cease, and that, in future, the Board of Trade should insist upon fair competition being instituted hi all cases where lenticular or dioptric apparatus may be required for lighthouses in any part of the United Kingdom or the Colonies?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Messrs. Chance Brothers, of Birmingham, supply the Trinity House with lenticular apparatus for English lighthouses on a three years' agreement at prices 'which, the Board of Trade understand are lower than those of any other firm. Lenticular apparatus required by the Board of Trade for lighthouses erected by them abroad is also obtained under this arrangement. The Board of Trade are not aware how the Colonial Governments obtain lenticular apparatus for lighthouses erected by thorn. In Ireland and Scotland such an arrangement as that with Messrs. Chance Brothers does not exist; and the Board of Trade are nut aware of any efforts having been made to extend it to lighthouses in Ireland and Scotland. Messrs. Chance Brothers have recently pointed out that they car, supply for two lighthouses in Ireland apparatus at terms lower than those named in the Parliamentary Paper
  1378
  of the Present Session now on the Table of the House. On the termination of the agreement with Messrs. Chance Brothers it will be considered what arrangements can best be made in the interest of the Public Service.

  CHINA—RETORTED COMMERCIAL CONCESSIONS TO AN AMERICAN SYNDICATE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has yet reached the Foreign Office as to the important commercial concessions alleged to have been made by the Chinese Government to an American Syndicate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No information on the subject has been received at the Foreign Office.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— RE-CONSTITUTION.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session to re-constitute the Scottish Fishery Board; or, if not, when will the Board be re-constituted?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDOSALD), in reply, said, it was not intended to introduce a Bill this Session. Under the existing Act six members of the Board went out of Office in October nest, and their places could be filled up either by re-appointment or by new members.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, what would be the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, he could not predict that.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, he could not allow the Lord Advocate to ride off in that way.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Mr. ESSLEMONTsaid, they wanted to know the future constitution of the Board.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the Board had been appointed for five years, and the five years were about to expire; and, seeing that the strongest dissatisfaction had been expressed on all sides as to the constitution of the Board, he thought the question was most pertinent. Were the

  1379
  present Commissioners to be re-appointed?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that it was not in his power to re-appoint them.
  MR. BUCHANANasked, whether a promise would be given not to fill the appointments up till October—that was, until they had an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Board on the Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope we shall get to the Estimate for the Scottish Fishery Board before October.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. LYELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill will be taken on Wednesday next?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the Bill would have been put down for Wednesday if the Government had had the slightest hope of being able to carry it; but it was threatened with such serious opposition on both sides of the House that he was afraid they should be obliged to withdraw the Bill.

  WALES—THE TITHE RIOTS.
  In reply to Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, that he had no information as to the renewal of the tithe riots in Wales.

  LAW AND POLICE—INFLICTION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON A BOY AT ILKESTON.
  In reply to Mr. C. S. KENNY (York, W.R., Barnsley),
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he had received a vast number of reports relative to the birching a boy at Ilkeston, who was alleged to have been seriously injured. Allegations of misconduct were made against the police, who were not, however, under his jurisdiction. He had referred the matter to
  1380
  the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, who informed him that the Police Committee had been directed to investigate the matter.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked, What course would be taken as to the Allotments Bill, so as to allow adequate discussion of the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not able to indicate the precise day on which it is proposed to take the Allotments Bill; but, having regard to the views expressed by the light hon. Gentleman yesterday, I hope arrangements will be made to take the Bill in the course of next week at an early hour.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Certainly not taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not on Monday.
  In reply to Mr. BAUMANN (Camber-well, Peckham),
  MR. W. H. SMITHconsented to postpone the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill until Monday, and to give Metropolitan Members an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable hour, either on that day or on some later one.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEpresumed it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Report on the Irish Land Law Bill that night, and, if it should be necessary, to-morrow? It would be desirable to know, however, what Business would be taken next, in the event of the Irish Land Law Bill finishing that night, or at an early hour to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, if the Irish Land Law Bill were disposed of that night, it was not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit on Saturday, as the labours of the House had been very severe lately, although he was afraid that the state of Supply and other urgent Business would render it necessary for the House to sit on the remaining Saturdays of the Session.
  In reply to further Questions,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that on Monday the House would go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates in the order in which they stood. He could not come to any ar-

  1381
  rangement to take the Irish Estimates in regular succession, and not mixed up as they were with, the English Estimates. He hoped the Irish Land Law Bill would he read a third time at the conclusion of the Report stage; it would be a reasonable, and not an unusual, course with a measure of that kind. The Post Office Savings Banks Bill would not be taken to-night. He was sorry he could not name a day for the Indian Budget. The taking of the Navy Estimates would depend upon the progress made with the Civil Service Estimates. He could not say whoa the Education Vote would be reached, looking to the progress required to be made with the Votes in the preceding Class.
  MR. LEAasked, when the Government intended to introduce the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In a few days. It is not usual to introduce the Bill until there is reasonable hope that the end of the Session is in sight.
  In reply to Mr. DILLON (Mayo, E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHpromised that he would try and arrange that the Irish Estimates should be brought on at a time which would suit the convenience of Irish Members.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL—THE DUKE OF ABERCORN.
  MR.P. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the following Question, of which I have given him private Notice:—Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Daily News of this day of a meeting of the landlords of Tyrone, held in Omagh yesterday, at which a letter was read from the Duke of Abercorn, in which the following paragraph occurred:—
  "The Irish landlords are to be sacrificed on the base excuse of maintaining the Union, and the whole of Ireland is to suffer for a few disturbed counties;"
  whether the Government accepts the Duke's interpretation of their Irish policy, and approves of the language in which he describes it?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not the usual form of a Question. The hon. Gentleman is asking the opinion of the Goverment.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Then, perhaps, I may put the Question in the following
  1382
  way:—Whether, in deference to the opinion of the Duke of Abercorn, the Government will cancel the application of the Coercion Act to the whole of the Irish counties, and apply its operation to portions of the disturbed counties referred to?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.): I have received no application of that character from the Duke.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY UTTERANCES—COLONEL SAUNDERSON.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish, Sir, to ask a Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) which concerns the order and regularity of our proceedings in this House. It is, whether a statement attributed to him has any sort of correctness about it. It is stated in The St. Stephen's Review of last week that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated to an interviewer——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think this is exceeding the usual limits of a Question so ask an hon. Member of this House what he stated outside the House.
  An hon. MEMBER: It is in regard to the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling immediately; but the Question relates to a statement alleged to have been made by the hon. and gallant Member as to what he would do in this House. Of course, if you say I am out of Order, I will sit down. I only wish to explain the purport of my Question.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Am I in Order, Sir, in answering the Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the hon. Baronet is as to a statement of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do in a certain case. I think it would be better to wait until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done something.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has received a letter in the terms of one stated to have

  1383
  been sent to him by the hon. and galland Member?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have not the Slightest idea to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know what the latter is; what the terms are; and I have not seen The St. Stephen's Review, and I do not know anything about it. I must appeal to hon. Gentlemen to exercise a little more control, and not to ask Questions which are absolutely trivial.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, Sir, respectfully, to put a Question to you on a matter of Privilege. I would ask you whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, if he desires to bring before the notice of the House a report as to a Member of this House threatening the infliction of physical violence on hon. Members opposite, and in the precincts of the House, he is not entitled to bring it before you as a matter of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not know what the hon. Baronet was going to refer to; but I would make an appeal to the House not to allow the time of the House to be occupied with Questions of this nature. There would be no end to them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect to an Amendment to Clauses 10 and 24 respectively."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Motion just made ought to have been accompanied by some statement from the Government. He had that morning examined the Amendment Paper, with great anxiety, to see whether the Government placed on the Paper any Amendment which would raise again the question of arrears. He confessed that he was deeply' disappointed to find that no such Notice to that effect appeared in the Paper. He did not suppose that any Bill had ever passed
  1384
  through Committee which had been so radically altered in its passage as this Bill. It was. in fact, so altered that it was difficult to recognize it as the same Bill. While he was perfectly prepared to admit that the Bill was valuable in some important particulars, it was true that in one vital point it had been altered in a very extraordinary fashion. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government said that the chief object of it was to abolish harsh and unjust evictions. The condition of things with which they were now face to face was that, while the Government had yielded to urgent pressure to reduce the judicial rents, all those provisions in the Bill which were originally shaped with the intention of preventing harsh and unjust evictions in the immediate future were completely struck out, and nothing appeared in their place. He had always maintained that the original provisions known as the Bankruptcy Clauses, which were intended by the Government to prevent evictions, would fail in their object. It had been always put forward on behalf of the Government, that it was to this portion of the Bill they looked to put an effectual check to those evictions, Now, the Bankruptcy Clauses in Committee went by the Board without a single voice being raised in their favour except from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). Nothing had been put in their place; and now they found that a Bill which was said to have been introduced for the purpose of preventing evictions would fail to do so, Thus, a most important grievance was not dealt with at all. They had urged on the Government that the question of harsh evictions would be best dealt with by the extension of Clause 22 (now Clause 26). He could not understand how the Government were prepared to defend their position. If no machinery was provided in the Bill for the prevention of harsh evictions, the result would be that an immense number of people—probably between 20,000 and 30,000 families—who were under ejectment decrees for arrears which they could not pay would derive no benefit from the Bill. So far as he could judge, this Bill, on which so many hopes were founded, would bring no relief to a large class of tenants during

  1385
  the coming winter—in fact, not before the 31st of March next. It certainly would not bring great relief to anybody now in danger of eviction, or to any of those tenants for whom the Bankruptcy Clauses were intended. The only hope for those tenants was in the extension of Clause 26.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Motion before the House was the re-committal of the Bill for a specific purpose in respect of Clauses 10 and 24, and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in referring to other Clauses.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that under those circumstances he would move the re-committal of the Bill with respect to Clauses 7 and 26, if that were in Order. He did not desire to prolong debate. His only object was to enable the Government to give such information as might shorten discussion. The Government having admitted the most important principle that the judicial rents had become unjust and should be reduced, how could they hope to introduce law and order by enforcing those rents, when, by doing so, they would be brought face to face with an enormous number of people evicted for unjust rents? He must say that if the Government were prepared to do that they were rushing on their own ruin. The leaseholders, who were now admitted to the benefits of the Bill, had been placed in a most cruel position, for, having paid enormous sums to get leases, they had been held all these years to the old rents. After six years, it was now admitted by the Government that it would be unjust to hold those men to excessive rents, and therefore, instead of denying the tenants, of whom there were hundreds and thousands in arrears, any remedy, the Government should endeavour to open some read by which they would be enabled to get out of this impasse. There was nothing which had surprised him (Mr. Dillon) more than the action of the Liberal Unionists in this matter. That Party based their existence in politics on this theory—that they were determined, to do justice to Ireland. They had a meeting all to themselves, and with the approval of the Leaders of the Party, certain Amendments were put on the Paper. The Irish Party thereupon adopted a tone of conciliation, for they saw that the Amend
  1386
  ments of the Liberal Unionists to Clause 22 would go a long way to remove a very serious defect in the Bill. But the Liberal Unionist Party, in every instance in which they put down an important Amendment, ran away when it came to the scratch, and left the Irish Party in the lurch. They withdrew the Amendments, and supported the Government in the Division Lobby, whilst they sent the two Ulster Liberal Unionists (Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Lea) to support them in the company of the Irish Party. If that was to be the basis of Liberal Unionism, it would be a very long time before Irishmen would become reconciled to the Union, and he (Mr. Dillon) would take particular care during the coming autumn that the action of the Liberal Unionist Party, as compared with their professions, should be understood. The Irish Members had now placed on the Paper the Liberal Unionists Amendments on Clause 22, and he asked would they now support those Amendments? The Unionists taunted the Irish Members with the assurance that, in doing justice to Ireland, the National Party would be extinguished. Now, here was their opportunity to crush the National Party, and ensure their own success by doing this act of justice to the Irish tenants. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said on Wednesday that it was most important that the Bill should pass at once, and that 48 hours' delay in doing that would be dangerous to the interests of Ireland. Would the First Lord of the Treasury explain what he meant by that statement, for he (Mr. Dillon) could not understand it? There was no clause in the Bill as it stood which could substantially alter the position of the Irish tenant for many months to come, except the 7th clause, and that altered it for the worse. If, by that, the right hon. Gentleman intended that there should be a vast number of evictions carried out under Clause 7, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that his plea for urgency would have an effect the reverse of what he contemplated. When the First Lord of the Treasury begged the House not to delay the Bill for 48 hours, he was probably thinking of the coming election in the Northwich Division of Cheshire, and of others that had just taken place which threatened to be the

  1387
  ruin of the Party, rather than of any immediate good which would he done to the Irish tenant by the Bill. His only regret was that he had not mot the clause with greater resistance, and that the Irish Representatives had not pressed more Amendments upon thin clause which was now Clause 7 of the Bill, which was all the worse because the evil it would work was insidious, and because, while avoiding the open scandal of evictions which had done so much to damage the Government, it would make them easy and bring them about in the dark, by moans of a printed paper, and would deprive the evicted tenant of the comfort which the presence of a crowd of sympathizing neighbours afforded to those who were evicted by force. The opposition of the Irish Representatives to the clause in Committee had been diminished by two considerations—one being the rather cruel threat of the Government that pressing Amendments would lead to the loss of the Bill, and the other being the promise on the part of the Government that the operation of Clause 22 would be largely extended, so as to afford ample protection to the Irish tenant. The intention of Clause 7 was evidently to make evictions easy, while the scandal of putting them openly in force was avoided in view of approaching elections. In conclusion, he would demand, for the last time, that the tenants now so much in arrears should not be deprived of the benefits of this Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clauses 7 and 26.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "and also in respect of Clauses 7 and 26."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to have founded his ideas upon a total misapprehension of what the Bill did and what it did not do, and there never was an imputation less warranted than that the Government were thinking of elections in their desire to pass the Bill. The greater part of the hon. Member's speech had been directed against Clause 7, and he accused the Government of having
  1388
  introduced that clause, with the view of tiding over the next few months in order to facilitate the elections which might be held during that time in England and Ireland. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might at once say that the Government had not introduced the clause into the Bill with that object. Their object in framing the clause had been to avoid the wholly superfluous and unnecessary sufferings which were caused at present by evictions, in eases where agreements were ultimately entered into between the landlord and the tenant. The hon. Member then went on to make the astonishing observation that no relief would be given to the tenant under this Bill until some nine or 10 months had elapsed. [Mr. DILLON: No substantial relief.] The hon. Member had said that no part of the Bill, except Clause 7, would come into operation until the lapse of nine or 10 months. Let the House consider for a moment what the Bill did at present for the relief of the Irish tenants. In the first place, every leaseholder who chose, and every tenant who had not had his judicial rent fixed, in the course of the next three months could apply to have a judicial rent fixed, which would operate as regarded the rent, which would become due next September. [Cries of "No!"] There was no doubt whatever upon that point. ["Hear, hear!"and an hon. MEMBER: What about the hanging gales?] The hanging gales affected only a very small part of Ireland. The Bill further made a provision for the revision, of judicial rents, which would also affect the rents due next September. Then, with regard to Clause 26, it would come into operation at once, not only as regarded every ejectment after the passing of the Act, but as regarded all ejectment decrees which had been obtained for months past, whether they were 10,000, 15,000, or 30,000 in number. Other parts of the Bill would give the tenants immediate relief, and the criticism of the hon. Member was the very height of injustice. Indeed, it was impossible to conceive how, in the face of these facts, any hon. Member could make the statement that the Bill would not come into operation until after the lapse of nine or 10 months. With regard to the bankruptcy provisions of the Bill, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had never concealed Ms regret that the action of the Committee had compelled

  1389
  the Government to drop them, as he believed that, oven as they had been modified by the House of Lords, they had formed a very valuable part of the measure. He was glad to find that his regret at the absence of those provisions was now shared by hon. Members opposite, although they had not taken the opportunity of expressing a favourable opinion with regard to them while the Bill was in Committee. Objections had been taken to those clauses on the ground that the word "bankruptcy" was an invidious one; but the Government had been prepared to pledge themselves to drop that word, and to adopt any form of clause which would bring in all creditors of the tenant on an equal footing. Was it fair to reproach the Government, after they had shown their readiness to drop the Bankruptcy Clauses or to modify them, with having brought forward a Bill without provisions which they had dropped in obedience to the wishes of hon. Members opposite? The Government had done their best to relieve the Irish tenant from the load of debt from which, according to the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Irish tenant was suffering, and if they had been defeated in this object it was owing to no fault of their own, but to the action of hon. Members on that side of the House. While saying that, he did not wish to be thought to imply that the Bill, even as at present without those provisions, was a useless measure for the tenants of Ireland. He thought that it was very much the reverse, and he believed that under the operation of Clause 22 or 26, whichever they chose to call it, as a matter of fact, a settlement would be come to over the whole of Ireland. They had been told that this Bill gave no relief with regard to arrears. But the Government had done a great deal with regard to arrears; they had given the County Court Judge absolute power to spread the payment over an indefinite period. He assorted that, though the Bill had been so far maimed by the action of hon. Members from Ireland, yet it did give immense relief in regard to arrears. What relief had been 'given in this direction by their Act of 1881? The hon. Member for East Mayo told the Government they had admitted that the judicial rents were unjust, and that therefore they were logically bound to
  1390
  make the action of the clause retrospective over the period during which the alleged injustice had existed. What were the rents now alleged to be unjust? They were rents fixed by the Courts. In 1881 the rents were what hon. Members opposite asserted had been exacted by harsh and unjust landlords out of their tenants by working on their affection for their homes, and by threatening them with the loss of all improvements on their holdings, unless they consented to these rents; and yet the relief given by Clause 26 had never been dreamt of in 1881. He denied the premisses upon which the hon. Member proceeded. He did not admit that the rents which they proposed to reconsider were unjust in that sense which alone would allow of the argument that any action taken with regard to them ought to be retrospective. A rent might be too high without being unjust. A contract might be too bard without being inequitable, and he would not say that those rents were unjust until hon. Members conceded to him that a contract solemnly entered into between the two parties, which the progress of time had caused to bear hardly on one of the parties, could be described as being an unjust one, and that any action taken with regard to it ought to be retrospective. He maintained that they had no right to use any other words with regard to these rents than they were prepared to use with regard to any other contract, fairly and honestly entered into, which the lapse of time or any other circumstances might have rendered difficult of fulfilment by either of the parties. The Government were not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo; they could not withdraw from the position which they had taken up with regard to this point in Committee. They were not prepared to start from the admission that the judicial rents were unjust, and acting upon that to apply a procedure to the diminishing of the debts from the tenant to the landlord different from that which was to be applied to the debts of the tenant to the shopkeeper and the gombeen man. The responsibility for the loss of the Bankruptcy Clauses must rest with the Irish Members; but the Bill gave considerable protection with regard to arrears; and he thought that the hon. Member for East Mayo

