Sitting of 14 July 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Dodgson Hamilton Madden, Serjeant-at-Law in Ireland, for Dublin University.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [July 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Copyright (Musical Compositions) (No. 2) * [322].
First Reading—Incumbents' Resignation Act (1871) Amendment* [323].
Second Reading—Irish Land Law [308] [Third Night].
Committee—Report—Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)* [141].
Considered as amended—Criminal Law (Scotland) Procedure (No. 2) * [196].

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTCH UNIVERSITY BILL—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MASONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government intend to bring in the Scotch University Bill this Session; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, he was sorry he was not able to give a definite answer. But he hoped to be able to announce the intentions of the Government with regard to this measure in a day or two.

  LAW AND POLICE-PROSTITUTES IN MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will inform the House whether it is the general practice in Manchester and Liverpool to declare women to be common prostitutes, and to fine and imprison them, on the unsupported testimony of the police; and, whether, if such is the practice, it is in accordance with law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed that it is the general practice to convict women charged with offences at Manchester under the Local Act of 1844, and at Liverpool under the Towns Police Clauses Act, on the unsupported testimony of the police. If any doubt is raised whether the woman charged is a common prostitute, it is usual at Manchester to remand the case for further inquiries. I am advised that such practice is in accordance with the law.

  LABOURERS ACTS (IRELAND)—THE RETURN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay in printing and circulating the Return showing the working of the Labourers Acts (Ireland), ordered 5th April last, and presented on the 23rd ultimo?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Irish Government were not responsible for the carrying out of the order of the House for printing; however, the Return referred to was in type, and the proof sheets had been finally revised.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—POOR RATE COLLECTORS IN WICKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  757
  Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that any of the Poor Rate collectors in the Eastern Division of the County of Wick-low have obtained payment of rates and not given receipts for same; and, if so, how it will affect the rights of persons entitled to the Parliamentary franchise?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he understood it had been the practice of the rate collector Jones to receive rates without giving receipts. Mr. Jones was asked for an explanation at the last meeting of the Board, and stated that some payment of rates were made by leaving money at his house when he was not at home, but receipts were afterwards issued. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not think any rights would be affected; and he trusted that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Question would be to prevent the recurrence of this reprehensible practice.

  POST OFFICE—IRREGULARITIES AT THE VERE STREET POST OFFICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Postmaster General, Whether the senior counterman at Vere Street Post Office was recently deficient £390; whether such a large deficiency is consistent with proper monthly check by the postmaster; whether any, and what, legal proceedings have been taken against the defaulter; whether the defaulter's salary, £28, accruing since the discovery of his default, has been paid for a time when he was entirely absent from his duties; and, whether this is usual; whether the defaulter had been in the habit of making advances to the postmaster's chief clerk on undated cheques; whether it was part of that chief clerk's duty to occasionally audit the defaulter's accounts; whether, at the December official quarterly audit, the defaulter then, produced to the auditor an undated cheque as part of the vouchers for his cash; and, whether this was then reported to the Postmaster General; whether that chief clerk is still in the employ of the Post Office Department; and, whether the postmaster has since retired on a pension?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that a deficiency of the amount stated was recently discovered in the accounts of the countermen at Vere Street Post
  758
  Office, and that the investigation which followed disclosed grave omissions, but no actual dishonesty, on the part of the chief clerk, whose duty it was to check the countermen's accounts. The chief clerk was found to have obtained on two occasions advances of salary against his undated cheques; but the cheques were never produced as vouchers when the accounts were audited. I was advised that the case did not admit of legal proceedings; and the payment of those officers who were eventually dismissed during the period for which it was necessary to keep them under suspension was in accordance with long established practice. The chief clerk is still in the Service, but has been degraded to a lower position and pay. The postmaster is responsible to me for the official cash, and he will have to make the deficiency good; but his fault is not, in my opinion, of a kind to invalidate his claim to the pension on which he is about to retire after a service of nearly 50 years.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—KEIGHLEY SCHOOL BOARD—FRANK HEAP, ANUNVACCINATED PUPIL TEACHER.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether Frank Heap has been for about two years employed as monitor by the Keighley School Board, and whether he has passed the necessary examination qualifying for pupil teacher; whether the Keighley School Board are desirous of appointing Frank Heap pupil teacher; and, whether the Education Department refuse to grant the necessary certificate, on the ground that Frank Heap is unvaccinated; and, if so, under what Statute or Regulation is the refusal of the Department justified?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It is the practice of the Department to require a medical certificate on a prescribed form, to be filled up on behalf of all candidates. If this form showed that the candidate had not been vaccinated, the managers were told that the candidate could not be accepted until the operation was performed. This is a measure of precaution which has been approved by successive Vice Presidents of the Council, including no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman

  759
  the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair).
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand that this is simply a Regulation in the discretion of the Council, and not under a Statute.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: No. I apprehend it is not under any Statute, but in the discretion of the Department.

  LAW AND POLICE—"BAYFUS v. SAVILLE"—SUMMONSES IN THE MARLBOROUGH STREET POLICE COURT.
  MR. ADDISONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Manisty, in the recent case of "Bayfus v. Savilie," that the mode in which summonses were obtained in the Marlborough Street Police Court was "perfectly shocking," and that by such procedure "no man's character was safe;" whether it is true that summonses are there granted without any information or evidence; whether a summons was so granted in the case referred to by Mr. Justice Manisty, and used for the purpose of extorting money from a respectable solicitor; and, whether such practice is according to law; and, if so, whether he is prepared to take steps to have the law placed on a more satisfactory footing in this respect?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have made inquiries into the case referred to in his Question. I have not ascertained that Mr. Justice Manisty made use of the observations therein referred to; but he certainly did comment strongly upon the way in which the summonses in this particular case were issued. It is not, I believe, the practice of the Marlborough Street Police Court to grant summonses without any information or evidence; but it is certain that in this case part of the information upon which the summons was granted was not properly verified. Upon the facts before me, it certainly appears that the summons was used to extort money from a respectable solicitor. Upon the information given me, the course pursued was not in accordance with law; but as the case was exceptional, there is, in my opinion, no necessity for any alteration of the law.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—"BOSS v. SAVILLE" —ATTEMPTING TO EXTORT MONEY.
  MR. ADDISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the remark of Mr. Justice Stephen, in the case of "Boss v. Savilie," that on the finding of the jury there was a case fit for the Public Prosecutor, to charge Savilie with attempting to extort money; whether, in reference to the same person, Mr. Justice Manisty (in the course of a trial last week) characterized the act of putting the Criminal Law in motion on an unfounded charge, for the purpose of extorting money, as "diabolical," and whether the jury found that Savilie had so acted; and, whether, having regard to the observations of these learned Judges, and to the danger to the public of the abuse of the Criminal Law, he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take proceedings in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have been furnished with a report of the two actions (" Bayfus v. Jonas et al." and "Boss v. Palmer and Savilie "). In view of the observations which were made by the learned Judges, Mr. Justice Manisty and Mr. Justice Stephen, in the course of the trials, I have thought it right to communicate with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  LAW AND POLICE—MOLESTING WOMEN AND YOUNG GIRLS.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement contained in St. Stephen's Review of last week:—
  " It is only quite lately that a case occurred which led to a fracas at the gates of the British Museum, between the guardian of a young girl and a perfumed old rake. This latter gentleman, it transpired, had followed, spoken to, and forced his company on the girl in question all the way from Piccadilly to Great Suffolk Street;"
  and, whether the police have power to arrest men who molest modest women and girls in our streets and squares; and, if not, if he will take the necessary steps to empower them to do so?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply,