  1391
  would admit that the Government were trying to do their best for the good of Ireland, and that the measure in its present form was one of the largest measures of relief ever given by that House to any class of the community cither in Ireland or in England.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the most important point was that they should understand in what position they were placed with regard to Clauses 7 and 26. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, in his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion not at all accurately, the position in which the Irish tenants was placed under the 26th clause as it now stood. The pressing question which they had to consider, was, what the situation of the tenants, whether leaseholders or holders under judicial rents, would be in the course of the autumn and winter in respect to arrears, which he feared were very general, and almost universal in consequence of the bad times. That was the real point, and the question was, what did this Bill do for these people? If it did nothing for them, what would be the situation in Ireland under the Bill in the course of the next sis months? What were the Government going to do? This clause affected, to a certain degree probably the larger proportion of some 300,000 tenants—200,000 under judicial rents and 100,000 leaseholders—who owed one or two years' amount of a rent which was admitted to be too high. He was not going into the metaphysical discussion between a rent which was too high and a rent which was unjust; they might depend upon it, though the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was very acute and metaphysical, that that was not the point of view from which the Irish tenant would regard the question. What the tenant would say to himself would be, "Can I pay this rent, and, if not, what will happen to me under the 7th clause?" he could not see why a distinction should be made between the relief in futurum which the Bill was to give, and the relief from the rent which had been too high previously. He thought that the boasted Equity Clause of the Government did no equity at all and was not worth the paper it was written upon, for this reason. A man was called upon to pay two years' rent;
  1392
  he was allowed to pay this by instalments, but each instalment was a fraction of an exorbitant rent, and he did not think that anyone would ha gulled by the clause. This clause was an inequitable clause, and the Government were trying to palm it off on the country and on the Irish people as an Equity Clause. What was the result of it? They ordered a man in distress and paying an exorbitant rent to pay successive instalments of this unjust rent. That would involve the payment of exorbitant instalments, and it was plain that the time would come when he could not pay the instalments. It was possible that the man might pay the first and second instalments; but if he could not pay the third, the moment must arrive when he would be evicted. The clause, in effect, said that without benefit of clergy, without power to the Court, he was to be instantly evicted, and the Court was to give him no relief whatever. A more unjust, a more inequitable, he was almost going to say a more iniquitous, clause, it was impossible to conceive. Then a provision was introduced in Clause 26, with reference to fieri facias. But they confined fieri facias to the sale of the tenant's interest; the landlord was left to do as he liked with reference to the whole plant and stock of the tenant The landlord could sweep the farm bare. He was told that they were doing that most extensively in Ireland now. Suppose a landlord wished to get rid of a tenant. It was not necessary for him to sell the tenant's interest—he could go to the farm and sweep away the little stock left to the tenant everything by which the family could live The clause gave no protection whatever, it left the tenant absolutely at the mercy of the landlord in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition proposed no alternative to the Bankruptcy Clauses. They had done so. There was an alternative proposed in the Amendments on Clause 22. They were now reproduced on the Taper, and if the Government would only accept them now, then the treaty of peace would be signed at once. They were the Amendments of the Liberal Unionist Party. Where was the Liberal Unionist Party that evening when this matter was being discussed? They were away enjoying themselves; but they had got to consider whether

  1393
  the tenants of Ireland, whose cause the Liberal Unionists had undertaken, were also enjoying themselves. He thought the tenants of Ireland would remember the line of Pope—
  "Wretches hang that jurymen may dine."
  The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) had proposed an Amendment in substitution; but what was its fate? The hon. and learned Gentleman was supported by the right Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain); but the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) threw the Amendment overboard, and with it the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). But the hon. Member was used to that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said—Only propose a substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses, and we will be glad to consider it, and, perhaps, adopt it. Well, this was the substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses, and the Opposition now proposed them. That was the object of the Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was, that any provision of relief bearing the marks and subject to the conditions which I explained were absolutely necessary—that all creditors should be treated alike—we should be glad to consider, and possibly accept.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the proposal seemed to him to involve a profound fallacy. The right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out that the Bill only made the Irish landlords do what the English landlords did voluntarily. That was the basis of this legislation from 1881 onwards. It was an attempt, difficult, arduous, and generally unsuccessful, to make the Irish landlord do what the English landlord had done voluntarily. When the English landlord found prices had fallen and that rents were too high he reduced his rent in the proportion which he thought fair to his tenants. But he did not commit such an absurdity as to go to the tenant and say—"I will not reduce your rent unless your butcher, your baker, and all the rest of your creditors, reduce their bills." The tenant would think he was a fool to propound such an argument as that; but yet that was the fundamental principle of the
  1394
  Government, which they insisted on. It would not bear examination for a moment. The Liberal Unionists, after all, were more intellegent men than the Government they supported. They made no proposal of that kind. They put their Amendments down dealing with rent alone. But the Liberal Unionists had run away from their colours, and loft only the hon. Member for South Tyrone——
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea).
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh, well, there are two of them then; but "where are the seven?" He supposed the fact was that the Government had adopted the doctrine of the Duke of Abercorn, and demanded that "the Irish landlords are not be sacrificed to the base excuse of maintaining the Union." That was the description of the policy of the hon. Member for South Tyrone by the Duke of Abercorn. He entreated the Government not to listen to the Duke of Abercorn, not to listen to the landlords of Ireland, who, after all, thought uncommonly little of the Union, but a great deal of the rent. The question was, whether by the Bill the Government were going to send a message of peace to Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that they did not wish to prolong this agrarian quarrel, but that the urgent question in Ireland was that of the arrears of exorbitant rents. More or less—probably more—of these 300,000 tenants were in arrear, and for that the Bill offered no remedy, except to enforce, by a new and insidious process, the payment of exorbitant rents by spreading the instalments over a period of time; but that did not remove the taint of injustice which attached to the exorbitant rents What was proposed by the Opposition was the simplest of all remedies. It was to substitute for the Government Bankruptcy Clauses, that the County Court should in settling this question of arrears and instalments have an equitable jurisdiction to deal with the amount due. Could there be a more simple, or more fair and reasonable proposal than that? The hon. Member for East Mayo promised them peace in Ireland if they did that. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite smiled at that; but, surely, he

  1395
  wished for peace in Ireland as much as anyone did. Their Bill, however, gave no remedy except the combination of the tenants against their unjust law. The Irish Members said they did not desire that; but wished them by law to give a just and an equitable relief, and they proposed to leave the Court to say on those arrears what reduction should be made. It was said they had shut the back door against eviction; but that door was still left ajar, because the landlord could go and sweep off the whole of the tenant's stock under the Bill, and thus eviction would come about, he hoped that even at the eleventh hour the Government would see their way to making a composition on the 26th clause. If they did so, they would make the Bill a just and reasonable Bill, and one that would give satisfaction to the tenants in Ireland. That was a result to which every man, to whatever Party he belonged, ought to do his best to contribute. When the Court gave judgment it should give judgment on the arrears and on the whole matter, and should pronounce what was fair and equitable between the parties. He hoped therefore that the Government would not be induced to stand out in that matter, for if they did they would unquestionably be deprived of all the advantages which they expected from that Bill, and their measure would not be accepted in Ireland in the spirit in which everybody desired that it should be.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he did not think that the right hon. Member for Derby would be able to persuade the British elector that a Bill which remitted rents to the extent of 20 per cent was a measure which gave no relief whatever to Irish tenants. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said in the next six months.] Between allowing a remission in future and allowing a remission of arrears there seemed to be a very large distinction to be drawn. If the Government were to agree to remit the arrears of the judicial rents, they would have to deal with the very difficult case of the tenants who had already paid, for it would, at any rate, be unjust to remit in the case of those who had been lax in payment, and not to give any remedy to those who had paid up to the time. He was glad that the Government had announced that they would not make a concession in that respect. If
  1396
  they did, he considered it would be another stop in that very dangerous and disastrous path on which the Government, he regretted to say, had already entered. On a former occasion the right hon. Member for Derby had referred to him (Viscount Cranborne), and spoke of the sancta simplicitas of the noble Lord who hoped that the Government would not give way, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government immediately afterwards did give way. Now, he (Viscount Cranborne) admitted that the Government did act in direct antagonism to a speech which he had previously made; but the sancta simplicitas to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was shared by a very large number of the hon. Members who sat around him. He regretted more than he could say the concession which had been made. No doubt, if prices rose they had reason to hope that the rent of the landlord would rise under the proposal of the Government. But he feared that if they established a sliding scale for rent, they would establish a scale under which rent would slide down, but would not slide up again, and it would, to a large extent, affect the credit of the tenants of Ireland when the Purchase Bill came before them. He had hoped that they had reached the limit of concessions in this respect, and that the Irish tenants, recognizing that the Act of 1881 was a final settlement, would have looked no more to Parliament for a further relief from their contracts. Some hon. Members did not seem to recognize the fact that Irish tenants must go through some tribulation before they again learned the inevitable lesson of economic laws and the necessity of adhering to their contracts. The time must come when those economic laws would assert themselves, and the tenants would have to bear the brunt of it. Why had those concessions been made? [Laughter ] They need not laugh; he was going to answer the question. The concessions had been made not, he believed, with the advice of many hon. Members who sat around him, but in the teeth of the declarations of the Unionist Leaders on both sides of the House, and a large number of Members on that (the Ministerial) side did not agree with them. But the reason for them was this—The Government was not a Government in a majority; and whilst he would not say a word against

  1397
  the Liberal Unionist Party, whose I patriotism and consistency he fully recognized, and to whom he felt that the Government owed a great deal, yet, undoubtedly, they had the power to turn out the Government. He could not for a moment blame Her Majesty's Government if—when they considered the terrible confusion into which all affairs, both at home and abroad, would be plunged by a defeat of the Government in this House—they shrank from those consequences. But though he did not blame them, he could not agree with them, and he could not think that the course they had taken was most conducive either to the prosperity of Ireland or to the good of the public life of this country. These were sentiments which were largely held by hon. Members sitting around him, and he had waited to see whether someone of greater weight than himself would rise and say words to this effect; but as no one had risen he thought it right to say this much. Great changes had been made in the Bill; but he was only anxious that it should be fully understood that many Members on his side of the House would not be held responsible for the 26th clause, and that the country would put the saddle on the right horse.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was decidedly of opinion that unless something was placed in the Bill in lieu of the Bankruptcy Clauses the Bill would not be effective. He could not see what good any Land Bill would effect in Ireland which did not provide, in a satisfactory manner, for the liquidation of arrears. He, therefore, still hoped the Government would consent to make the necessary alterations in their measure, and he would ask them, at the eleventh hour, whether they would not consider the question of allowing the County Courts equitable jurisdiction, and thus make the Bill a really healing measure. The majority of the House desired it should be done, and the Government would have been defeated if the Liberal Unionists had voted according to their opinion, instead of abstaining in view of other concessions.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the first object of the speeches he had listened to of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) seemed to be to
  1398
  discount the value of the Bill, as much, as possible, before it went to the country; and, in the second place, to misrepresent and injure the Liberal Unionist Party. It was quite true the Liberal Unionists were absent that night, and he was not sure that, for all the good done up to the present, they were not quite as well where they were. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear! and loud Opposition laughter.] He was speaking of the proceedings of that evening. He would venture to state what was really the action of the Liberal Unionist Party in the matter; but, at the same time, he was not responsible for the action of the whole Party. He had taken a line of his own, and what he had said in that House he had said at Devonshire House. The Government had made great concessions, and he was not afraid that the action of the Liberal Unionists should be judged by Irishmen of any Party. He had been bantered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby because the Liberal Unionists did not follow him into the Lobby. He had done his best to carry the Party with him on all the main considerations. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: How many voted?] He thought something like 15, and they were about equally divided. He bad done what he thought to be his duty to his constituents, and he did not think he ought to be bantered for that by the right hon. Member for Derby, or any other Member of the House. He had ventured to lay before the Liberal Unionist Party, clearly and distinctly, what were the Amendments he thought necessary in regard to the Bill. Before the meeting of the Liberal Unionist Party, he had spoken on the second reading of the Bill perfectly plainly, and nobody could say that his advice to the Liberal Unionist Party was not advice that was given in the House. He had held from the first that with respect to Clause 1 the option should be given to leaseholders, and that no restriction should be put on the clause. He held that the judicial rents, in view of the facts and the evidence placed before the Cowper Commission, were impossible rents, and would have to be reduced; and he stated that more was in peril than the landlord's rent if that course were not adopted, and he recommended that the back door should be closed. All

  1399
  those points Lad been conceded, and more, because they had got relief from the town parks, which had been swept away in South Tyrone and many other parts of Ireland, and they had the Equity Clause made retrospective. Under those circumstances, he was not afraid to have the action of the Liberal Unionists judged by hon. Members of either side. The right hon. Member for Derby said that all the Party did not vote with the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Friday). Was the right hon. Gentleman never a Member of a Party which did not vote in its entirety? The hon. and learned Member for Inverness did what he thought was right, and he (Mr. T. W. Russell) supported him, as he should do again; but they were not responsible for the whole Party. With regard to the Equity Clauses, he read Clauses 7 and 26 together; and it appeared to him that this was what would take place. No tenant in Ireland could suffer eviction, which was what they wished to avoid, until the matter had come before the County Court. The landlord could not take those notices and scatter them broadcast on his own motion. He must go to the Court and get an order, and the moment he went there for the order the tenant went for protection, and the 26th clause would be put into operation. He was desirous, in common with the hon. Member for East Mayo, that the clause should go further. The County Court Judge had the right to give time to the tenant to pay, and to arrange the instalments, and he also had the power, if he could bring the parties to terms, to arrange a composition. He (Mr. Russell) believed that in 80 per cent, of the cases composition would actually take place. ["Hear, hear!"] They believed it? If they did believe it, they were bound to enact it. He did not say that all Irish landlords were unreasonable; but it was for the 20 per cent of cases, where the composition was not made, that legislation was wanted. It was required to force the Clanricardes and the O'Callaghans to come to terms. There was a percentage of Irish landlords—tho Clanricardes and O'Callaghans—who would take their pound of flesh, and therefore he (Mr. T. W. Russell) wished for a provision, authorizing the Chairman to compel these Clanricardes and O'Callaghans to come
  1400
  to terms. He would say that these people had no right to throw the whole country into a state of seething excitement in order to get their unjust rents. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that he (Mr. T. W. Russell) and his Friends proposed no substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses; but in his speech on the second reading, while he condemned the Bankruptcy Clauses, in the case of small tenants, and hold them, in the demoralized state of Ireland, to be positively dangerous, he also stated that if they were to be abandoned it would be necessary to put something in their place, and he hold that an extension of the Equity Clauses was necessary. The noble Viscount the Member for the Darken Division of Lancashire, had raised a point against any further concessions being made on account of those tenants who had paid their rent, and were not in arrears. There was, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) would admit, some force in that; but he did not think it was a good reason why this small boon should be refused in the present state of Ireland. It would only affect about 20 per cent of the cases; but it would bring contentment and peace; it would enable this measure to work freely, fully, and fairly. He believed that the whole peace of the country depended oil the Bill. He hoped it would have the desired effect, and he now pleaded at the last moment, even although he was a Liberal Unionist, and in the absence of his Party, who would be there when the Division Bell rang, that the Government would reconsider the question, and see if they could not give way on the most reasonable proposal that was submitted to them.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he had not intervened before in the discussions upon that Bill, but he had followed them with great interest; he had seen that the discussion was in excellent hands, and that the question wag moving in the right direction, and he had been desirous to see the proceedings expedited. The position, however, was now so peculiar that he felt it necessary to say a few words. They might safely go to a Division on the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who, however, had directed a part of his speech to the justification of the Party with which he

  1401
  was connected, and which had assumed the name of "Liberal Unionists." The hon. Member, he thought, had not had a difficult task in reviewing the conduct of that Party during the last week, so far as he was himself concerned. But, when he said that on a matter which he deemed vital to the interests of the Irish tenantry, he was not, on a sanguine estimate, supported by more than one-tenth of that Party, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not think that his vindication, of the Party, as a whole, would inspire in the minds of critics a vehement desire to retort upon, or to object to, what had been said by the hon. Gentleman. When the action of that Party came to be a matter for serious consideration, it appear d to him that their difficulty would not lie in the details of what had taken place within the last few weeks. Their difficulty would he to answer this question—How came it that, in the months of August and September of last year, with full warning of what was coming, when moderate proposals were made with respect to judicial rents, which would at least have given time to tenants unable to pay, until their cases had been examined by the Land Commission, how came it that the whole body of Members calling themselves Liberal Unionists deliberately joined the Government in refusing a reasonable concession? That was a stiff and difficult question, and if anyone could answer it in a satisfactory manner, it was the hon. Member for South Tyrone; while as to the question more immediately before the House, the answer supplied to the speech of the Chief Secretary by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was absolutely conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he greatly regretted the omission of the Bankruptcy Clauses, and he attributed their omission to the squeamishness or fastidiousness of hon. Gentleman on that side of the House with regard to the term "Bankruptcy." But speaking for all for whom he could presume to speak, and tie thought also for the last speaker, he would say it was not a question of a word, or of a form. It was that, in their judgment, the relief given by the Bankruptcy Clauses, valuable as it was in itself, was rejected because it was given on a condition which was absolutely dishonouring and demoralizing to the tenantry of Ireland. This was not a ques
  1402
  tion of a legal term, or even of legal I status, but it was an objection of substance. The proper substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses was indicated in Committee by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, when they were objected to; it was now again before them upon the Notice Paper, in a form as to which he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) still entertained the hope that the Government would give it a favourable consideration. The Chief Secretary said he was ready to give any relief in respect of arrears to tenants who came before the Court under judgment in ejectment, provided that the relief was proportionately shared by all their other creditors. But could that ground be held as a solid and substantial ground for legislation? Were the cases parallel in the view of the public, and in view of legislation'? it was going to be declared, on the invitation of the Government, that a number of rents which were to be examined in Court were excessive, exorbitant, and unjust; was it proposed to make such a declaration with respect to the other debts of the occupier? Was Parliament going to declare that the tradesman who supplied tools, or any other creditor of the tenant, was in the relation to him of a creditor exacting an excessive and exorbitant price for what he had supplied? Nothing of the kind. It was only landlords' rent that Parliament proposed to declare excessive. What, then, became of the principle, on which they were invited to take their stand, of the absolute equality of the landlord and the ordinary creditor? On what imaginable ground could they be invited to place other creditors on an equality with the landlords, when the fundamental inequality was that the tenant was to be invited to go into Court to obtain a judgment that his rent was excessive, while other creditors were untouched by the action of the Legislature? Let them consider a case that was certain to happen. There could be no question that, after the heavy fall in agricultural valuation and the way it had operated in Ireland, a large number of occupiers, both leaseholders and judicial renters, after the passing of the Act would go before the Court to obtain a revision of rent; and, in the case of leaseholders, it was possible it might be declared that their rents were not only excessive, but unjust and exorbitant in an extraordi

  1403
  nary degree. Nothing was more remarkable than the number of instances which, had been disclosed by the examination of particular estates, in which rents had been paid for a long series of years enormously above what any impartial tribunal would declare to be fair arid just. When the Land Act was passed, one landlord of good repute, who had no idea that his rents were excessive, went into the matter with his agent, and found cases in which rents that were excessive by 10 per cent had been regularly paid for 64 years. Such cases occurred in Ireland, but were not to be found in any other country. There would probably be such cases among leaseholders. Suppose a leaseholder went into Court and obtained a large reduction? A half-year's rent might be coming due; but he might, at the same time, be in arrear for the previous half-year. A judgment in ejectment might be obtained against him, and this Bill would greatly facilitate his being deprived of his status as a tenant by eviction, notwithstanding that a public authority, under the direction of that House, had declared to be exorbitant the rent in respect of which he was going to be evicted. That was to say, an occupier was to be deprived of his status for non-payment of rent that had been declared to be excessive, and which was just as excessive two years before. Was is not likely that there would be many such cases declared by the Court, and that the arrears would be impossible for the tenant to liquidate? It was their interest, and they were all anxious, to send a message of peace to Ireland; but, in order to do that, there ought to be some consistency in the proceedings of Parliament; and it would be a proceeding clearly inconsistent if, while abating the rent, in consequence of a strong necessity—which never ought to be done, except in circumstances which admitted no other alternative—we were to shrink from the legitimate consequences of such a proceeding. It was perfectly intelligible, as the Bill was introduced especially with respect to the judicial renters, that the Government should say—" We will have no dealing with arrears in respect of the Equity Clauses, except as to the time to be allowed for their repayment;" because the ground which the Government took up at that time was that the rent was a
  1404
  sacred thing. But now that ground was cut away; the rent was no longer a sacred thing; it was to be judged by its adaptation to the circumstances of the holding, and to what a solvent tenant could make out of the holding. In that ease, how was it possible to say that the tenant was to receive an immediate relief to enable him to remain in the holding, and, at the same time, that he was to be subjected to an excessive rent in the shape of the arrears to be added on to the rent which he had to pay? Why, then, did not the Government accede to the moderate and reasonable demand which was made in this matter? The Bill as it stood was in most respects a Bill of great value and importance. There was the 7th clause, which in the main might be justly called the landlord's clause, as it enormously improved the position of the landlord with respect to the exaction of his rent. Now, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not object to improving the landlord's position with respect to the exaction of his rent, provided they took reasonable securities that it should be a just rent. The Government had admitted by their deliberate action that it was their duty to take such securities; how, then, was it possible for them to say they would keep alive the old obligations, which, by the voice of the Legislature, all men had solemnly condemned, by adding to the fair rent those old obligations in the shape of instalments, and thus placing the tenant under a joint weight of two heterogeneous burdens, which, taken together, must crush him, and destroy the beneficial results which otherwise might have been experienced from this Bill? It was sometimes said that they had adopted principles and rules in regard to Ireland which they would not think of adopting in England or Scotland. Well, the principle on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland took his stand was the necessity for dealing alike with the creditors and the occupiers. Was that the view of legislation on this side of the Channel? No; he hold in his hand an Act of last year, entitled, "An Act to amend the Tenure of Land by Crofters," and the 4th sub-section of Clause 5 of that Act contained the very principle for which they on that side of the House were contending, and it showed that Parliament a year ago denied it, and refused to pro-

  1405
  ceed on the ground on which they were now asked to proceed. The sub-section directed the Commissioners to take into consideration all the circumstances which had led to such arrears, and to decide whether the whole or what part of such arrears should be paid. The principle which they were asserting, that of giving relief solely against arrears of rent, thus had the solemn and deliberate sanction of Parliament within the last 12 months and that not on behalf of Ireland, but on behalf of Scotland, the very last country that would ask them to depart from sound principles to meet a temporary emergency. He hoped that the Government would not, when they came to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, refuse to complete the good work that they had taken in hand, and thus, by one of the greatest errors in politics, commit the fault of marring a great work by unworthily grudging and refusing some minor, but, from circumstances connected with it, some vital and important concession which was necessary to give it completeness and security.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that what the right hon. Gentleman asked them to do was to give away something which belonged to other people, and to do so in no grudging spirit; he asked them to surrender principles which that House had uniformly asserted and maintained with great advantage to the State up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Let this legislation be retrospective; let a special formal composition be applied to one particular form of debt which shall not be applied to other kinds of debt." Those were new principles which Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept. The right hon. Gentleman had only referred to one exception in the whole course of our legislation up to the present time. But what was the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in fixing a fair rent in 1881? That rent was not to run from the year 1881, nor from the date of the application to the Court; it was to date from the period at which judgment was given by the Commissioners. Were principles which were held to be just in 1881, and which had regulated hitherto the trade and commerce of the United Kingdom, to be safely violated in 1887? The Government had been consistent in
  1406
  what they proposed. They offered to put every creditor in the same position before the law, and that if any composition was to be effected, it should equally apply to the debts duo to the landlord and to every other creditor. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Bankruptcy Clauses as dishonourable and demoralizing. Was it not dishonourable and demoralizing to relieve a man from a contract into which he had deliberately entered, and which had been judged to be a just contract by a Court of Law, simply because there had been a change of circumstances since the contract was entered into which made it more onerous to one of the parties. No system of commerce, no system of trade, no system of justice could be maintained under a principle of that kind—a principle the assertion of which would strike at the root of the trade and credit of the country, where articles continually changed in value. But it was now assumed that if there had been a change in value, it was right to relieve a man of his liabilities with respect to those articles in which a change of value had taken place. The proposal of hon. Members opposite was that an exception should be made with regard to one particular class of contracts, and that the change in the law, which was to apply to one particular class of debts, should not apply to all classes of debts equally. It was attempted to support that proposal by asserting that the debts which should alone be affected by this change in the law were those which arose from arrears, and which were the result of unjust rents; but he could not assume that those rents were altogether unjust when they had been fixed by a competent authority appointed by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the case of the leaseholders, it was argued that they were suffering from excessive, exorbitant, and unjust rents; but those leaseholders were expressly excluded from the legislation of 1881 by the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who held that these were contracts entered into by the parties with their eyes open, and were of so sacred a nature that, under no circumstances, were they to be disturbed. It was a most dangerous doctrine to lay down that a man who was in arrears was to receive a benefit that they denied to another man, simply because he was not

  1407
  in arrears. If the principle contended I for by hon. Members opposite was maintained in Parliament, that any contract; might be interfered with when a change of circumstances had supervened from the period when it was entered into, it; would be impossible to resist the demand for the rescinding of any kind of contract. The Government had made a fair and reasonable offer in this matter, They had no desire to affix the stigma I of bankruptcy upon the tenant seeking relief, neither did they desire to compel him to do anything dishonourable, or that was inconsistent with the position of an honest man. All that they said to him was, that if he was unable, to pay; his debts, he must avail himself of the facilities which were offered to him for fairly distributing his property among his creditors. This was a principle well known and established by the English law, and it was one from which the Government could not depart.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, every argument that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has used against the proposals of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) might be used with equal effect against there-adjustment of rents, which the Government, under the pressure of circumstances, at the eleventh hour adopted. The reason why Parliament has interfered in the case of dealing between landlords and their tenants is, that admittedly there is not freedom of contract in Ireland in respect of land; but with respect to other things there is freedom of contract. In respect of everything which the tenant buys from a shopkeeper, there is perfect freedom of contract. If he cannot get his agricultural implements or his food upon satisfactory terms from one shopkeeper, he can go to another. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will not deal with this question, the only question left likely to interfere with a satisfactory settlement of a temporary character during the coming three years in Ireland. This question of arrears of rent was one of the questions which I took trio liberty to point out to him in the debate on going into Committee. I spoke of the date at which re-adjustment of rent should take effect, of the question of arrears, and of the question of evicted tenants. The Government have partially met us re-
  1408
  garding the date at which re-adjustment of rent is to take effect, but they have not met us at all upon the question of arrears, or upon the question of evicted tenants. The question of evicted tenants is not such a large matter as this question of arrears, for that question is undoubtedly a large matter, which may very seriously disturb the settlement proposed to be effected by the Bill. Now, I would ask the Government whether it is worth their while to take their stand upon what they consider to be a principle, but which nobody else in the House can discover to be a principle—the question as between landlord and shopkeeper. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that he would accept any plan which would place all creditors on an equal footing. His meaning is, that if a landlord presses his debtor, the tenant, and drives that tenant into Court, that all the other creditors shall be also compelled to come into Court also and press the tenant in. the same fashion. Now, Sir, we are at issue as to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman gives the words; but as to what he lays down, we are not at issue with him. We are not at issue with him as regards the words which he has used. So far as we read his words, we are as one with him, and we are willing to make him an offer. We say that, though we greatly prefer that the appeals should only be dealt with by the Court of Equitable Jurisdiction, still we should be willing, in order to close the question of arrears, and prevent it from impeding a settlement and creating trouble during the winter and summer, to allow the Court to deal with all debts, whether duo to the shopkeeper or to the landlord. We only take issue with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the adoption of bankruptcy provisions. We assert that bankruptcy provisions are not necessary to deal with the crisis, and that we have gone as far as we can be expected to go when we say—" As; creditors bring their debtor into Court, deal with the claim of each as it arises." If the Government will agree to that I principle, there need not be a particle of difference between us on the point; but if the Government insist upon driving I all the tenants into bankruptcy proceedings, then, Sir, there is a chasm which it; would be impossible to bridge over. Sir, I trust that this question of arrears may be

  1409
  settled when it is readied by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo to-night or to-morrow, and that we may have, as the issue of this Bill, a settlement worthy of this question, which will really promote the peace of the country, and which will not take away with the one hand that which is given by the other. It would he impossible for this House to claim consistency in its conduct if, while admitting that these rents are unjust and have been unjust for the past twelve months or two years, they compel the tenant to pay the old unjust rents, while they go through the mockery of offering him the chance of going into Court to got the unjust rent reduced. Unless there be some satisfactory provision in regard to this question of arrears, you will undoubtedly have the landlords in multitudes in Ireland taking advantage of the 7th clause to destroy the titles of the tenants, and the equitable jurisdiction which you have given under the 26th clause will break like a reed in the hands of the tenants. I would earnestly entreat the Government to reconsider this question before it is too late. The question is one that cannot really hurt the landlords as a body, because those arrears are absolutely irrecoverable. It can only give rise, if you leave the position as it is, to further confusion and trouble, necessitating next year the passing another Arrears Act, just as the failure in the Act of 1881 to legislate on the question of arrears necessitated action by Parliament, after a winter of confusion and trouble, crime and outrage, to pass the Arrears Act of 1882. I do trust that the Government will be warned by what has gone before. I speak in no threatening sense, and I think also that the necessity and justice of the position require that you should make a clean settlement of the business, and that you should not leave these tenants to be crushed down by the weight of arrears which will reader for many of them your pro posed legislation a mockery and a delusion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he hoped the Government would seriously consider the proposals made to them, seeing the great; necessity that existed for accepting the compromise which had been offered by the hon. Member for Cork.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 180: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 353.) [8.0 P.M.]
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill re-committed in respect to an Amendment to Clauses 10 and 24, respectively.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10 (Reduction of interest on loans under 33 & 34 Vic. c. 46, s. 45; 35 & 36 Vic. c. 32, s. 1).
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 4, after sub-section (1), to insert the following sub-section:—
  "Within six months after such notification any person liable to pay the annuity, or otherwise appearing to be interested therein, may apply to the Commissioners of Works for an extension of the term fixed by the order, and the said Commissioners may grant such extension of the term as they think just, So that the term shall not in any case exceed forty-nine years from the date of the advance, and shall adjust the annuity and vary the order accordingly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the said sub-section be there inserted."
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I am sorry that the Government, in carrying out their promise, have adopted the form of this Amendment. What we complained of was that the tenants, under the Act of 1870 and under the Act of 1881, were treated in a different way from the glebe purchasers under the Laud Purchase Act of last year. I quite admit that, so far as the substance is concerned, the Amendment does carry out the promise of the Government; but what I complain of is that, instead of dealing with the matter as they dealt with glebe purchasers, they require the tenant to obtain two different orders, whereas the globe purchasers made one application and obtained an order. Under this clause the Land Commissioners first make an order in one sense, and if the tenant or purchaser wishes to be put on the same footing with glebe purchasers, then he has to make a subsequent application to get an order of the Court for it, and the term is extended. I would ask the Government to reconsider this point between now and our reaching this clause on Report. It

  1411
  is not open to me now to move Amendments—at least, I could only move to amend the Government Amendment, not other parts of the clause, and I will only ask the Government to consider the desirability of putting the two classes of tenants on exactly the same footing. It really is a great waste of energy, and will involve extra expenditure to the tenant, if this second order is made necessary. Why not do as you did in the case of the glebe purchasers, and let the Land Commissioners make an order once for all and conclude the matter? I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us in a fair way, and with the most liberal spirit; but I would ask him, when he is making a concession at all, to go the whole length, and place all purchasers on the same footing.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. Member, I must say I do not see how we could meet the point in better language. Though the second order might be necessary——
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: It is absolutely.
  MR. GOSCHEN: NO; the Commissioners, in the first instance, might give an order that would be satisfactory. The hon. Member will remember that I said a discretion must rest with them. If the hon. Member will be content to leave the matter as it is now, I will, in the interval, before the Bill is sent back to "another place," consider the matter, though I must say I think that the clause can hardly be improved, and that the form in which the discretion is given is scarcely liable to objection.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely mistaken in the matter. The clause leaves the Commissioners no discretion; it enacts specifically that the annuity shall be a 4 per cent annuity, and there is no discretion whatever in the matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter between this and Report, and he will find that the Land Commissioners have no such discretion. Two orders are absolutely necessary.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I could not accept an alteration without a very careful consideration of the language, such as I do not think I could give on the Report stage; but the hon. Member evidently did not hear my remark that it shall be
  1412
  considered with a view to seeing whether, in "another place," a re-arrangement can be made.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Reduction of interest on loans under 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49).
  Amendment proposed, in page 18, line 41, after sub-section (1) to insert the following sub-section:—
  "Within six months after such notification any person liable to pay the annuity, or otherwise appearing to he interested therein, may apply to the Irish Laud Commission for an extension of the term fixed by the order, and the said Commission may, if they think the special circumstances justify it, grant such extension of the term as they think just, so that the term shall not in any case exceed forty-nine years from the date of the advance, and shall adjust the annuity and vary the order accordingly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the said sub-section be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The same engagement holds good as regards this Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.) moved to insert the follow-New Clause, after Clause 11, expediting proceedings on sales:—
  "Whenever a holding has, either before or after the passing of this Act, become forfeited to the Commissioners of Works under section forty-four or forty-five of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and no legal proceeding in respect of such forfeiture has been taken by the said Commissioners, they may, with the consent of the Treasury, if it seem fit, after notice to all persons appearing to the Commissioners of Works to be concerned, order that the holding shall he released from the forfeiture as from the date at which it accrued, and shall vest in the person named in the order discharged from all claims on account of the alienation, sub-letting, or other act, on account of which the forfeiture was incurred. Such order shall have full effect and be binding on all persons interested in the holding; after the holding, alter the date thereof, shall cease to be subject to the conditions imposed by the sections above in this section mentioned, and shall be subject to the conditions imposed by section thirty of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and that section shall apply with the substitution of the Commissioner of Works for the Land Commission."
  Clause (Release of forfeiture incurred by purchaser to whom money advanced, 33 & U Vic. c. 45, ss. 11, 45.)—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.),in rising to move, in page 1, to insert the following New Clause before Clause 1:—
  "On the passing of this Act there shall he substituted for the statutory term of fifteen years provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' a term of five years; and in all provisions regarding the said statutory term the word 'five' shall be read instead of the word 'fifteen.' When the fair rent of any holding has been fixed for a statutory term, such rent shall not be afterwards altered, except on the ground that either (1) the value of the produce; or (2) the productive powers of the land have been increased or decreased otherwise than by the agency or at the expense of the tenant or by his default,"
  said, the clause was founded on the recommendations of the Cowper Commission, and as the outcome of the experience gained in India on this subject for 100 years. His clause summarized the law in India on the subject. He did not believe in the purchase scheme contemplated by the Government. A purchase scheme could only deal with the mass of the Irish tenants if they got cheap money at 3 per cent; and they could not get that except upon the credit of the British taxpayer. But if the Government attempted anything of that sort they would fail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had tried to put that burden on the back of the British taxpayer, and the British taxpayer had kicked him off; and if the present Government tried to do anything of the kind they would also be kicked off. Nobody would believe in a purchase scheme until they saw it; and, therefore, he now submitted his Amendment, which was based on the Report of the Cowper Commission, and backed by the experience of India. The hon. Member concluded by moving the clause.
  Clause(Fair rent.)—(Sir George Campbell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member into the question of an Irish purchase scheme, or
  1414
  into that of the land tenure of India. The hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt the suggestions of the Cowper Commission; but he had not provided any machinery by which they were to be carried into effect.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that would follow, and he was quite ready to put the necessary provisions on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was now really too late for that, and, moreover, it would interfere with the whole structure of the Bill. It was out of the question for the Government to think of adopting a clause without seeing how it was to be brought into operation, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause to a Division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLin moving, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following New Clause:—
  "This Act shall apply to all leases and grants of land in perpetuity made to any person previous to the passing hereof, and under which, or under the provisions of any Act of Parliament by virtue of which the same was made, the grantor or the grantee is entitled from time to time and at the expiration of certain periods of time to require the variation and revision of the variable rent payable under such leases or grants; and in every such case the following provisions shall be in force and have effect with respect to the variation and revision of such variable rent, and shall supersede and be in substitution for all and every the provisions in that behalf contained in such leases or grants, and in any Act of Parliament with reference thereto:—

  "(a.) The grantor or grantee shall be entitled, six months before the expiration of any prescribed period, to require a revision of such variable rents, and to apply to the Court to fix the same, and, in such case, the party desiring the revision shall serve a revision notice upon the other party;

  "(b.) In every case where, before the passing of this Act, any revision of such variable rent has taken place in pursuance of the leases or grants, or of any Act of Parliament with reference thereto, the grantor or grantee may, at any time within the prescribed period, serve a revision notice upon the grantee or grantor, as the case may be, and in such case the prescribed period then current shall be deemed to have expired at the gale day next after the end of six months from the service of such notice;

  "(c.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties agree within three months after service of such notice as to what shall be the amount of variable rent to be payable

  1415
  during the prescribed period next following, they may fix the amount of the variable rent to be payable during such prescribed period;

  "(d.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties do not within three months after the service of such notice agree as to what shall be the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variables rent nest following, then and in every such case the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variable rent shall be fixed by the Court in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act;

  "(e.) In all cases where one Or more under grants in perpetuity have been made of any lands, the service of a revision notice shall have the effect of also bringing before the Court the interests of the under grantors and grantees in perpetuity; and, if any variation of the variable rent should be made, the variation shall simultaneously apply to and affect the variable rent of all such grantors and grantees according to their respective interests under their grants or under any Act of Parliament having reference to or regulating the same:

  "(f.) Before fixing the variable rent of any such lands the Court shall take evidence as to the then letting value of such lands, and such value is hereinafter referred to as 'the present letting value,' and shall take evidence as to the letting value of such lands at or about the time when the grant was made, and such letting value is hereinafter referred to as 'the former letting value.' and shall preserve the same proportion between the present letting value and the variable rent to be paid by the grantee until the variation and revision of such variable rent next following as existed between the former letting value and the variable rent payable by the grantee immediately after the making of the grant: Provided always, that the grantor shall not be awarded any increase of variable rent by reason of any increase in the value of such land which is due to any buildings or improvements except in so far as the grantor has contributed to the same. The variable rent fixed by the Court under this Act shall be the variable rent payable under the leases or grants until the same shall be again varied and revised;

  "(g.) In this section the words following shall have the meanings respectively attached to them, namely, 'person,' includes corporation whether aggregate or sole; 'variable rent,' means a rent subject to variation and revision; 'prescribed period,' means the period at the expiration of which a variation and revision of the variable rent payable in respect of any lands leased or granted in perpetuity may be required, in pursuance of any lease or grant of the same, or of any Act of Parliament, or this Act;
  1416
  'revision notice,' means a notice in writing, signed by the person giving such notice, and requiring a variation or revision of any variable rent; 'grantor,' means the person to whom such rent is payable; 'grantee,' means the person by whom such rent is payable,"

  said, he did not intend to press it. It related to the Trinity College leases—one of the most complicated subjects that he had ever considered. He had, however, satisfied himself that there existed a bonâ fide grievance in the case of the holders of those leases, and he hoped that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would look into the matter, and grant a Committee nest year to examine into it.
  Clause (Perpetuity leases.'—-Variable rents,)—(Mr. T. W. Russell,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that he could not go the length of promising the hon. Member a Committee next year; but be would himself try to master the difficulties of that complicated subject, and to see whether there was a case for going any further with it.
  MR. SERJEANT MADDENsaid, he could not admit the existence of the grievance which had been alleged in regard to the Trinity College leases.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he felt bound to press the question on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, he thought, when the matter was examined, would see that there were strong grounds for granting a Committee of Inquiry.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREin rising to move, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following Clauso:—
  "Where within six months after the passing of this Act, any tenant of a holding, which is valued under Griffith's valuation at fifty pounds or under per annum, shall apply to the Land Commission under section one of this Act, or under 'the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' for a judicial rent, the Land Commission, after notice to the owner or lessor of the said holding but without hearing evidence as to its value,

  1417
  may provisionally determine the rent for the same.
  "For the purpose of determining such provisional rent, the Commission shall take the average rate at which the judicial rents of other holdings within the same electoral division of the annual value of fifty pounds and under have been fixed by them, with reference to Griffith's valuation of the same during the twelve months preceding the passing of this Act, and shall fix the provisional rent of the holding at the same rate with reference to its valuation.
  "If within two months after such provisional determination of the rent either the owner, or lessor, or the tenant of such holding shall, in writing to the Commission, object to such determination, and shall require that the judicial rent shall be determined in the manner provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' then the Commission, after notice to the parties, shall proceed to determine the judicial rent of such holding in the manner provided by the said Act, provided that the provisional rent shall be the rent payable till the determination of the judicial rent, and provided also that the costs of so rising the judicial rent may, if the objection to the provisional rent appears to the Commission to have been groundless, be ordered by them to be paid by the party making the objection.
  "If within the said two months neither the owner or lessor nor the tenant shall make objection, the rent so provisionally determined shall be the judicial rent of the holding within the meaning of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."
  "If not more than two judicial rents have been determined by the Commission in any one electoral division within the period of twelve months before the passing of this Act, the Commission may take the average judicial rents in any larger area which may appear suitable to them for the purpose of guiding them in the provisional determination of rents within the same,"
  said, he moved the clause with the same object in view as the clause which he moved in Committee on the Bill. His main object was to relieve the country from the enormous expenditure which would be incurred in carrying this Bill into effect, and also to relieve the landlords and tenants from the costs of obtaining the judicial determination of rents. There could be no doubt that on the passing of this Bill there would be an immense rush of tenants into the Land Courts. In a few weeks, probably, 200,000 leaseholders would apply for judicial rents. This would cause a great block in the Land Court, which would necessitate the appointment of Sub-Commissioners and load to an increase of expenditure corresponding to that which occurred in 1882, 1883, and 1881. He proposed to enable the Land Commissioners to determine the
  1418
  rent by the average rate at which judicial rents of other holdings of £00 and under within the same electoral division had been fixed with reference to Griffith's valuation during the 12 months preceding the passing of the Act. This Amendment was similar to the one he had moved in Committee; but he had endeavoured to meet some objections which were then urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to his proposal. He estimated that four-fifths of the tenants of Ireland had holdings under £50, and so many would come under the provisions of the clause. Neither landlord nor tenant could be injured by his proposal in the slightest degree; because, if either objected, the provisional determination of the rent would be set aside, and the proceedings would take place under the Act of 1881 in the ordinary way. The effect of the clause would be to clear away all the small cases from the Court, and to enable the Commissioners to determine the rent on the simple principle of averages. It would be also the means of saving the country an enormous expenditure of money.
  Clause (Provisional determination of rents of small holdings in order to prevent a block of business in the Land Commission,)—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the Government fully sympathized with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the costs should be reduced to the lowest possible scale. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was well worthy of consideration, and the clause very important; but he did not think it could be incorporated in the present Bill. It was purely a temporary provision applicable to present tenants who might have made their applications three or four years ago, but had not done so from reasons host known to themselves. A lazy or indifferent tenant would be entitled to have his judicial rent fixed in this haphazard way. The Irish tenant and the Irish landlord had a holy horror of law costs, and sooner than incur them they were very likely without this provision to

  1419
  come to terms. The clause of the right hon. Gentleman embodied a very useful suggestion, but it was too late at this period of the Session to enter upon the discussion of so large a question; and, as it would be impossible for the Government to accept the clause as it stood, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not press it.
  MR. MAHONYsaid, that it would appear as though the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) had no power to enter into a settlement of this question in the absence of his political Leaders. This clause would meet the difficulty which must inevitably arise in the Courts in Ireland after this Bill became law. There was a strong suspicion in Ireland that the good in the Bill would be strangled by the Assistant Commissioners who would be appointed by the Government to carry the provisions of the measure into effect.
  MR. M'CARTANsaid, that the object of the clause was to save the money equally of the tenant, the landlord, and of the State. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was the Representative of those lawyers who had robbed the Irish tenants. Nothing had been said against the clause, even by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. SHEEHYsaid, he thought it was a strange reason for rejecting the clause that it was only temporary, and did not go far enough.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment, which would save the Land Courts from a great deal of trouble. It was a mockery to tell some tenants to go into Court to make their applications, because the cost of the proceedings in many cases—as in the case of smaller tenants—say, of £10 valuation—would amount to half the rent, and in all cases to two or three times the amount of the reduction. If the Government thought the limit was too high, and if they would agree to fix the limit at £20, instead of £50, the clause might be passed in that form. The right hon. and learned Attorney General's objection that the clause was only of a temporary character was one which scarcely lay in the mouth of the Government. He trusted, therefore,
  1420
  that the Government would accept the £20 limitation.
  MR. T. C. HARRINGTONsaid, he was desirous of speaking on behalf of the tenants of Kerry, almost all of whom were under the £20 valuation; and he hoped the Government would accede to the appeal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). In many cases the tenants could not go into Court without selling their stock. The Courts were held sometimes 15 miles away from the holdings of the tenants, and the expenses to which the tenants were put in coming there and maintaining their witnesses took away all the benefits of the reduction. He considered it monstrous that when the Government professed to be acting in the interests of peace more than of justice, and reproached the Irish Party with maintaining a constant agitation, they would not take from them a fair and common-sense proposal. They might believe him that the humblest peasant that would be evicted and his home destroyed would occasion them as much trouble hereafter as if he were the largest landholder in the country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he could not accept the clause any more now than when it was introduced before. The objection of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland was not solely to the temporary character of the provision. The clause was not applicable to the particular remedy they were introducing by the Bill. It would not cheapen the proceedings, and there was no occasion whatever for introducing it. The acceptance of the clause would be to create new procedure in the Courts. He was also of opinion that the proposal was unnecessary in principle.
  MR. LEAsaid, that originally he was not greatly in favour of this clause; but by the modifications which had been introduced into it it had been divested of the objectionable features by which it was originally marked, and it seemed to him that there was no fear that it would work any injustice. It was exceedingly desirable that law costs should, as far as possible, be saved. It was beyond all doubt that small farmers could not and did not go into the Land Court for fear of the costs. A tenant could not under the existing

  1421
  system go into the Land Court without obtaining the assistance of a solicitor, who, of course, could not be obtained without expense. If, therefore, any scheme could be devised which would prevent the necessity of incurring these excessive law costs, it would be a great boon to the small tenants, and would materially add to the value of the Bill. He was not sure that the clause at present was quite workable; but he had no doubt that if it could be rendered workable, as he believed it might be, it would be of great use to that large class of small farmers who paid from £2 to £3 a-year as fair rent, and who were totally unable to bear the expense incurred on going into the Land Court under the existing system.
  MR. MURPHYsaid, he thought the Government would do well to accept the proposal, which would facilitate enormously the carrying out of their measure.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he felt that he must urge the Government to accept the clause. He would go even further than the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and bring the limit down to £10. If, however, the Government were unable to accept any offer of the kind, and would not yield on the question, he should feel it his duty to divide the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the subject - matter of the Amendment, though in itself worthy of consideration was altogether foreign to the immediate scope of the Bill; but he quite admitted that any proposal for cheapening the costs of proceedings was worthy of attention. He would suggest, however, that it was not worth while to adopt a proposal to operate only for six months and for small tenants in preference to some greater scheme for limiting the cost of terminating tenancies.
  MR. CHANCEsaid it seemed to him that the Ministers appeared to be hardening their hearts against any concession as the Bill progressed. He should give his support to the clause.
  COLONEL DUNCANsaid, hon. Members opposite did not appear to have presented this clause to the House in any spirit of hostility the Bill. He thought the Government might make some concession with reference to this clause. In his opinion,
  1422
  something in the direction suggested would save the money of the most miserable class of tenants in Ireland; and it would also pave the money of the landlords and of the State. The most wretched portion of the Irish people would be deprived of relief unless some concession was made. In the interest of the Bill itself he implored the Government to make the concession.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 173: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 354.) [10.10 P. M.]
  MR. LEAin moving in page 6, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clause:—
  "From and after the passing of this Act it shall be sufficient for any occupier of land claiming any common of turbary, or any right of turbary as appurtenant to such land, or as annexed or belonging thereto, or used or employed therewith, or as included in the right of tenancy of such, occupier in any manner whatsoever, to prove to the satisfaction of the Court or Judge that the occupiers of such land have, in the course of the customary management of the estate of which such land forms part, enjoyed either for a period of ton years last before the commencement of the action, or for ten years ending on the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, the right claimed, or any like right, custom, licence, or usage of turbary, on any part or parts of the same estate; and the Court or Judge may thereupon either give judgment for the plaintiff with costs, or make such other order as in all the circumstances of the case may seem just,"
  said, the subject with which the clause dealt was an important one, and sooner or later would have to be settled. It was a subject not without complications, and the time was not the most convenient for its discussion; but he felt it his duty to take the opportunity of submitting the plan by which the Court should take cognizance of the right, and if anyone had any better plan to propose he was quite willing at once to surrender his proposal. For the information of those English Members to whom the matter was not familiar, he would just say that to tenants who were in the habit of cutting turf for their supply of winter fuel the retention of the right was often far more important than a reduction of rent would be. Some five years ago the subject was brought under his attention in connection with the fixing of judicial rents by the fact that upon an estate in the West of Ireland some 40 tenants, after

  1423
  having succeeded in their application for a revision of their rents, received notices that henceforth they would have to pay for their supply of turf; and that was only an instance among many of which he had since heard of the unfair way in which tenants who applied to the Land Commission were penalized for their attempts to secure a fair rent. The principle he laid down was sufficiently clear from the wording of the clause, and it was unnecessary to accompany it with any lengthened remarks. The Court, when fixing the rent, would inquire into all the circumstances relating to turbary, and give their decision after taking into account this important element in the relation between landlord and tenant.
  Clause (Proof of right of turbary,)—(Mr. Lea,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the subject of the Amendment was well worthy of consideration. It raised one of the most complicated and difficult questions; and it was one of the most controversial connected with Irish land; it was certain to give rise to much discussion. If they once began to touch the right of turbary the discussions on the Bill would last an unlimited period. He would, therefore, appeal to the hon. Member not to press the matter now, but to bring in a separate Bill on the subject, instead of augmenting the burden on an already over-weighted measure.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid, he felt it his duty to support the new clause. The clause clearly prevented the turf of a tenant who applied for a judicial rent being confiscated.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was the misfortune of land legislation for Ireland since 1870 that everything which the Legislature desired to do had been defeated by some device. Fair rents were to be fixed, a reduction was made, and the landlord said—"Your rent has been reduced £2; if I cannot make you pay one way I will make you pay another," and forthwith the tenant was deprived of the right of turbary. Then, a tenant was frightened to apply
  1424
  for a reduction of rent, being threatened that if he did so he would lose his turf. The fact that it could be done was held in terrorem over tenants, and prevented them from applying to the Court. Surely the House ought to provide a remedy to prevent its legislation being defeated in that way. He held that this question was a corollary to the fair rent, and all that was asked was that the Court, in fixing the fair rent, should see that a man was not done out of it by some move of this kind.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that when a tenant came into Court the Land Commission, or the County Court Judge, asked the landlord whether he would agree to the tenant having the right of turbary. If the landlord said no, that was taken into account in fixing the rent; if he agreed, then the right was attached to the holding. It was now proposed that where the tenant did not get the right, and where this was not taken into account, the landlord should be deprived of the right of turbary. That was to say, a property was to be taken from the landlord which was his and given to the tenant, who had never had it. That was a very large proposition, and he would venture to submit to the House that to create rights which did not exist, and to take away from the landlord rights which he at present enjoyed, was a matter of such a character that it could not be conveniently introduced into the Bill. It was extraneous to the scope of the Bill, and the Government could not consent to embark upon the question now.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, that the evidence of the Cowper Commission showed that in many cases tenants were deterred from entering the Land Courts by the fear of being deprived by the landlord of the right of turbary.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that the object of the clause would not benefit the Irish tenants. The hon. Gentleman the Member for youth Londonderry (Mr. Lea) was not an Irishman, and he should recommend the hon. Member, in company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), to study this bog question, for there was no one but an Irishman who was thoroughly acquainted with the subject. He (Colonel Saunder-

  1425
  son) wished to point out that if this clause were accepted, far from benefiting Irish, tenants at large, it would have exactly the reverse effect. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby on this and on all other questions relating to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman was accustomed to make violent attacks on Irish landlords, and those attacks were never backed up by facts. But he would pass from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who evidently knew nothing about the subject on which he had addressed the House.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had read the Report of the Cowper Commission.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, perhaps he might mention how the matter acted on his own property. Personally, he would be willing to allow his tenants to decide whether the clause should pass or not. It happened that in the County of Cavan bog was getting scarce. He quite agreed that it was a very serious question, and would probably have to be dealt with in the future. He maintained that to deal with the question in the way now proposed would be a very serious matter. One of the most serious questions the landlord had occasionally to decide was this turbary question. Most of the landlords in his own county charged a nominal rent for the right of turbary. He allowed his own tenants to remove the turf on payment of 1s. a-year. Many other tenants, however, had to bring their carts a long way to procure the turf, and it could easily be imagined what would happen when these men came down for supplies, and were told that the right had been handed over to the tenants of the landlord to whom the property belonged, and that they could not, therefore, be allowed to remove any more turf. Therefore, so far from improving the condition of the tenants, it would have the very reverse effect. His own opinion was that if any scheme brought in was to be largely successful, the State should become the owner of the bog, and that would prevent the disturbances that sometimes arose now in connection with this right of turbary. As Chairman of the Petty Sessions in his own district, he could state that a considerable number of the worst cases of crime in his county were due to disputes arising out of the right
  1426
  of turbary. By taking away the right from the landlords, who had it at present, and giving it to the tenants themselves to charge what they pleased for the turf, much hardship would be inflicted on the other tenants coming a long distance; and therefore the clause, so far from proving a benefit, would work an injury.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the main question was this—Was the tenant who was now entitled to cut bog to be deprived of this right under the Bill, or was it to be preserved to him? The clause merely intended to preserve to the tenants a right which they enjoyed by custom.
  MR. MAHONYsaid, speaking from his experience as a Sub-Commissioner, that the practice of the Land Commission was that where the landlord agreed to give the right of turbary the Sub-Commissioners put an extra value on the holding in consequence; but where the landlord refused to give turbary to the tenants, the Sub-Commissioners could not deduct from the value of the holding on that account. He did not think that the fears of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) were justified. He asked the Government to consider the matter very carefully, because a landlord from the North of Ireland had stated to him that in Fermanagh the effect of the reductions of rents had been completely neutralized by the enormous price put on the right of turbary.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he must appeal to the House to come to a decision on the Amendment. If the House discussed the clauses on the Paper at the length at which they had been discussed up to the present time, there was very little chance of the understanding come to earlier in the evening being carried out.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. DWYER GRAYin moving to insert the following New Clause, after Clause 6:—
  "From and after the passing of this Act the landlord of any holding shall not be entitled to distrain for the rent thereof,"
  said, he would not occupy the time of the House at any length. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ire-

  1427
  land seemed to think that it was a sufficient objection to any proposal to say that it was likely to be of a controversial character. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were consistent this proposal of his ought not, after what had taken place, to be of a controversial character. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in opposing the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), stated that the whole objection of the Government was that all classes of debts and all classes of creditors should be placed on an equal footing. The Law of Distress gave an undue advantage to the landlord for the recovery of his debt. Having taken steps to close what was called the "back door," the Government left a side door open in the Law of Distraint. He therefore proposed to abolish this right to distrain, and to place the landlord on an equality with the other creditors of the tenant.
  Clause (Landlord not to distrain,)—(Mr. Dwyer Gray,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. It could not, he thought, be said that the Law of Distress in Ireland had worked any particular hardship; and, as far as he could see, there was no reason whatever for altering the landlord's right in that respect.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was surprised at the line taken by the right hon. and learned Attorney General in this matter. The argument of the Government had all along been that the landlord and the tenant occupied the relative positions of debtor and creditor, and upon that ground they refused to deal with the arrears; but now, when they took the Government at their word and proposed to give to the landlord the same means of recovering his debt as an ordinary creditor, the Government immediately opposed a non possumus. The Law of Distraint was a most oppressive and atrocious law, which ought to be done away with. The greatest cruelties were practised by the landlords, who deliberately had the cows driven away
  1428
  for long distances, often as much as 15 miles, and just at the time when they were about to calve. No good and just landlord or decent man in Ireland ever dreamt of using it. Its enforcement by cruel landlords was a fertile source of disturbance and breach of the peace in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 190: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 355.)
  MR. M'CARTAN MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.) moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—
  "And notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the eighty-sixth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland), 1860,' it shall be lawful for the justices therein named at their discretion to put a stay on the execution of their warrant for giving up the possession of the holding for a period not longer than three months from the date of the warrant."
  Clause (Power to justices to stay execution,)—-(Mr. M'Cartan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he sympathized with the object of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. M'Cartan), and agreed that something ought to be done in the direction of giving discretion to the Justices to stay execution for fresh cause shown. He thought, however, that the matter could be better discussed when they reached the Amendment on the Paper of the hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Serjeant Madden), in which the reasons in respect of which the discretion was to be exercised were stated, and which would accomplish the same object—but not quite to the extent—desired by the hon. Member for South Down.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he; preferred that the matter should be dealt with by the clause now before the; Committee. He objected to its being narrowed as was desired by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and saw no ground for refusing this discretionary power to a Bench of Justices composed of landlords and their agents.
  MR. SYDNEY BUNTONsaid, he would recom-