  761
  said, the police had power to arrest a man who, in the public thoroughfares, used indecent or insulting language, or was guilty of insulting or indecent behaviour towards a woman to her annoyance, or if he molested her in any way amounting legally to an assault. If, however, the behaviour of the man fell short of that neither the police nor the Secretary of State had any power by law to arrest the man.
  MR. S. SMITH: Can a man be arrested for following a woman?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given the hon. Member the condensed effect of the Acts on the question, which say that a man can be arrested for using indecent or insulting language to a woman. Merely following is not an offence, except under what is known as Viscount Cross's "Picketing" Act.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CIVIL EMPLOYMENT OF POLICE FOR PROTECTION DUTY.
  MR. KENNEDYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether constables on protection duty with Lewis Goulding, of Lavagh, County Sligo, and Robert Brodie, of Lisanagh, County Sligo, have been working for weeks past like ordinary labourers, not wearing their uniforms or side arms; whether he can state if constables so employed are receiving any remuneration for such work; and, if they are, whether he has arranged any scale of pay for such employment; and, whether he can state who pays car hire for police whilst travelling through the country with Goulding, when acting in capacity of Sheriffs' bailiff and summons server?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had not yet had time to make the necessary inquiries.

  RAILWAY (ENGLAND AND WALES)— THE LONDONDERRY RAILWAY (SUNDERLAND AND SEAHAM HARBOUR).
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in reference to the Londonderry Railway between Sunderland and Seaham Harbour, Whether he wil linform the House on what conditions as to the manner of working the line the Board of Trade gave their certificate authorizing
  762
  the line to be opened for passenger traffic in 1855; whether there have been subsequent inspections by officers of the Board of Trade; and, if so, what are the dates of the Reports of such inspection; whether the Reports have shown that the conditions laid down by the Board of Trade before authorizing passenger traffic on the line have or have not been fulfilled; and, whether the Board of Trade has any legal power to enforce the conditions, if any, attached to the certificate authorizing the opening of the line?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Londonderry Railway between Sunderland and Seaham Harbour was three times inspected in the year 1855. The railway was partly a single and partly a double line when first submitted; but the Board of Trade directed the postponement of the opening until it was made double throughout, sufficient stations and platforms provided, a timber viaduct replaced by a stone bridge, turn-tables erected at Sunderland and Seaham, the walls of a cabin removed from dangerous proximity to the windows of carriages, gates erected at level crossings, and signals put up. No further inspection of the line has since taken place. No conditions were imposed on the opening of the line; but the Company informed the Board of Trade of the system under which they proposed to work it. The Railway Acts give the Board no legal power with reference to the working of lines which have once been sanctioned for the public conveyance of passengers.

  WAR OFFICE—MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF COLONELS BEFORE PROMOTION.
  COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Colonels, before promotion to Major General, undergo medical examination; if so, when the Order came into force, and how many Colonels have been so examined and pronounced unfit?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Under the terms of the Royal Warrant a Colonel cannot be promoted to be a Major General unless the Commander-in-Chief certify that he is competent to command in the field.

  763
  One important factor in this competence is physical fitness; and His Royal Highness requires the aid of a Medical Board to enable him to certify. The present arrangement took effect from December, 1885; but up to this time only two Colonels have been declared physically unfit.