  1429
  mend the hon. Member for South. Down to withdraw his clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHANCEin moving, after Clause 7, to insert the following Clause:—
  "A tenant on whom a notice under this section is served, or who is removed from his holding under a judgment in ejectment for nonpayment of rent, may, within the period within which an application for a writ of restitution of possession may be made, lodge the amount of the rent and costs stated in the writ of possession, or where the same has not been sued out in the judgment, with the clerk of the peace for the district in which the holding is situate; and thereupon the clerk of the peace shall, without fee or charge, endorse a receipt for the money so lodged, upon the judgment or writ of possession, and shall deliver the same to the tenant; and the judgment or writ of possession so endorsed shall have all the force and effect of a writ of restitution of possession, and shall entitle the tenant to resume possession of his holding. The clerk of the peace shall, within two days after endorsing the receipt, send through the post, directed to the plaintiff in the judgment to his address as therein described, a notice in the prescribed form of the receipt of the money so lodged, and shall, upon the application of the plaintiff in the judgment, pay the same to him,"
  said, that he would not press this Amendment if the Government would accept one which would give the County Court Judge power to act in case the landlord was shown to be unreasonable.
  Clause (Restitution of possession in certain cases,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and road the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that in nine cases out of ten landlord and tenant would come to terms. He thought it would meet the view of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny if the County Court Judge were able to give costs if the landlord were guilty of unreasonable conduct. He would accept an Amendment in that shape.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork) moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:—
  "(1.) For the purposes of the fifteenth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' the state of the immediate landlord of a holding shall be deemed to be determined by the re-
  1430
  covery as against such immediate landlord at the suit of any superior landlord of a judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent, including such holding.
  "(2.) A judgment in ejectment for non-payment of rent, recovered as against the landlord of a holding at the suit of any superior landlord, shall not be executed as against the tenant of such holding; but from and after the recovery of any such judgment such superior landlord shall stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant of such holding, as in the fifteenth section of the said Act is provided, and may proceed accordingly for the recovery of all rent then due by such tenant to his immediate landlord.
  "(3.) Nothing in this section contained shall be deemed to preclude any such immediate landlord as aforesaid from redeeming his tenancy in the premises recovered as against him by any such superior landlord, in any such ejectment as aforesaid, within the space of six calendar months from the date of the judgment or decree in such ejectment: Provided that such redemption shall not affect any proceedings pending at the date thereof, at the suit of such superior landlord, against the tenant of any holding comprised in such premises."
  Clause (Determination of state of immediate landlord by ejectment for non-payment of rent,)—(Mr. Maurice Mealy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the effect of the new clause would be to relieve the middle tenant of his obligations to the superior landlord.
  MR. O'DOHERTYsaid, he considered that the Amendment was necessary in order that the intention of the 15th section of the Land Act of 1881 might be carried out, and that the rights of tenants holding under middlemen's leases might be rendered safe.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to propose the insertion, after Clause 2, of the following Clause:—
  "'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and this Act, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the fifty-eighth section of the said Act, be deemed to apply to any holding let to be used wholly or mainly for the purpose of pasture:

  "(a.) If such holding is valued under the Acts relating to the valuation of property at an annual value not exceeding two hundred pounds, and the tenant actually resides on such holding, or on a holding adjoining same, or on a holding with which such holding is ordinarily used: or

  1431

  "(b.) Is such folding or a substantial portion thereof was originally laid down in pasture by the tenant in occupation of same, or his predecessor in title, at his or their own expense.

  "The words 'let to be used,' in the sixteenth section of 'The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870,' and in the fifty-eighth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' shall be construed to mean 'let by express contract in writing or otherwise.' "
  The object of the clause is to enable those farmers for whose benefit the Act of 1881 was passed to get an opportunity of having a fair rent fixed for their farms. I believe the decision come to in the Limerick Land Court in 1882 has excluded thousands of farmers from the benefits of the Act of 1881. The decision to which I refer was that in the case of "O'Cleary v Gascoyne." Mr. Patrick O'Cleary, of Limerick, served an originating notice to get a fair rent fixed. The landlord raised the defence that the farm was let solely or mainly for pasturage. The Sub-Commission, however, decided in favour of Mr. O'Cleary. His farm was a very large one, and his rent was £840. The Sub-Commission reduced the rent by £280. The landlord appealed, and brought the case before Judge O'Hagan, and the Court reversed the decision of the Court below. Mr. O'Cleary held his farm under an old lease which terminated in 1875, at a rent, I think, of 36 s. an acre. Mr. O'Cleary's father had expended over £4,000 in improving the farm, and the rent was raised at one stroke- from 36 s. to 63 s. an acre. In that way the £4,000 invested by the tenant in improvements was confiscated. At the termination of the lease Mr. O'Cleary was compelled, under a threat of eviction, to sign a yearly lease. Among other things, this lease provided that, in the event of eviction, he should have no claim for compensation for improvements either in law or equity; and, secondly, that though he had permission to meadow his land, he could not sell the hay. It is that provision which has excluded Mr. O'Cleary and thousands of other tenants from the benefits of the Land Act. There are in my county, on one estate, very nearly 300 tenants who are unable to avail themselves of the benefits of the Act of 1881. There is not one tenant on the property whose case has not been decided by this one decision, except those the valuation of whose farms is under
  1432
  £50 a-year. All the other tenants have been excluded from the benefits of the Act by virtue of this decision. I believe that in County Clare there are over 2,000 tenants who have been excluded from the benefits of the Act of 1881 by this decision, and my Amendment is to give all these tenants an opportunity of going into Court and getting a fair rent fixed. If it can be proved that these tenants voluntarily entered into an arrangement or contract with their landlord, either verbally or in writing, binding them to graze their farms, then they will get no benefit. They cannot get an opportunity of getting a fair rent fixed, except in the few exceptional cases which will be met by Sub-sections A and B. If the Government oppose this Amendment, then their position will simply go to prove the truth of the proposition that a landlord has a right to charge a tenant rent for improvements. Mr. O'Cleary is paying £3 3s. an acre as rent, whereas in 1875 he only paid 36 s. an acre. He expended £4,000 in improving the property, and therefore he is paying an additional rent of 28 s. an acre upon his own expenditure of £4,000. I seriously ask the Government if they mean to maintain that such a state of things is equitable? If this Amendment is accepted, it will be of considerable advantage to thousands of tenant farmers in Ireland; it will enable them to go into Court and get fair rents fixed. If, on the other hand, it is rejected, we shall have to take very good care to tell the electors of England that this Government maintain that men like Mr. O'Cleary can be forced by their landlords to pay rent on their own improvements.
  Clause (Amendment of 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49, s. 58, as to pasture holdings,)—(Mr. Finucane,) brought up—and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I suppose the reason the Land Act of 1881 excluded grass lettings was because grass farmers were supposed to be in a more solvent position than ordinary tenants in Ireland, and that they had land under such circumstances that their capital was not embarked in the venture. Whatever may have been the

  1433
  reason, I am bound to say that, at present, it is impossible for the Government to consider the principle of the exemptions of the Act of 1881, or to hold out any prospect to the hon. Member that it will be possible to revise the principles on which that Act of Parliament proceeded. The hon. Member has referred to the case of Mr. O'Cleary. Now, Mr. O'Cleary was a wealthy man, and, like other grass tenants, had not to expend much capital on the land. In cases whore land can obviously be used for no other purpose than grazing, there is generally no express bargain as to the use to which the land can be put, and it is not desirable that in such cases the tenant should virtually have perpetual tenure.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I wish we could believe that the only tenant in Ireland affected by the vote of the House of Commons to-night would be Mr. O'Cleary. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Cleary's case is a typical case in Ireland. There are 10,000 similar cases in the South of Ireland alone, and we can imagine no branch of the Irish Land Question that can be more properly pressed upon the attention of this House than this branch, which is well illustrated by the case of "O'Cleary v. Gascoyne." The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland tells us that it is entirely out of the scope of this Bill to deal with the exemptions of the Land Act of 1881. I think he must have forgotten to some extent what has been already proposed. Is he aware that one of the exemptions from the Land Act of 1881 was leaseholders? That was a very important branch of the exemptions from the Land Act of 1881, and I am under the impression that one of the provisions of this Bill is a provision which puts an end to that exclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may also have heard that town parks were excluded from the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, yet we were engaged a few days ago in framing a clause which made a great inroad upon that exclusion. If it is possible to deal with the exemptions in the case of leaseholders and town parks, what reason can there be for refusing a revision of the legislation in the Act of 1881 on the subject of grass lands? Unfortunately, we are not merely dealing with the Land Act of 1881. If the
  1434
  Land Act of 1881 had been administered on the same lines as the Land Act of 1870; if the Courts of Ireland, and more particularly the Court of Appeal, had construed the exclusion of pasture farms as they appeared to be in the habit of construing it under the Act of 1870, a large portion of the difficulties now felt on this subject would have been obviated. Unfortunately, ever since the Act of 1881 was passed, the Courts of Ireland seem to have set themselves the task of widening and enlarging to the utmost degree every little nook and cranny which was left in that Act as a means for working injustice and supporting the landlord. There is not a single one of the exemptions contained in the Land Act of 1881 on which decisions have not been come to by one or other of the Courts of Ireland enormously enlarging the scope of the exemptions. In regard to pasture land, we have always understood that in the case of what is called ancient pasture land there is an implied contract that the land shall not be broken up. No one for a moment contends that laud which comes under that description was not excluded from the Act of 1881. But the point of the case is, that although there was no express contract in the past, and although there was no implied contract, the Courts in Ireland—and I am sorry to say they were confirmed by the highest Court in Ireland and the House of Lords—came to the decision which the hon. Member has mentioned, and decided that neither an express nor an implied contract was necessary, and that they would come under the clause of the Land Act which enacted that land for pasture should be excluded from the operation of the Act. With great respect for the Judges, if the landlord has not himself provided by express contract as to the manner in which the land should be used, and if the land is not of such a character that the law will imply a contract as to the particular manner in which it would be used, then I say that the Court has made a mistake, and it would be a proper act on the part of the Legislature to rectify that mistake. The real importance of the Amendment is that it raises the point as to whether grazing holdings ought to be excluded from the Act. We raised the figure from £50 to £100 in the Act of 1881 when we were dealing

  1435
  with the question of contract, and I think that would be a very proper precedent to follow now. The sum of £50 is a very common valuation in the counties of Westmeath and Tipperary, and the effect of the provision in the Land Act is to exclude a very much larger number of cases than was contemplated by the Legislature when they were framing the Land Act of 1881. Similar proposals have been made in this House from time to time, and it seems to me that when you are making an alteration of the area to which the Land Act has been applied, no stronger case can be made than on this question of grazing land.
  MR. COX: It seems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put down his foot on this Amendment. I have heard of the case cited by my hon. Friend; but there is another very important case—namely, that of "O'Brien v. Bright," of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably have heard. This case the Judges decided in favour of the tenant, who had appealed to the higher Court; and the result was that the decision of the Land Commissioners was reversed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintains the position which he has taken up on this question, the result will confirm the statement of my hon. Friend, that thousands of tenant farmers in Clare, Roscommon, and other parts of Ireland will be shut out from the benefit of the Act. The lands there are such as cannot be used for any other purpose than that of pasture; they are totally unfit for cultivation. The only means of subsistence which these tenants have is derived from the cattle and sheep grazing on the land, and I ask whether these men are not to derive any benefit from this Act? In the case I have referred to, in which the decision of the Sub-Commissioners was reversed, the landlord appealed, but did not proceed further; in that case a fair rent was fixed, and the tenants are now enjoying the benefit of the Act of 1881. That being so, I ask why the tenants in the South of Ireland are to be debarred from all the benefit of the Act? I repeat that the position taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bring consternation to thousands of tenants who are expecting to receive benefit from this Act, and I have received hundreds
  1436
  of letters urging me to bring this matter under the notice of the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to protract the proceedings. It must be perfectly obvious that, if every such clause as this be debated as if the House were engaged on the second reading of the Bill, it is impossible to say when the proceedings on this stage will terminate.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The lecture which the right hon. Gentleman has just given us might have been better deserved if we could be sure that the Government understood the subject before the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you consider it in Order that hon. Members should be interrupted in their arguments in the debates of the House, even though the right hon. Gentleman may understand my object. I am speaking on a matter which is of vital importance to thousands of tenants in Ireland, and I say that there has never been anything which has created so much consternation in Ireland as the case my hon. Friend has referred to. It is very hard that the Government should grudge us the half hour which has been devoted to this question, when we know that hours and days have been consumed over points of comparatively less importance. I am afraid that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's affronts to Members on these Benches will not be to smooth or shorten the discussions on the Bill. The effect of this section might, I think, have stopped at saying that "This Act shall not apply to any holding which is not either agricultural or pastoral." It is a strange thing I say that in the case of holdings of the same kind, held for the same period, and by members of the same family, one portion of them should come within the Act and another be beyond it. We find that the man who improves his holding and has his rental raised ceases to be within the Act—he is excluded from it altogether; but another man, who has been described as the lazy tenant who waited for the passing of the Act, is to get the full benefit of this Bill. I ask the Government what they are going to do with these cases which stare them in the

  1437
  face, not in one district alone, but in every part of Ireland? In Ulster, where a man has invested his fortune in farm improvements he is to be subject to confiscation, just as in the case referred to by my hon. Friend. We find that one town park is to be exempted from the Act, whereas another half-a-mile away is to come within it. That is the way in which the whole of this legislation has gone, and the decisions of the Judges in Ireland have made it still worse. The improvement we seek to make is an important one—namely, that where the farm is one on which the tenant resides the Act shall apply to any holding not exceeding £200, if used or originally laid down for pasture. There is very little difference in principle between £50 and £200, so far as this part of the Bill is concerned; and if the real test is to be that which the Attorney General for Ireland has applied—namely, independence and insolvency, I think it more likely to fail at £200 than at £50. We cannot see why, in the case of two farms which have come down under similar conditions, one should come under the Act, because the tenant lives on it, and the other should be excluded, because the tenant has ceased to reside on it. There are many points in this Act which, to me, seem simply unintelligible, and I think the Government ought to show a disposition to meet the very modest proposals we make for the purpose of improving it.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 180: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 356.) [12.35 A.M.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to move the following New Clause to be inserted after Clause 9, in page 8:—
  "A letting made by or under the authority of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, or any Judge thereof, shall not be deemed to be a letting for the temporary convenience, or to meet a temporary necessity either of landlord or tenant within the meaning of the fifty-eighth section of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' and the said Act, and this Act shall apply in the case of any such letting, in like manner in all respects as if such letting were a valid letting by the landlord for the time being."
  I should imagine that very few Members of this House, when they were passing a clause of this kind, knew that they were excluding from the Land Act
  1438
  a tenant who held under the Court of Chancery. Those tenants are, perhaps, not a very large class; but still there is a considerable area of land in Ireland comprised in those estates which for one reason or another are under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. Of course, all the tenants of these estates are not excluded from the benefits of the Act by reason of their holding, but a large number of them are. I maintain that a holding for seven years ought not to be considered a holding for temporary convenience. It is not for the convenience of the owner, nor for the convenience of the tenant—the estate is administered by the Court of Chancery, and there is no one, under such circumstances, in. a position to make a valid letting to the tenant. As I have said, the number of tenants who will be excluded are relatively small; still, I hold they amount to a considerable number all over Ireland. They are a deserving class of tenants, and they have their holdings at a very high rent. The land in the Court of Chancery is put up to auction, and I hold there is no class of tenants more entitled to the benefits of remedial legislation than those holding under Chancery leases.
  Clause (Law as to Chancery lettings,)—(Mr. Maurice Healy,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I would point out that the temporary lettings which the hon. Member has in view were excluded from the operation of the Land Act of 1881. The proposal of the hon. Member is that in the future, when the Court of Chancery makes what it intends to be a temporary letting, it shall be a letting for over. Such a change in the law would inflict tremendous injury on minors and lunatics, on whoso behalf the Court acts; and the Government, therefore, cannot agree to it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with having brought forward the Amendment, and I trust that he will not press it.
  MR. CHANCE: The principle upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman objects to this

  1439
  clause is a very curious one—namely, that, while a perfectly sane poison, who takes the responsibility of the management of his own land, has to submit to the ordinary law, therefore, because a. person happens to be a lunatic or a minor, a special Providence is to watch over his fortunes, and the Court of Chancery is to save him, under the Land Act of 1881, from all the ordinary duties of property. I cannot conceive why a minor should be entitled to evade the law, or why there should be any special exemption made in favour of a lunatic, or why the tenant of a lunatic should be in a worse position than the tenant of a sane man. However, to maintain this distinction seems to be the object of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I congratulate him upon that object. Of course, the exemptions in the Land Act of 1881 deal with those made for a "temporary purpose;" and it is a very curious thing that, under that phrase or exception, the Land Courts have held holdings which have existed for 20 or 30 or 40 years, while lunacy proceedings have been pending, to be temporary holdings. I grant you that the reign of a Conservative majority may be temporary, although it numbers over a 100; but I cannot understand this temporary principle in the matter under discussion. Under the Act of 1881 you had the case of tenants who could be put out with six months' notice; and, on the other hand, you had leases of seven or 14 or 21 years pending the recovery or death of a person who was a lunatic. These were temporary tenants, and yet the tenant from year to year who, if you like, is in the temporary possession of his holding, is looked upon as a tenant who cannot be put out of his holding. I trust that a Division will be taken upon this clause, and that Her Majesty's Government and their supporters will show by their votes in the Lobby what an extreme and phenomenal tenderness they have for those most afflicted of Her Majesty's subjects.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HALDANE: I beg to move, in page 17, after Clause 21, to insert the following clause:—
  "Where a mortgagee sells to a tenant his holding, it shall be lawful for the Land Commission, if they are reasonably satisfied that
  1440
  such sale is not a sale at an undervalue, or otherwise inequitable, to make such advance or advances, and otherwise facilitate the Sale to such tenant, under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts, in the same manner and to the same extent as if such mortgagee were the landlord."
  Under Lord Ashbourne's Act of 1885 the landlord was enabled to obtain the intervention of the Land Commission, who might make advances and otherwise facilitate the purchase by the tenant. Now, there are a number of cases in Ireland where the real landlord is the mortgagee, who, in his own interest, does not think it worth while to foreclose and make himself nominally, as well as really, the owner of the property. Such a mortgagee has of course, in ordinary cases, the power of sale; and it is proposed, therefore, to enable him to sell to the tenant, through the intervention of the Land Commission, under the Act of 1885; and it is for that purpose that I propose this clause. The landlord's interest is carefully safeguarded with a view to meet objections by the introduction of the words applied to the Land Commission—"If they are reasonably satisfied that such sale is not a sale at an undervalue, or otherwise inequitable." I beg to move this clause.
  Clause (Sales to tenants facilitated in certain cases,)—(Mr. Haldane,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I would point out that a mortgagee in Ireland, when he wishes to realize, has to present an application for sale, and the property is sold by order of the Court. The proposed clause would be a serious innovation on Lord Ashbourne's Act, and would give the mortgagee powers to swoop down on the property without regard to other encumbrances. There is no such thing in Ireland as foreclosure I fully recognize the fairness of the spirit in which this proposal is made; but it would be a very serious thing if the proposal were carried out. In the abstract, there is much to be said in favour of the proposal, but the practical operation would be hardly consistent with what I think is the spirit of legislation found in Lord Ashbourne's Act. I trust the hon. and learned Gen-

  1441
  tlernan will not think it necessary to press the clause to a Division.
  MR. CHANCE: I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to prove there is one word in this Amendment increasing the rights of mortgagees. For the purpose of his argument, it was necessary for the right lion, and learned Gentleman to make the alarming statement that a mortgagee in Ireland had to go into Court and get an order for sale before he could realize his security. Does he hold to that?
  MR. GIBSON: Certainly. There is no such, thing in Ireland as foreclosure, as laid down by every text book on the subject; but there may be a power of sale in the mortgage.
  MR. CHANCE: It has been said that Lord Ashbourne's Act is an Act for the purpose of facilitating sales by landlords to tenants. The title of the Act is—" An Act to provide greater facilities for the sale of land to occupying tenants in Ireland." There is not a solitary word as to whom the seller is to be. What happens under Ashbourne's Act? There are landlords in Ireland who are heavily mortgaged; but they have still an interest in the land. These men have an interest in realizing the best price they can for the land. Another class of landlords is that which is utterly ruined. These men do not sell under Ashbourne's Act to their tenants, and the reason is plain. They have no interest in the sale. They say to themselves that the utmost price realized will not be sufficient to pay off the mortgage itself. They say—" We will remain as landlords, we will stand between the mortgagee and the tenant; we will get the rents and live on as much as we can keep back from the mortgagees." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state his views upon the present state of the law, which prevents mortgagees realizing by sales to the tenants under Ashbourne's Act.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: It is quite plain that the proper course to pursue is to allow the parties who have now the ownership in fee to part with it as quickly as possible to those whose interest is bound up in the soil.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes; 166: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 357.) [1.35 A.M.]
  MR. HALDANE: Notwithstanding the presistent opposition with which every new clause has been met by the Government, I feel myself bound to move the following Clause which I have placed on the Paper for the purposes of enabling the Land Commissioners to deal with arrears. In page 20, after Clause 25, insert the following clause—
  "When the Court on application fixes a judicial rent for a holding, the Court shall, in the proceedings on such application, take an account of the amount of arrears of rent due as at the gale day next before making of the application, and may take evidence in regard to the circumstances which have lead to such arrears, and shall decide whether, in view to such circumstances, the whole or any and what part of such arrears ought to be paid, and whether in one payment or by instalments, and at what dates the same should be paid; and the amount and dates so fixed shall be deemed to be the total amount of.such arrears due by the tenant, and the dates at which the same become payable."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House spoke of this clause as taking away from one person his property in order to give it to another. That, I think, was an extraordinary statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a Member of this House when the Crofters Act was passed. That Act contained a clause of precisely the same effect, and it had the full assent of the Conservative Party. Now, if this clause is fair in the case of Scotland, why is it not so in the case of Ireland? It is intended to do justice to an unfortunate class of tenants in Ireland, and I think that it is the duty of the Government to place the two countries on an equal footing in the matter of arrears.
  Clause—(Power to Land Commission to deal with arrears)—(Mr. Haldane,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALJOUR): I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I decline to go again into a matter which has been debated in this House not once or twice, but many times. The Government cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I hope he will not expect me to recapitulate all the arguments that

  1443
  have been urged against the acceptance of the Clause.
  MR. CHANCE: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman state why there should be a difference between Scotland and Ireland in this matter. I point out that this clause cannot touch judicial rents. Of course, it is said that there is no reason why a tenant who has been into Court, and has had a judicial rent fixed, should be in a worse position than the man who has not gone into Court, and it has been suggested that the tenants who have not gone into Court have shut themselves out of the clause through laziness. It is always said that Irish tenants are ready to rob the landlord when they can, and yet when we ask for this clause to be accepted we are told that they are too idle and lazy. I say, without fear of contradiction, that by far the greater number of tenants who have not gone into Court are those who are labouring under enormous arrears. The landlord never assumes that any attempt will be made to reduce his arrears, and he says to the tenant—" I keep these arrears over you in order that I may have a hold on you.…Then moment you attempt to get the rent reduced I will come down on you for arrears and sell you up." If any Member of this House will look at the Crofters Act, he will find that the original term is seven years, and at the end of that time the tenant not only gets the rent re-adjusted, but gets arrears of rent wiped out under a clause precisely similar to that which is here proposed. I appeal to the Government to give us a reason why an exception should be made in the case of the Irish tenants, or not to withhold from the latter the advantages which they have so liberally and generously conferred upon the Scotch tenants.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I hope the Government will not leave this point of contention and dissatisfaction in a Bill which promises to be a settlement of the Land Question for some time to come. When a tenant goes into Court to get a fair rent pronounced for his holding, will you leave it in the power of the landlord to deprive him of all the benefits of this Act? When I raised the question of small tenants to-night, it was said that no good could be done by it; but that is the way in which the Government
  1444
  always meet our suggestions. Here is an enormous amount of injustice, and the Government say they will not remove it; although, as has been pointed out, they did exactly what we ask in the case of the crofters. I cannot conceive what objection the Government can have to this Amendment. It is one which will be, so far as its working is concerned, in the hands of the Government. The Government of the day will have the appointing of the Sub-Commissioners, and. the Lord Lieutenant will have the sanctioning of the appointments and what is left to the Commissioners is this—that when an application for a fair rent is made to them, they should take into account the amount of the arrears, and make such an order as they consider right which shall spread the arrears or a portion of them over a period of time within which the tenant will have to pay. Why then is this measure of justice not to be served out to the poor people on our coasts and mountain sides? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any logical basis for that? Is it his patriotism that induces him to say that the Scotch people are entitled to a higher measure of justice than the people of Ireland? I do not give the Government credit for saying that justice impelled them to pass the Crofters Act, but they felt that their scheme would be unworkable unless they adopted in it the principle of the settlement of arrears. Well, does the same principle of expediency drive them on this occasion to something in the nature of a composition of arrears? We, the Irish Members, who were elected by the free voice of the constituencies of Ireland, have we any power of impelling you in that direction? I think it is a duty incumbent upon us, and one which we should not let pass here, to record our protest and to put our fingers upon the blots in this Bill, so that when it breaks down the Government will not be able to say that we were the cause of it, or that the inherent bad qualities of the Irish people were the cause of it. The cause of the failure of all Irish legislation is, as a matter of fact, the inherent bad qualities of that legislation. I am afraid that, so far as the sea coasts and the mountain and bog districts of Ireland are concerned, the people will have no benefit from this Act. They owe so much in the shape of arrears that there will be no chance of

  1445
  their going into Court. No doubt they will make some mock arrangement with the landlords, but they will not really have the benefit of the Act. If you wish to place these people in a satisfactory position you should say to them—" Here is a fair rent which you can arrange upon a just and equitable basis—here is a principle under which you can start fair with your landlord in the future." If you did that, all the people would rush into Court, and you would in that way succeed in establishing that which you profess it to be your desire to establish—namely, confidence all over Ireland in law and order.
  MR. MAHONY: I rejoice in the way in which this Amendment has been submitted. It puts the position of the Government plainly, clearly, and distinctly before us. Here is a grievance the existence of which I defy any hon. Gentlemen opposite to get up and deny. Every hon. Member, even those sitting opposite, must acknowledge that this question of arrears is a serious and grave one in Ireland. What is the position the present Government have taken up? Why this "Unionist" Government as it calls itself, has led us to believe that it is in favour of equal laws and equal privileges for all parts of the United Kingdom, and yet they are not ready to mete out the same measure of justice to the unfortunate Irish tenants that this House has already meted out to the Scotch tenants. Will anyone say that the circumstances are not pressing in Ireland? I acknowledge that the blame and responsibility does not rest so much with hon. Members opposite. We expect them to uphold what they call the sacredness of rent—we expect them to object to the infringement of what they consider to be the landlord's rights. But where is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)? I understood that he had been studying this question. I understood that this question of arrears was in a sort of way especially under his charge, and that he professed to feel very deeply for the poor tenants of Ireland—that in fact so deeply was he concerned about them that he felt it absolutely necessary that they should have some relief for their arrears. Well, the banquet is over, but still we do not find the Unionists in their places to-night. I hope the hon. Member for South
  1446
  Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) is satisfied with the support he received from his Unionist "Friends. I hope he will be satisfied with the support he will receive for the Amendment he has on the Paper, and which he intends to move in a short time. I venture to think he will be able to count on the fingers of his hand the support he will get from Members of his own Party.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 144: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 358.) [1.45 A.M.]
  MR. CHANCE: I beg to move the insertion of the following clause:—
  "Where an absolute order for the sale of land is made by a Judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, it should be lawful for a Judge of the said Division to make, upon such terms as he thinks tit, a temporary abatement in the rent due or to become due from, or a remission of part of the arrears of rent due from, a tenant of a holding on such land, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the parties, owners, petitioners, or incumbrancers consenting or refusing to consent thereto, he thinks it equitable so to do."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has told us that within the last few years there has been a reduction of estates in the Landed Estates Court, and that purchasers cannot be found for those estates. That is, unfortunately, the fact; but I would point out that the Landed Estates Court has been established for 30 or 40 years, and that during that period its jurisdiction has been increased to make reductions of rents in the case of tenants of certain lands. I believe that last year the Court of Appeal in Ireland discovered, for the first time, that this jurisdiction, which the Land Judges had exercised to make reductions in rent, did not really exist, and that the Land Judges were no longer entitled to make reductions in rent except with the consent of the owners. The course the Judges used to take saved great trouble, and they frequently declared, when applications were made for temporary reductions, that that was a proper thing to do. I myself have heard several Judges say that that was a proper thing to do; but they hold now that they cannot do it. They say—"The Court of Appeal has decided that what our predecessors have done for the

  1447
  past 30 years we cannot do." Well, the object of my clause is to empower the Land Judges in such cases to make temporary abatements of rent, or to make temporary adjustments of the arrears of rent. I do not believe that the power contained in my clause will be exercised very drastically; and I have safeguarded it by directing the Judge of the Court to regard not only the circumstances of the case, but also to have regard to the parties, owners, petitioners, or incumbrancers consenting or refusing to consent. I have no doubt that if the people most interested in the well-being of the estate refuse their consent the Judge will take it into account. The clause is aimed at preventing nominal owners interposing their shallow rights between the Judge and justice, and preventing his doing what would otherwise be done.
  Clause (Jurisdiction of High Court to reduce rents in certain cases,)—(Mr. Chance,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Government agree to this clause with some Amendments.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I would move to insert in the second line of the clause, after the word "Ireland," the words, "and a Receiver has been appointed."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 2, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words, "and a Receiver has been appointed."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON: I beg to move, in the seventh line, after the word "and," to insert the words, "to the interests of."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, in line 7, after the word "and," to insert the words, "to the interests of."—(Mr. Gibson.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment made, in the last line, to omit the word "equitable," in
  1448
  order to insert the words, "just arid, expedient."
  Clause, as amended, added.
  MR. SEXTON: I think it would be convenient for us now to adjourn, considering that we have to be here again in the course of about 10 hours. The proposal that stands next upon the Paper is one of great importance, and I do not think could be properly dealt with at this late hour.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It would be a convenience to the House if we were allowed to finish the new clauses to-night. Of course, I am only stating what is my view of the convenience of the House. It would be undesirable that any new clause should come up to-morrow. I desire that full time should be given to the consideration of the Amendments to the clauses as they stand for to-morrow. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Gentleman that they should proceed to consider the only new clause which, I think, remains for consideration, and enter upon the first Amendment. When we got to that Amendment we will at once move that the further consideration be postponed till to-morrow.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I trust hon. Gentlemen will finish the new clauses to-night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) will not be present to-morrow, and I know that it is his wish that the new clauses should be disposed of at this sitting.
  MR. CHANCE: I trust that we shall be allowed to adjourn now. We will not put down any new clause, except one on the same lines as the clause of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), and that will only leave us two new clauses to take to-morrow.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I certainly have no objection whatever to the adjournment of the debate at this point, if I there is a distinct understanding that the debate on the Bill shall conclude before a quarter to sis to-morrow. I desire to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen generally, and if there is not such an understanding as I mention, it is obvious that it will be to the convenience of the House that we should

  1449
  proceed until we come to the Amendments.
  MR. PARNELL: I think that as we have already discussed the clause, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Cork (Mr. Flynn), it will only be necessary to lake a Division upon it, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) does not intend to move his clause, which leaves only two clauses on the Paper, it would be the preferable course to finish the new clauses to-night.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name.
  New Clause—
  "It shall be competent for the Land Commission on the application of one or more tenants on any estate, or of the landlord, to draw up a scheme regulating; the use by the tenants on that estate of any seaweed or seasand or limestone for the reasonable purposes of their holdings, any turbary, any heather or grass for thatching purposes, or any mountain grazing of which they or their predecessors were substantially allowed the use, whether by annual agreement or otherwise, for four years preceding the passing of 'The Laud Law Act, 1881:' and it shall be competent for the Land Commission to fix for each tenant a fair annual value to be paid for such use by said tenant in addition to the annual rent of his holding. Any right or rights professed to be conferred on any tenant by a scheme under the provisions of this section shall be deemed to be a right or rights appurtenant to his holding, and, in case of a judicial tenancy, the provisions of such scheme shall, so far as they impose any obligation on the tenant or limitation, of his rights, be deemed to be statutory conditions. It shall be competent for the Land Commission to make any order which they may deem necessary for the purpose of carrying into effect a scheme made under this section.
  "Provided, that if the tenant of a holding has had, or shall hereafter have, a fair rent fixed thereon on the assumption expressed or understood that as regards rates, cesses, turbary, seaweed, seashells, mountain grazing, lime, limestone, or the like, that the practice, usage, and fees in respect thereof, theretofor on the average of four years previously in operation as regards such tenant or his predecessors, would continue during the statutory term, then if the landlord refuses to continue such practice, usage, or fees, or if the tenant fails during the statutory term, without default on his part, to have the benefit thereof, the Court shall have power to revise the judicial rent, and make such provision in lieu thereof as may be agreed on between the parties, or as to the Court shall seem right, and on the hearing of an application under this section, it shall be competent for the Court to inquire into the circumstances attending the hearing of the fair rent application, and shall not be precluded by the record
  1450
  from such inquiry, if an error, omission, or mistake appears to have actually occurred therein."
  Clause (Regulating the use by the tenants of seaweed or limestone, mountain grazing, &c.,)—(Mr. Flynn,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 143: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 359.) [2.10 A.M.]
  MR. MAHONY: I beg-to move the following new clause standing in my name, the object of which is to give to the tenant farmers of Ireland power in certain cases to give to a bonâ fide labourer one acre of land:—
  "Each letting which may hereafter be authorised under fee provisions of section eighteen of 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' may comprise land not exceeding one acre in extent, notwithstanding anything in that section, contained."
  Clause (Amendment of 44 & 45 Vic. c. 49, s. 18,)—Mr. Mahony,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This question has been discussed in Committee. I suppose it is not desired it should be again discussed, and that it is simply moved by the hon. Gentleman as a protest.
  MR. PARNELL: You allow the English labourer to have an acre of land, and we feel that it is very hard that you will not grant the same privilege to the Irish labourer.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 82: Noes 135: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 360.) [2.20 A.M.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "his."—(Mr. Serjeant Madden.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Bill."
  Motion made, and Question, "That "That this Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committed of Five Members, Three to lie nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill, before the meeting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

  TECHNICAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to facilitate the Establishment of Technical Schools in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 358.)

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &C.) (BELFAST) BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Whitley, Sir James Corry. Mr. Sexton, and Colonel King-Harman be Members of the Select Committee on Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c.) (Belfast) Bill.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Municipal Regulation (Constabulary, &c) (Belfast) Bill that they do report the Bill on or before Monday 15th August.—(Colonel King-Harman.)

  BANKRUPTCY COCRTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Ordered, That Mr. Serjeant Madden, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Matthew Kenny, and Mr. Sexton be Members of the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Courts (Ireland) Bill.—(Mr. Sexton.)

  MUNICIPAL REGULATION (CONSTABULARY, &c.) (BELFAST) [SALARIES].
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a portion of the Salaries of any additional Police Magistrates for the borough of Belfast, that may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to make provision for the appointment of a Watch Committee in Belfast, and for other purposes in relation thereto," (Queen's Recommendation signified):—Debate arising.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Agricultural Labourers' Holidays (Scotland)* (212); Open Spaces (Dublin)* (213); Public Parks and Works (Metropolis)* (214).
Second Reading—Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland) (183).
Report—Margarine (Fraudulent Sale) (205–215); Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2)* (209); Coroners* (210).
Third Reading—Secretary for Scotland Act (1885) Amendment (194); Trinidad and Tobago* (195); Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation * (155); Statute Law Revision* (192), and passed.

AGRICULTURE—THE HESSIAN FLY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether tie could give any information with regard to the Hessian fly, the districts affected, the amount of destruction occasioned; whether instructions had been circulated of the way to deal with it; and whether compensation would he awarded?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that according to the latest Report received at the Privy Council Office, dated the 3rd instant, the Hessian fly had appeared in parts of Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Essex, Bedfordshire, Lincolnshire, Hertfordshire, Yorkshire (Goole), and in Errol, Kincardine, Montrose, Fife, and Brechin, in Scotland. With respect to the instructions issued by Mr. Whitehead a short time ago, he might say that, as to the harvest this year, a great many of the crops had been cut, so that nothing could be done with regard to them. Instructions, however, would again be issued. There was no power to grant compensation, either out of Government funds or out of the rates, for any loss that might result from the execution of such instructions. The whole subject was being carefully considered, and Mr. C. W. Gray, M. P., and Mr. Whitehead, the well-known authority on destructive insects, were engaged in investigating the circumstances attending the appearance of the fly. He was sorry to say, from the specimens sent up, that there was no doubt that it was really the Hessian fly that had appeared. He had no reason to believe that the destruction wrought by the insect was as yet very great; but last year the fly had hardly appeared in this country, and this year it had spread over a great part of the country.