  IRELAND—DRILLING IN ORANGE LODGES.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the authorities are aware that drilling has been going on for some time in the Orange Lodge, 10, Rutland Square, Dublin; and, if so, whether the other institutions and clubs in the vicinity will be equally permitted the like privilege?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): No, Sir. The police, who state that the Resident Secretary is at all times ready to admit them to the premises in Rutland Square, inform me that there is no foundation for the allegation.
  MR. P. M'DONALD: I have very good reason to know that the practice exists.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE—EXPENDITURE.
  MR. A. L. BROWNasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that, in consequence of the expenditure of the Scientific Committee of the Fishery Board (Scotland) for the year ending 31st March, 1887, having greatly exceeded the amount placed at its disposal by the Board, trawling operations, undertaken in connection with bye-laws passed by the Board, had to be suspended for five months, and accounts and wages, due to tradesmen and working men, remained unpaid for some months; and, whether, notwithstanding repeated requests for payment, some such accounts remain still unpaid; whether the majority of the Board have expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which work deputed to the Scientific Committee has been managed, and recommended the appointment of a paid Superintendent to carry out the Board's instructions; but the recommendation was not adopted, on account of the in-
  764
  tervention of the Secretary for Scotland; whether, in consequence of the Secretary for Scotland's neglecting to reply to repeated communications from the Board, scientific work was practically suspended during the months of April and May last, the months in which some of the most valuable results in connection with the Fishery Board may be obtained; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Correspondence between the Board and the Secretary for Scotland, together with any protests or remonstrances addressed to the Secretary for Scotland by members of the Fishery Board, in regard to the appointment of a Superintendent?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Fishery Board, who account, as a body, for their vote, cannot throw the responsibility of any part of their expenditure upon a Committee. It is true that the sum voted last year for the purchase of the trawler Garland was found insufficient. The amount spent in putting her in order was, under Treasury direction, charged to the Vote for Scientific Purposes, and the vessel had, in consequence, to be laid up for four months. I am not aware what delay, if any, took place in paying accounts or wages; but there is a small sum still unpaid to tradesmen, as to which the Secretary for Scotland is in communication with the Fishery Board. The majority of the Board, on the 11th of May, recommended the appointment of a paid Superintendent; but the Secretary for Scotland, after carefully considering the matter, requested the Board, on the 26th of May, to reconsider their Report, in view of the fact that, as the present Board expires in October, a change in the working arrangements seems to him ill-timed. If the hon. Member desires, through the medium of a Question, to impute negligence to the Secretary for Scotland, his Question should not be put to me; but, speaking for the Secretary for Scotland, I answer that part of the Question in the negative. It can only be by distinct breach of official confidence that materials for such a Question as that of the hon. Member's can be obtained; and it is not usual to present to Parliament confidential communications regarding matters such as are re-

  765
  ferred to in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. A. L. BROWN: May I ask the Lord Advocate to whom I shall put the Question?
  [No reply.]
  MR. A. L. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I not put that Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to answer the Question I cannot compel him.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE RURAL POST OFFICE MESSENGER OF DROMARD, CO. SLIGO.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whether the rural post office messenger of the district of Dromard, County Sligo, is also the process-server of the district; and, if so, whether a postman delivering letters along the road is permitted to carry letters in one bag and processes in another; and, whether, if this system is allowed by the Post Office Authorities, the poor people in the district along the postman's route, on coming to meet him, as is their usage, can be served with a writ or process when they expect only a letter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I have directed inquiry to be made into the particular case referred to by the hon. Member; but I may state generally that in law a postman has no choice but to deliver any letter which has been posted in accordance with the Post Office Regulations. He has no means of knowing whether any such letter, when properly sealed and closed, contains any particular document. Postmen are not allowed to act as process-servers in the usual sense of the word.
  MR. P. M'DONALD: In the case I refer to the processes were not enclosed in envelopes, but carried in an open bag.