  MARGARINE (FRAUDULENT SALE) BILL.—(No. 205.)
  (The Lord Basing.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Moved, "That the Report of Amendments be considered."—(The Lord Basing.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he had no wish to interfere with the sale of a good substitute for butter; but in the 3rd clause of the Butter Substitutes Bill brought in last Session, it was expressly provided that no word should be used which included "butter" in it. The Bill was to have been referred to a Select Committee. It was brought in by Lord Vernon, a nephew by the brother's side of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). Lord Vernon made by machine exceedingly good butter, which always commanded a high price; but yet it might be mixed with lard by the retail dealer, and the best lard cost only 9d. per lb. The practice had been suspected in private dairies, and when on a visit with his father on the Circuit at Strathfieldsaye, he heard the Marquess of Douro say that he thought the dairymaid put lard into their butter. The article was sold in Lancashire as "rine" and bosh, and in America it had been called bogus; but a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Mr. Vaughan, the Police Magistrate, had fined a man for selling butterine as butter; but as it was not unwholesome the fine was very small. In this Bill the fines were discretionary; but "rine" included both margarine and butterine, and they were distinct, for margarine could not be spread upon bread. If it wore said that I the word was not sufficiently known, he I would say—
  " Licuit semper que licebit,
  Signatum prosente nota procudere nomen."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to move that the word "butterine" be substituted for "margarine" in the title of the Bill, said, that since the great controversy between "the big and the little Endians" as to the right way of eating an egg, there had been no such excitement as this over the great Margarine versus Butterine Question. On the last occasion when this subject was before the House mention was made of the fact that many of their Lordships had come from the country, at great inconvenience to themselves, with the object of voting in favour of what they held to be the suppression of fraud. He thought, however, that I there was another motive which had actuated some of their Lordships. In addition to voting against fraud, they had determined to vote at the same time for the suppression of a prosperous rival, which threatened to compete success-

  1325
  fully with butter. What had been the history of this question? Last year a Bill was brought in by Lord Vernon for the purpose of abolishing butterine, but did not reach the stage of second reading. Early in the present Session a Margarine Bill was brought in, and referred to a Select Committee, who came to the conclusion, by a majority of two to one, that, upon the evidence, the name should be "butterine." The Bill having reached the other House, a Division was taken at 2 o'clock in the morning upon the question that the name "margarine" be adopted, and the Motion, was carried by a majority of 87 to 70. But 46 of the Members who voted in the majority were Irish Members deeply interested in Cork butter. It appeared, therefore, that if England and Scotland could enjoy Home Rule with reference to this question, there would be a large preponderance of opinion in favour of "butterine" as against "margarine." On a subsequent occasion it was proposed to re-insert the name "butterine" in the Bill; but the Motion was lost. The numbers were 124 against the Motion and 99 in favour of it. In the majority 41 Irish Members voted, so that the wishes of the English and Scotch Members were once more overruled by the Irish butter vote. The President of the Society of Analysts had made a statement on the subject of butterine, which was endorsed by Sir Frederic Abel in his evidence before the Committee. Sir Frederic Abel described butterine as a finished article of commerce, consisting of 60 per cent of margarine. Margarine was not butter, but a fluid portion of animal fat. Butterine was the generally accepted name for butter substitutes, and there was no reason for prohibiting its use. Another scientific witness, Sir Lyon Playfair, called the term margarine scientific nonsense, and yet that House was asked to stamp butterine with a name which was scientific nonsense. It was not only the butterine manufacturers but also the margarine manufacturers who objected to the articles which they made respectively being miscalled. That alone was strong ground against the use of the term margarine. Those of their Lordships who had been to the Refreshment Room would see that margarine and butterine were as distinct from each other as chalk from cheese. A noble Friend who had
  1326
  tasted a sample of it, when asked to what conclusion he had come, said—"Why, I have, I am sure unknowingly, eaten tons of it." Now, as to the character of butterine as an article of food. The evidence was quite distinct that it was a perfectly wholesome article, and that it had in many workhouses and other public institutions taken the place of butter. It was indeed, preferable to a good deal of what went by the name of butter. In Liverpool it was largely used and highly appreciated in the workhouses, where it was used after a careful trial and report by the medical officer; and a saving was effected of no less than £500 a-year in one workhouse alone as compared with what would be the cost of butter. Mr. Thomas, of the Local Government Board, who was an important witness, gave evidence before the Select Committee of the excellence of butterine as an. article of food, and its popularity was attested by its having been an article of trade for the last 12 years, the annual value of the trade now being £4,000,000 sterling. That was the trade which the House was asked to injure, for he believed the use of the name margarine would injure it. The President of the Board of Trade had actually, on this question, dissociated himself from the Government, and expressed himself in favour of the views of the Select Committee. Margarine, butterine, and oleomargarine were all pretty names, and he was told that Corney Grain, in one of his popular songs, addressed the girl of his heart as "Margarine," and when his passion was at its height he called her "Oleomargarine." But he objected to these names being misused. Suppose it was a question of fraud. Surely if anybody bought butterine in mistake for butter the maxim caveat emptor would apply. If the poor bought butterine at 6d. a pound, instead of butter at three times the price, and thought it was butter and liked it, no particular harm was done, and no service would be rendered if they were undeceived. He was quite sure that tons of butterine were sold under the name of butter by regular butter retail merchants. Mr. Howard, the late Member for Bedford, who was an authority on all agricultural questions, said that the term butterine had become well established in the trade, and that the name should be retained, but that it

  1327
  should be coloured in such a way as to distinguish it from butter. Now, were the agriculturists of this country wise, oven on the lowest grounds, in the view which they had taken on this question? Bather they were being made the cat's-paws of by the dairy farmers. Butterine was made from the fat of the ox, while butter was made from that of the cow. Why should not the farmers of this country utilize their oxen in this way instead of leaving all this thriving trade to foreigners? The English farmer was being misled on this subject, exactly as he had been misled about the Malt Tax, for the repeal of which there was such a continuous outcry. When at last it was repealed the barley growers were in no better plight than before, all sorts of substances were used for the manufacture of beer, and barley had fallen 3s. to 6s. a quarter in the market. He objected to the Bill on this broad ground. He objected to its principle, and he objected to some of its provisions. To the principle of the Bill, he objected because he believed it to be wholly novel and unprecedented that Parliament should be asked to suppress the name of an article of trade which has been in use for 12 years; and that Parliament should legislate in this way by a special Act of Parliament for one and against another special interest, and that all this should be done under the guise of suppression of fraud. If there were any fraud which the existing Adulteration Acts did not touch that was a reason for amending those Acts, so as to reduce fraud to a minimum. But he objected to a system under which whenever one interest found a rival that it thought hurtful, it might come to Parliament and ask for the practical suppression of the name of the article of trade sold by its rival. That was a very wrong principle of legislation. It was un-statesmanlike, and it was a sort of legislation to which their Lordships ought not to give their sanction. If this Bill were passed what was there to prevent similar legislation with regard to velveteen, ivorine, and coralline, and, more still, gasoline, which stood on all fours with the question of butterine? Gas was supposed to be made from coal and it was an illuminant. Gasoline was also an illuminant, but it was made from
  1328
  oil. The difference between them stood on all fours with this question of margarine and butterine, and it would be quite as reasonable for the manufacturers of gas to come to Parliament and ask to have gasoline suppressed or called by some other name. There were other provisions in the Bill, and how the House of Commons, which was full of manufacturers of all kinds, could allow this Bill to pass their House and to come to their Lordships' House with the 7th clause in it passed all ordinary comprehension. That clause allowed the Government Inspector, to be created under this Bill, to enter at any hour of the day or night into the place where the butterine was manufactured, to watch the process of manufacture, and to report upon it. Moreover, all manufactories were to be registered. An attempt was being made to get in the thin edge of the wedge by which an Inspector was to be empowered to enter a factory and to ascertain the process of manufacture. This would put a stop to all improvement in this country, and would give rise to corruption and bribery. Our manufacturers were very jealous with regard to disclosing their modes of manufacture, he had been told that when the Prince of Wales was recently admitted to the works of Sir William Armstrong he wag not shown some particular process of manufacture, but an Inspector would be able under this Bill to see what the Prince of Wales would not be permitted to see. There would be an immense demand for the Inspectorship, because, by another clause, the Inspector might take away as many samples as he pleased from every manufactory without paying for them, and his impression was that the butter bill of this Inspector would not be very large. He would now say a few words respecting his own action with regard to this Bill. It was sometimes said that he had made himself a tool of the butterine manufacturers. Last year, when his nephew (Lord Vernon) brought in his Bill, he opposed it on the broad principle that that was not the way to legislate, and that Parliament ought to amend the general Acts and ought not to pass these particular Acts. He did that without any communication whatever with the butterine manufacturers. He objected to and resisted this Bill on principle. Any noble Lord who went to the Refreshment Room might see for

  1329
  himself that margarine was an uneatable substance, and yet they were now asked to give that name to an article of diet. In conclusion, he asked their Lordships not to sanction a Parliamentary lie by putting into an Act of Parliament that which was opposed alike to science and to sense.
  Moved, in the title, to leave out ("Margarine") and insert ("Butterine").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  LORD THRINGsaid, that to make it a misdemeanour to call an article by its well-known name of "Butterine" was a thing unprecedented in English legislation. Moreover, all the 21 witnesses examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, with the ex-caption of three, were in favour of the word butterine, and deprecated the use of any other word. The Committee divided two to one in favour of butterine.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he had taken an interest in those questions ever since he sat on the Adulteration Committee of the other House in 1856, and had read every word of the evidence in the Blue Book, and that had led him to the opposite conclusion from the noble Lords. Eleven of the 21 witnesses only spoke in favour of the name "butterine;" five were neutral. As to the question of the recommendation of men of science that the name "butterine" should be used, he wished to point out that if English men of science were of opinion that "butterine" was the right name to give to those substances they were apparently at issue on the point with the scientific men of most of the other civilized countries in the world. In Germany the name "margarine" was attached to these substances by law, and in the United States the term "oleomargarine." In France they had the further alternative of graife alimentaire, rendered in the Blue Book by "edible fat." He, therefore, thought it was rather too much to expect them to submit the settlement of the name in this matter explicitly to the dicta of our men of science when the men of science of the United States and of pretty nearly the whole of Europe took the opposite view. Although he might not think "margarine" the best name that could be selected, he learnt from one of the 11 witnesses hostile to it that under the name of "margarine" people would not love
  1330
  butterine any the less. He was satisfied that, as compared with the misleading name of butterine," the preponderance of reason and justice was in favour of the name which the majority in the other House of Parliament had twice affirmed as the right one to be applied to this article.
  LORD BASINGsaid, that on behalf of the promoters of the Bill he must ask their Lordships to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl and to adhere to the Bill as it came from the Commons. A great deal had been made of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on this subject; but he thought that too much reliance ought not to be placed on the evidence published in the Blue Book, because it was all on one side of the question only, and the evidence on the other side was not taken at all. The experience of the last 12 or 14 years since the Food and Drugs Act was passed had shown that the exceptional legislation which has since been found necessary in the case of other articles of food included in that Act was also required in the matter of butter. There was no doubt that the use of the ambiguous term "butterine" had had a great effect in stimulating the sale of the article, it being peculiarly liable to be mistaken by the unwary purchaser for "butter." All that the Committee desired was that those who bought this substance, which consisted of 60 per cent of margarine, should know it to be a substitute and not butter, and that was in accordance with the principle of the Food and Drugs Act—to secure the purity of the food of the people. Moreover, the traders in butterine and margarine made no objection to the provisions of the Bill, and welcomed the presence of the Inspector in their factories. The noble Earl spoke of the sale of butter substitute as important in the interests of the farmers, because it was made from the fat of the ox. But it was the fact that the great mass of this butter substitute was not produced in this country, but was of foreign manufacture. He did not, however, wish to put this forward as a question of Protection, but only as an amendment of the Food and Drugs Act. He did not pretend that the decision in the matter of the name was free from doubt; but he ventured to think that their Lordships ought seriously to regard the conclusion to which the House

  1331
  of Commons, after ample debate had I had come. Moreover, after the House had arrived at a decision in the first instance the traders, and especially the dealers in butter substitute, had ample time to secure what interest they could, and yet the House on a subsequent occasion arrived at the same conclusion. That was the principal reason why he should ask their Lordships to retain the word "margarine" and to reject the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, he thought there must be some reason very much out of the common which could persuade their Lordships to take away from a perfectly well-known substance the designation which it had borne for 12 years, and to give it a name which, by general admission, was not its name, but the name of something else. He had no doubt it was perfectly true that there was a consensus of opinion among dairy farmers that some legislation on this subject was necessary. But it seemed to him that their Lordships ought to discriminate, on the one hand, between a perfectly legitimate amendment of the law which the dairy farmers might reasonably desire, and, on the other, between the annoyance they might feel at an inconvenient competition. If effect were to be given to the latter they would practically be entering upon Protection. Whatever might be the intention of the promoters of the Bill, its effect would be to raise the price of butter. After the decision of the House of Commons The Times stated that its Chester correspondent telegraphed that in expectation that the House of Lords would adhere to the word "margarine" the price of butter had risen considerably. He imagined, therefore, that the hope of a great many promoters of the Bill was that the unfamiliar name of "margarine" would scare the purchasers who had hitherto bought this butter substitute. That, he had no doubt, would be the case for a time; but it was unfair to assume that the purchasers of butterine would not buy it in preference to butter if they knew how it was made. He would remind their Lordships that butter might be made in an undrained dairy, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the farmyard and manure, and in vessels far from clean, and it might, moreover, contain a much larger percentage of salt and water than the butterine, though
  1332
  it still owed its existence to exertions of the cow. It would be far better to allow the poor to buy honest butterine, which was admittedly wholesome, than to compel them to buy butter produced under the circumstances he had described. With regard to the use of the word "margarine" in other countries, the analogy was entirely fallacious, as the avowed intention in using it was to protect the makers of butter, and if Protection was to he embarked upon in this country it ought to be done openly. As the Bill stood it would not protect the large class of persons who bought butter in hotels, restaurants, and lodging-houses, for there was nothing to prevent the proprietors of those places buying margarine under that name and supplying it to their customers as butter. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had not attempted to insert a clause making it necessary for refreshment houses to exhibit a placard, as was done in the United States, saying "Oleomargarine is used here." He did not believe that it would be to the interest of the dairy farmers that the Bill should pass in its present form, as the result of suppressing the sale of margarine would be to throw back any improvements made in the quality of butter. He should therefore vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF SUFFOLK AND BERKSHIREsaid, that the perusal of the evidence taken before the Select Committee had not altered his opinion on this subject. Many witnesses laid great stress on the fact that the name "margarine" was unscientific, but he would wish particularly to direct the attention of the House to the evidence of three dairy farmers. They said that they feared no competition whatever with any grease or fat that could be manufactured, except so far as it was called by some name resembling butter. They insisted that the word "butter" was the trade-mark of the agricultural interest, and that any plausible imitation of that trade-mark was calculated wrongly and injuriously to affect their interests. In his opinion the word "butterine" was such a plausible imitation, and for that reason he trusted the House would adhere to the word "margarine."
  LORD BRAMWELLremarked, that the question was not whether butterine was a convenient or a scientific name,

  1333
  but whether margarine was a right or a false name. He understood from everybody that margarine was not a correct name for the substance known as butterine, and they wore asked, therefore, to enact that this substance should be called by a name which was not true, in order to mislead people. The noble Lord who had charge of the Bill justified the name "margarine," on the ground that 60 percent of the materials which wont to make up the substance were correctly described by that term. He would ask the noble Lord this. Would he propose to call bronze copper because bronze contained 60 per cent of copper? If the argument of the noble Lord were accepted, they ought to call bread flour. It was ridiculous to suppose that the adoption of the title "margarine" would prevent fraud. Did their Lordships believe that a rogue who wished to palm off butterine as real butter would be deterred from doing so by a change of name? He had no doubt that the opposition to the name ''butterine" came from the butter trade. It was a curious thing that no witnesses were called before the Select Committee to show that vendors of butter-substitute were prone to commit fraud. If the proposal wore merely that the name "butterine" should be abolished it would not be open to so much objection. The supporters of the Bill, however, went further, and wished to designate an article by an untrue name, the object being to induce purchasers of butterine to buy butter in future. But this was an idle expectation, for the matter would soon be understood, and the people who now bought butterine would soon discover that the so-called margarine was the same thing and would purchase it under its altered name.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that it was one of the chief functions of legislation to secure the consumer against adulteration and could he view this measure as being for the consumer's protection he should certainly vote in favour of it; but the object of the Bill was not to prevent adulteration. There was no butter in butterine. Butterine was a manufactured article that had been in the market for a considerable number of years, and had established a firm footing in the consumption of this country; and the question was whether they were, by a side wind, and by giving this article
  1334
  an opprobrious and incorrect name to supply an artificial stimulus to the butter trade. Any endeavour of that kind he did not think legitimate. What the butter trade wanted was the stimulus of competition, and the exertions of farmers ought to be directed to the production of better butter. He felt ashamed when he thought of the butter which many of our farms produced. It was offensive in smell, rancid in taste, and could not bear comparison with even the inferior qualities of foreign, butter. Yet our climate, which favoured the growth of grass, was that of a butter-producing country, and he believed that if the attention of our farmers were but directed to the making of a higher class of butter, they could produce as fine an article as was now introduced into this country from Holland, Belgium, and the Baltic Provinces. He objected to the Bill before their Lordships, because it was indirectly a protective measure. He held that margarine was not a proper title to apply to a manufactured article. There was already an article called margarine. What was to become of that? He did not think it was wise to give so large and wide powers of inspection as were proposed by the Bill, and he trusted Parliament would not be led away by the obvious interests that had induced the Irish Members in large numbers to vote for the Bill in "another place." No doubt if they had a separate Parliament for Ireland they should have plenty of protective measures of this kind; but so long as they had a united Parliament and an honest system of Free Trade, they ought not to impose a false tariff upon an article which had become an article of general consumption.
  THE LORD PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, the sole point which the House had at the present moment to decide was as between the names "margarine" and "butterine." The noble Lord on the Cross Benches desired that this substance should be sold as butterine, but if as was stated it was incorrect to term it margarine, it was still more incorrect to call it butterine. To term it butterine would be giving a false credit to an article which was in no sense butter. They would find in the evidence that there were three kinds of butterine, and he