  BRITISH GUIANA AND VENEZUELA— THE DISPUTED BOUNDARY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is a fact that towards the close of last year the Governor of British Guiana, Sir Henry Irving, publicly stated that Her Majesty's Government had made such arrangements with regard to the disputed territory be-
  766
  tween British Guiana and Venezuela that the Government of British Guiana was empowered to grant licences to anyone wishing to commence the gold mining industry within the disputed ground, and that on the strength of Sir Henry Irving's statement a number of Colonists and others took licences; if any such arrangement has been made; and, if not, what compensation will be given to those who acted in the belief that it had; and, what authority had Sir Henry Irving for making the statement?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Governor of British Guiana, in June, 1886, having received authority from Earl Granville, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, to issue licences for gold mining in a portion of the territory in dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, made a statement to that effect in the Court of Policy; but nothing was said about any arrangements having been made with Venezuela, and it was well known that no such arrangements had been made. Licences have been granted for periods not exceeding 12 months. No arrangement has been made with Venezuela. Her Majesty's Government, in order to guard the Colonial Government against any claim for compensation, have instructed the Governor to caution all persons interested in such licences, or otherwise acquiring an interest in the disputed territory, that all licences, concessions, or grants applying to any portion of the disputed territory will be issued and must be accepted subject to the possibility that, in the event of a settlement of the disputed boundary line, the land to which such licence, concession, or grant applies may become part of Venezuela, in which case no claim for compensation from the Colony or from Her Majesty's Government can be recognized; but Her Majesty's Government would, in that case, do whatever might be right and practicable to secure from the Government of Venezuela the recognition of the licences.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PROMOTION OF DISTRICT INSPECTOR TILLY.
  MR. COXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the

  767
  Irish Government to carry out the promise made by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in Committee of Supply last September, to "secure the merited promotion" of District Inspector Tilly, Royal Irish Constabulary?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the hon. Member put a similar Question on the 14th of February last, and he referred the hon. Member to the reply then given. No opportunity had since arisen for carrying out the intention of the Irish Government referred to.
  MR. COXasked, would not an opportunity soon arise in the promotions, consequent on a vacancy of an officer in the depot, Phœnix Park?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was not aware of the nature of the promotions which would follow that vacancy.

  VAGRANT ACT AMENDMENT BILL— STREET SOLICITATION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the hon. Member for the North-East Division of Cornwall, Whether, in view of the evidence recently given to the country of the power of the police in regard to solicitation, he will move to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Vagrant Act Amendment Bill?
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND, in reply, said, that, in view of the late period of the Session, and the impossibility of discussing private Members' Bills, he would not attempt to get any further stage of the Vagrant Act Amendment Bill beyond the second reading; but he was most anxious that the present unsatisfactory state of the law should be adequately amended; and if the Government did not undertake it, he intended to persevere till he could get an end put to the present scandalous condition of many of the principal thoroughfares of our garrison and seaport towns and the Metropolis.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—PREVENTION OF COLLISIONS AT SEA—THE REGULATIONS—ARTICLE 19.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board have received and considered the findings and
  768
  evidence of the inquiry held at New York by the British Consul, in the case of the collision between the Britannic and the Celtic; and, whether the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of farther amending the Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea, and especially of modifying Article 19, by which the use of distinctive blasts on the steam-whistle, to indicate the course of the vessel, is left optional, and of making more definite and stringent the Regulation as to the speed of steamships in a fog generally, and when the whistles of other vessels are heard?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have received the Report and Evidence referred to, and as a result of their consideration have issued a cautionary notice pointing out as follows:—
  "With reference to the recent collision between the steamships Britannic and Celtic, the Board of Trade desire to call the attention of shipowners and shipmasters to the wording of Article 19 of the Regulations for preventing collisions at sea—namely—
  "Article 19.—In taking any course authorized or required by these Regulations, a steamship under way may indicate that course to any other ship which she has in sight, by the following signals on her steam whistle—namely
  "One short blast to mean 'I am directing my course to starboard.'
  "Two short blasts to mean 'I am directing my course to port.'
  "Three short blasts to mean 'I am going full speed astern.'
  "The use of these signals is optional; but if they are used the course of the ship must be in accordance with the signal made.
  "By which it will be seen that these signals were never intended to be used during fog, but only in cases in which a steamship has another vessel in sight.
  "This case shows the great imprudence and danger of altering the course of a vessel to avoid another vessel which is not in sight, and whose position it is impossible correctly to determine.
  HENRY G. CALCRAFT, Secretary.
  THOMAS GRAY, Assistant Secretary.
  Board of Trade, Marine Department, July, 1887."
  Article 19 refers to optional sound signals, which may be made by one steamship to another ship which is in sight, and does not apply to signals in fog, unless the vessels are in sight of one another. As regards the speed of steamships in fog, the existing Article is as follows:—

  769
  " Every ship, whether a sailing ship or steamship, shall, in a fog, mist, or falling snow, go at a moderate speed."
  I am advised that the Rule which requires vessels to go at a moderate speed in fogs is sufficient if obeyed; and if the master of a vessel on hearing a signal from another vessel not in sight immediately gets the way off his vessel and does not alter his course. I am advised, further, that it would add to the dangers of navigation if any additions are made to the existing Rules, which would have the effect of leading masters of ships, on hearing signals from another ship in a fog, to alter their course before they can know the position as well as the course steered by the other vessel.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—DETENTION OF NEW SILVER COINS.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the following report, in The Evening Telegraph, of Dublin, of the 5th instant:—
  " On Monday a little boy presented some new silver coins at the Post Office, College Green. The coins were kept by the postmaster, who gave it as his opinion that they were bad. The boy was then taken to an office at the end of the building, and, after undergoing a cross-examination and giving the name and address of his father, he was released. The boy's father arrived at the post office shortly after the occurrence took place; but the postmaster refused to hand over the coins, or to have them tested in his presence. He stated, however, that 'the incident would be reported to the Postmaster General, who would, no doubt, take steps in the matter.' In the meantime, the coins were submitted to a jeweller in the neigh-bourhood, who stated that they were pure silver. The postmaster waited on the father of the boy, at his place of business, and delivered up the money in a battered condition. It is the intention of the boy's father to take legal steps to test the conduct of the Post Office officials;"
  whether the coins in question were some of the recently issued Jubilee coinage; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent innocent persons who may tender any of the new coinage from being subjected to such treatment in future?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, the coins in question were not those of recent issue, but two old threepenny bits. The boy who presented them was not detained longer than was necessary to inquire where he got them. Counterfeit coin has been frequently presented at the office at
  770
  College Green; and the counterwomen who, if they accept it, suffer the loss, have been more than once taken in. The appearance of these threepenny bits seems to have fully justified the officer in testing their genuineness, and he seems to have acted in as quiet and inoffensive a manner as was possible.

  POST OFFICE—THE JUBILEE DAY— DETENTION OF TELEGRAPHIST CLERKS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Postmaster General, how-many telegraphists, male and female, were employed on Jubilee day, and for how many hours overtime; whether only 200 clerks, out of a staff of over 2,000, were released from duty; and, what proportion are so released on Bank Holidays?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Although the hon. Member does not state to which office he refers, I presume that it is to the Central Telegraph Office in London, as in his former Question, which I answered on the 8th instant. On Jubilee day 1,540 telegraphists were on duty in that Office for various periods during the 24 hours. The number of hours' overtime performed was 1,381. Four hundred and forty-seven telegraphists had the full day's holiday; and 200, in addition, were absent on their ordinary annual holiday and on account of sick leave. On ordinary Bank Holidays it has generally been found possible to release about 250 telegraphists.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COURT HOUSES— ACCOMMODATION FOR PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the Report of the Committee on the accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial, Whether he is aware that some of the worst of the cases referred to in that Report were taken from the Ninth Report of the Commissioners of Prisons for the year ended 31st March, 1886; and, whether, having regard to the urgent importance of this matter, to the length of time since the Report of the Prison Commissioners, and to the fact that no evidence has yet been laid before the