  1335
  thought; the noble Earl would be very sorry himself to eat the third article. They talked of protecting dairy farmers, but this Bill would protect humble persons to a certain extent by enabling them to take samples for inspection of this compound article sold as butterine or butter. It would further insure that the substance was labelled margarine and not butter. In one instance a surgeon was called in to a family that were violently vomiting after having partaken of this butterine, which the surgeon described as cart-grease or an oleaginous mass.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Sold as butterine?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: He did not say sold as butterine, but sold as butter.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he must express his regret that he could not vote for or against the Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that though this question did not involve the fate of the British Empire, it was important, and he desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment. If the Bill passed in its present form great injury would be inflicted on all those engaged in this trade. The noble Lord (Lord Houghton) said that no doubt after a time the thing would find its level, but that would not be until very considerable injury had been done to a large class whose trade was enormous. Everyone knew how difficult it was to introduce a new article into the market. Twelve years ago this article was introduced, and there was a great feeling against it, but that had been overcome, and its sale was now a very large one. The Bill in its present form would destroy this trade, and render it necessary for those engaged in it to make a new beginning, selling the old article under the new name of margarine. This would, at any rate for a time, be exceedingly difficult. No answer had been given to the question as to what would become of the substance called margarine, which was uneatable, while butterine was a wholesome and palatable article of food. Their Lordships should deal with this question in a judicial manner, but he did not think they did that upon the last occasion when the majority insisted upon the name margarine being retained, and left the discussion whether it should be
  1336
  retained or not for the Report stage, and that was recommended because it was not in Order for a noble Lord to make more than one speech. He thought that their Lordships should pause before they did this great injury to an important trade—or committed a grammatical error by adopting the term margarine, which was not descriptive of the article to which it was applied. Scientific evidence pronounced butterine to be an excellent article of food, and it was desirable even in the interests of dairy farmers that they should encourage rather than stop the trade. Indirectly it was an incentive to farmers to make good butter, by bringing butter into wholesome competition with this article. Those who produced good butter would not suffer any injury from the word butterine being used, but those would suffer who made bad butter, and a great deal of butter was made in the dirtiest and most unwholesome way. As to the fact that the House of Commons had passed the Bill in its present form, it was to be noted that the Bill passed through Committee in the House of Commons at 3 o'clock in the morning, and that the decision of the House of Commons in favour of the word "margarine" was in the teeth of the Report of the Select Committee.
  LORD WANTAGEsaid, he thought the term which had been deliberately adopted after careful examination should be retained. The object of the Bill was to take care that there was no confusion in the minds of the people as to whether they were buying the real article or the imitation. This was the first time it had ever been proposed to compel people to adopt a particular name. The evidence showed that this term was totally inapplicable to the compound, His noble Friend who was in charge of the Bill had quoted the evidence of Sir Frederic Abel; but he had that morning read that evidence, and his conclusion from it was in direct opposition to that of his noble Friend. When he heard that the House of Commons had reversed the decision of their own Select Committee he turned with some interest to the Division List, and discovered in the majority no fewer than 30, names beginning with O, and he found that the reversal of the decision of the Select Committee was entirely due to the action of those Irish Members who took so

  1337
  keen an interest in English by-elections. That was an additional reason why lie should vote for the Amendment; and he was anxious to show also, by voting in favour of the term "butterine," that he was not actuated by any desire unfairly to protect the interests of the dairy farmers.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he must protest against the argument of the 30 or 40 Irish Members as a most unconstitutional and unfair argument. He had received a circular couched in offensive terms and emanating from the Liberty and Property Defence League, with which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches was connected, in which that argument was used. The Irish Members were selected by their constituents to protect not only the interests of their country generally, but those of agriculture in particular, and it was no reproach to them that they had honestly exercised their privileges. No one had suggested what truer name could be given to this product than margarine. He declined to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion. It was necessary to protect the interests of the poor and to see that they were not misled into the belief that a substance which contained 60 per cent of margarine was butter. The dairy farmers sought no protection or advantage over the sellers of margarine, or what some would call butterine. But articles ought to be sold under distinctive names and in their true character, and all the evidence showed that for some years butterine had been sold and charged for as butter. The change of name would have no prejudicial effect on the sale of margarine or butterine, though the present exorbitant prices would probably be reduced. It was said that this substance was not deleterious, and scientific witnesses had deposed that if it was made of such and such constituents in a sound condition butterine was a wholesome food. But none of these witnesses said that they had tasted and tested the article sold. He believed it was generally injurious, and Canadian experience was in the same direction. There was an interesting discussion on the question in the Dominion Parliament at Ottawa, and it appeared that the Canadian Government had, in the first instance, imposed heavy duties on the importation of the article from the United States, and then, after the estab-
  1338
  lishment of manufactories in Canada, felt obliged to put a stop to the trade altogether.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would not stand long between the House and a Division on this extremely interesting question, which seemed to have racked this House to its foundation. He wished, however, to put one question. If he wanted to buy butterine after this Bill was passed, how was he to acquire the article? He supposed the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would reply that the proper word was margarine. What they were in vain attempting to impress on the House was that the word margarine was an absolutely false name for the article he would wish to acquire under these circumstances. There wore already three qualities of margarine in existence that they know; but how were they to distinguish this further article when it was added to this great generic name? He did not suppose that their Lordships were large consumers of this article. The working classes in Lancashire used it to a large extent. Let them put themselves in the position of the working man who sent his child to purchase some butterine. The child would naturally say to the dealer "Give me some butterine;" the dealer would purse up his lips and observe "You mean margarine;" and the child would reply, "I mean nothing of the kind; I mean butterine." He did not see how the required article was to be obtained unless the purchaser adopted the racing phraseology, and said, "I want margarine, late butterine." A dealer who was examined before the Committee stated that there was very little difference between the profit on butter and the profit on butterine. The noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches had laid great stress on the general consensus of European opinion in regard to this matter. That was an argument which he hardly expected to hear in their Lordships' House. A right hon. Friend of his is the other House was rather fond of appealing to the universal opinion of Europe, and he was always reproached by his opponents for doing so. A proper designation of this article might be found in the word "bova;" but he did not think they should embark upon the use of fancy names, or upon the fraud—for it was very little else—of deliberately

  1339
  fixing a wrong name to a particular article. For that reason he should give the Amendment of the noble Earl his hearty support.
  LORD TRUROremarked that the lower and middle-class consumers of butterine took almost anything that the tradesmen gave them. They got credit, and unless they accepted the article which was offered them they had to go without any food whatever. He was ashamed to say that there was no country on the Continent where adulteration and petty frauds of this kind were carried on to anything like the extent that they were in this country.
  On Question, "That ('Margarine') stand part of the Bill?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 14: Majority 38.

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clanearty.)

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

  Cross, V.

  Oxenbridg, V.

  Buckinghamand Chandos, D.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bulfour of Burley, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Basing, L. [Teller.]

  Manchester, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  St. Albans, D.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Clinton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  Deramore, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  FitzGerald, L. [Teller.]

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Amherst, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Hartismere, L. (A. Henniker.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Dartrey, E.

  Hawke, L.

  de Montalt, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

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

  Kinnaird, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Mar, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Toliemache, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Truro, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Granville, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Bramwell, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

  1340

  Save and Sele, L.

  Wantage, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Watson, L.

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

  Thring, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he moved to strike out Clause 7, which provided that all imported margarine should be consigned as such, and that it should be lawful for customs officers and other public officials charged with the execution of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act, 1875, to examine and take samples from any package and submit them to analysis.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, the noble Earl had not put any Notice to that effect upon the Paper.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that if it were not competent for him to move the rejection of the clause now, he would give Notice of his intention to do so on the third reading.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that although the noble Earl had not given Notice, he was not precluded by the Rules of the House from moving his Amendment.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he understood that the Standing Order of their Lordships' House not to allow Amendments to be moved without Notice applied to third readings only.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that he was desirous of affording their Lordships time to consider the gravity of the principle involved in his Amendment, and should therefore postpone it till the third reading.
  Amendments made: Bill to be read 3a on Monday next; and to he printed as amended. (No. 215.)

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 194.)
  (The Marquess of Lothian.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a—[The Marquess of Lothian.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSremarked, that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian) had on the previous stage of the Bill referred to a letter he (the Earl of Wemyss) had written to a meeting of the Convention of Burghs, over

  1341
  which his noble Friend presided, when the agitation was at its height for the establishment of this new Office. That letter, according to the newspapers, was received with loud and prolonged hisses. What was the nature of that letter? In it he said he believed the proposed new Office was wholly unnecessary, and to that opinion he entirety adhered. When he said that he was not expressing merely his own individual opinion, hut a view which was shared by men of the highest distinction—men who had filled the Office of Lord Advocate—and men of business. Having been for four years under Lord Aberdeen's Government, Scottish Lord of the Treasury, he had seen that if there were cordial working and unanimity between the Scottish Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate, Scottish business could be done and admirably conducted without the creation of any Office of this kind. What had happened was that the Home Secretary had taken into his hands business that up to that time had been left in the hands of the Lord Advocate. He went so far as to say that during the period when this Scottish Secretary had no existence—when the business of Scotland was conducted by the Lord Advocate and by the Scottish Lord of the Treasury working together—the measures passed for Scotland would compare favourably with those that during the" time were passed for England and Ireland, so that the creation of this Office was unnecessary, and rather a retrograde step than otherwise—rather a stop in the direction of separation than one of cordial union. But the Government of the day had given in to the popular superstition or desirer, and the result was that they had got a Secretary of State, so-called, for Scotland, and he did not believe business was done one bit better than before his appointment, while the country had to pay something like £10,000 a-year for the Scottish Office. He had taken this line, that there was not enough work for the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland too, and the result had justified that view. For what was this Bill? It was a Bill to find work for the Secretary of State—to give him additional work. He hoped it would do so, for he had felt so much compassion for his noble Friend's position that he had offered to supply him with French novels. Now,
  1342
  by the passing of this Bill, he felt relieved from this undertaking.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)pointed out that the meeting to which the noble Lord had referred was not a meeting of the Convention of Royal Burghs, although that body had had a great deal to do with it, but a meeting representing all classes of the community. He did not think their Lordships would expect him at this time of day to go into any defence of the Office. The noble Lord's experience of the business of Scotland had been derived from his having acted for four years as Scottish Lord of the Treasury. He had no doubt that during that time Scottish business was arranged to the satisfaction of the noble Earl, and also to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland; and if the noble Earl could have been made Permanent Secretary for Scotland, the business would no doubt have been conducted in an equally satisfactory manner. That was not thought possible, and subsequent to the noble Earl's retirement from Office a state of matters arose that did not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland; and in obedience to a strong desire on the part of the Scottish people, and after full consideration by both Houses of Parliament, the Office of Secretary for Scotland was created. The noble Earl said the Office cost the country £10,000 a-year. Of course, such an Office could not be conducted without some expense; but he must point out that it did not involve an additional expense of £10,000. He thought he might fairly say the additional expense did not really exceed £7,000; and it appeared to him that if the affairs of Scotland could be conducted for so small a sum, there was not much reason to complain. The noble Earl had said the Secretary for Scotland had nothing to do; but that was not his experience. Since the noble Earl had so much experience, he should like to take an opportunity of offering him some work to do. He was quite sure it would be greatly to the advantage of Scotland, as well as that of the noble Earl, because it would let him know the amount of work that really had to be carried on in that Department.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LICENSED PREMISES (EARLIER CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 183.)
  (The Earl of Camperdown.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of it was to alter the hour of closing from 11 to 10. That, was the whole effect of the measure. He asked their Lordships to remark that this Bill was not prepared for any portion of Scotland, but applied to the whole of that country, and in that respect dealt exactly alike with all legislation in regard to intoxicating liquors. In bringing forward this Bill, he was sensible of the difficulties surrounding the subject, and the great variety of opinion that existed in regard to any question of this kind. He had considered the matter contained in the Bill very carefully, and he felt certain that the majority of their Lordships, at all events, would be of the same opinion as himself in this matter—namely, that it was very desirable to deal cautiously and sensibly with questions relating to licensing. He did not himself retain any extreme opinion in regard to the licensing question, and he wished particularly to say that he had no feeling whatsoever against licensed victuallers, or against any of those who found their occupation in the sale of intoxicating liquors. On the contrary, he believed that the great mass of licensed victuallers and others engaged in the trade were as respectable and as desirous of maintaining order as any other class in the country. But, at the same time, they could not disguise from themselves the fact that this liquor question was attracting a very large amount of attention in the public mind, and their Lordships must keep themselves abreast of public opinion in this as in other matters. The best test he could find was in regard to what had happened in the other House of Parliament. When this measure was brought forward for second reading in the House of Commons a Motion of Adjournment was made, the object of which was, of course, to got rid of the Bill, and 31 Scottish Members voted for the Bill and only three against it, and in consequence the second reading was
  1344
  carried. After the Bill had been read a second, time, there was a conference of Scottish Members, at which it was decided by general consent to proceed with the Bill; and when the Bill was brought on again, a Motion was made to exclude a certain number of large towns. That Motion was negatived by 125 votes to 73; and out of the number who voted. 42 Scottish Members were against the Motion, and only seven voted for it. Therefore, their Lordships would see that, so far as this measure was concerned, it had been supported by a very large majority of the Scottish Members of the other House of Parliament. After placing this Bill upon their Lordships' Table, he thought it his duty, and that it was a better course to consider the Bill carefully, and hear all that was to be said against it. He had had an opportunity to hear the objections that were urged by a variety of interests against the Bill, and he would endeavour, as far as he could consistently with the principle of the Bill, to devise some means of meeting those objections. Therefore he wished to say at once to his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss)—who, he understood, took exception to the measure—that he was perfectly ready, on going into Committee, to propose an arrangement which he thought was a very sensible and practical compromise, and which he should now deseribe to their Lordships. He proposed to take the hours of 10 and 11 named in the Bill, and to give the licensing authority in each district a discretionary power in dealing with the closing hour, so as to enable them to make any time between 10 and 11—not earlier than 10, and not later than 11—the closing time. One reason which had weighed with him a great deal in proposing this arrangement was that he thought there was a general agreement that when a measure was introduced, by whatever Government, dealing with the question of Local Government, a proposal would be made to transfer the licensing question to the Local Authorities. Well, when that came to be done, it would be perfectly easy to transfer the discretionary power which he proposed to give to the Local Authorities, to the now local governing bodies; and in any circumstances, he thought the effect of the Bill, altered in the way he had suggested, would only be to an-

  1345
  ticipate, by a few years at most, legislation which he thought was tolerably certain to meet with the approval of Parliament. There was another reason which he had had in his mind—namely, that an arrangement of this sort was actually the law from the year 1872 till the year 1875. Mr. Bruce's Act of 1872 gave discretionary powers to the Local Authorities, and in the year 1875 a change was made by the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Cross).
  VISCOUNT CROSS: It was in 1874.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the Act of 1874 defined hours for towns according to their population. He believed that great legal difficulty was experienced both in the passing of the Act and in its operation. What he proposed was to revert in this particular case to the arrangement which was sanctioned by the Act of 1872. If his noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) would allow the Bill to be read a second time on that understanding, he was perfectly prepared to take the course he had indicated.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he held very strong opinions upon these questions of licensing. He did not find fault with the principle that licences should be regulated. It was ail very well to regulate a trade; but they might regulate it off the face of the earth. He was in favour of liberty which did not go to the length of local option and prohibition, the Maine Liquor Laws, and those sort of things, as he thought they were contrary to the spirit and genius of the Constitution; and, therefore, he was inclined to view with disfavour any measure that tended in that direction. Public-houses should, no doubt, be regulated in a reasonable way; but the persons who ought to be dealt with were the drunkards. Let them tine and take up the drunkards who were going about the streets, and fine, by taking their licences from, them, those who manufactured drunkards by adulterating the drink they sold. This question of drunkenness and sobriety he held to be a mere matter of police. Every year the people of this country were becoming more and more sober. With regard to the Bill, he had to say that he was not prepared, on the part of those who took
  1346
  the same view as he did, to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He thought that the compromise suggested by the noble Earl was one that might not be unreasonable; but he could not now say whether those whom he represented would consider it as entirely satisfactory. When the matter was discussed some time ago by those interested in the question, the compromise that he put before them was a double one—it was that this discretionary power should be in the hands of the magistrates; but should only apply to towns in the country below a certain number of inhabitants. The view was that that might easily be provided for by leaving out the great towns with upwards of 50,000 inhabitants. There were only, he thought, eight large towns in Scotland with over 50,000 inhabitants; and he thought those ought to be exempt from the operation of the Bill. After the remarks of the noble Earl he would not oppose the Bill being read a second time.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)said, he had no desire to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but he wished to point out that if the noble Earl would look at the Act of I874 he would find the principle of the Act was that in the country towns all public-houses should be closed at 10 o'clock, and in populous places at a later hour. Great difficulty was felt under the Act before that as to the action of the magistrates in fixing what hour the public-houses should be closed, and it was thought hotter the large and populous places should be mapped out where the hour might be later. It was impossible, of course, to say what view they took of this Bill after what had fallen from the noble Earl, as it appeared that many changes were to be made in it; and, therefore, he would reserve what remarks he had to make until he saw what changes were proposed. But he must say he would be more inclined to adopt what had fallen from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, he greatly feared the Bill would tend, not so much to the suppression of excessive drinking, as the encouragement of what were called shebeens, which had been hitherto the universal result of restriction in this direction, He was told that in Glasgow since the introduction of the

  1347
  Forbes Mackenzie Act these shebeens were counted by thousands, and what the police were about to allow them to continue he did not know; but before the Forbes Mackenzie Act they were unknown in Scotland. He thought it was most monstrous tyranny to say that in towns of over 20,000, but not reaching 50,000 inhabitants, no human being was to obtain refreshment after 10 o'clock at night. It was surely enough to say that people should conduct themselves with propriety, but to say that people going home from theatres or other places of entertainment were not to be able to obtain any refreshment after 10 o'clock was only another specimen of that modern legislation which interfered with everybody.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word with regard to the question which had been alluded to by the noble Earl who had just spoken. He admitted that the question of shebeens was one of the difficulties which attended any measure connected with licensing; but that, after all, was merely a matter for the police. [The noble Earl was about to reply to the observations of the Earl of Wemyss, when he was reminded that he was not in Order, and he resumed his seat.]
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS—NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE AND RETIRED LISTS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TRUROasked Her Majesty's Government, When effect is to be given to the decision of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, which was communicated by their Lordships to the War Office on the 19th November, 1886, with regard to naval and military officers on the active and retired lists serving under Colonial Governments?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The decision of the Treasury, as I understand, cannot be carried out without the preliminary sanction of the House of Commons. A Bill is before the other House which would have the effect of confirming that sanction. I will not prophesy as to the fate of the Bill; but
  1348
  if it passes the decision of the Treasury will be carried out.

LEGISLATION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: As to the Question I asked yesterday, it will be convenient if the noble Marquess will state whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any fresh Bills relating to Ireland?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am afraid I can give no promise as to the proceedings of the other House of Parliament. The subject depends so entirely upon the progress of Business which is made in that House, and which is not within our control. At this stage of the Session we shall certainly not originate any fresh Irish Business in this House.
House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Twelve o'clock.