  771
  House as to the action of Local Authorities, he will either re-consider his decision not to print the Correspondence between the Home Office and the Local Authorities on this subject, or else consent to lay a Memorandum upon the Table of the House briefly stating what has been done, or what engagements have been made by the Local Authorities as regards the worst cases referred to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, the correspondence with Local Authorities in reference to the accommodation for untried prisoners was still going on. Defects in some Court Houses had been remedied, and alterations were in progress in others, or under consideration. On the whole, it might be said that Local Authorities had the matter well in hand; and he hoped, before the Session closed, to present a Memorandum summarizing the result.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the great importance of completing the Lough Erne Drainage Works, the Government will favourably receive any application that may be made for the advance of a further sum of money necessary to finish the undertaking?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am informed that the application for an additional loan is at present before the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and until I receive their Report I cannot express an opinion upon the question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the answer of the hon. Gentleman, I wish to give Notice that I shall support the Bill for granting additional time and money for the completion of the Lough Erne drainage works, which I consider most necessary and calculated to do much good.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS—CARDIFF TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the omission by the Trustees of the Cardiff Savings Bank, year after year, of the sums in excess of £200 standing
  772
  to the credit of depositors, in the annual statement made by them to the National Debt Commissioners; whether the Government will, as far as practicable, correct any errors in amounts and totals in consequence of this omission in the next Return presented to Parliament; and, whether the Government will now state when the measure they have promised to introduce, in order to secure a full inquiry into this matter, will be laid before this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): My attention has been called to this omission; but I am afraid that the National Debt Commissioners have no legal power to do what the hon. Member wishes. They can only present the Returns furnished to them by the Trustees. In reply to the hon. Member's third Question, I have to say that the Bill is already drafted, and will be introduced in a few days.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the right hon. Gentleman could state the extent to which the omissions went, and whether they, in effect, invalidated the Returns?
  MR. GOSCHENremarked that the omissions from the Return were somewhat serious, and the Government were looking into the whole of the matter, which was one of very considerable importance.

  THE METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE— DEFICIENCY OF HORSES.
  MR. ISAACSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether attention will be given to the insufficiency of the number of horses kept at the Central Fire Brigade Establishment at Southwark, and the other fire engine stations in the Metropolis; and, what steps are proposed to be taken by the Board of Works to remedy the deficiency?
  MR. WEBSTER: Arising out of this Question, I beg to ask, whether the Government will give facilities for the discussion of a Bill relating to the Metropolitan Board of Works' Fire Brigade Expenses, which has been promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and which was introduced in 1884, in 1886, and also in the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Since my hon. Friend gave Notice of his Question the First Commissioner of Works has undertaken to inquire into the alleged insufficiency of horses in the Fire Brigade. With regard to the other Question, I must ask for Notice.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD—LOCAL ADMINISTRATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. SALTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in order to facilitate the passing of the Bill relating to Local Administration, he will, in addition to a Boundaries Commission, provide for inquiry by Royal Commission, or otherwise, concerning the indebtedness of Local Authorities, and also into the method of estimates, collection, and publication of accounts relating to local expenditure in all its branches?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): Information as to the indebtedness of the Local Authorities will be found in the Local Taxation Returns. The questions as to the arrangements for the estimates for and the collection of rates will necessarily be considered in connection with the Local Government Bill; but it does not appear to me that it will be requisite to provide for inquiry by a Royal Commission, or otherwise, as to these matters.

  POLICE FORCE ENFRANCHISEMENT ACT—REGISTRATION.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, under the provisions of the new Police Force Enfranchisement Act, police constables will be entitled to be placed on the Register this year?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): If the Question of the hon. Member refers to the Register which came in force on the 1st of January, 1887, police-constables are not entitled now to be placed upon the Register unless their names are already there. If their names are already upon the Register they will be entitled to vote. They will, in my opinion, be entitled to be placed upon the Register which will be the subject of revision in the autumn of this year, and which comes into force in the year 1888.

  THE NEW BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. HOBHOUSEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to confine the inquiries of the new Boundary Commission to the cases in which unions and other Local Government areas overlap counties, or will extend it to all cases of overlapping areas; and, whether he will consider the advisability of directing the Commissioners to prepare maps showing the various overlapping Poor Law, Highway, Sanitary, and Petty Sessional areas throughout the country, or in specimen counties, so as to provide Parliament with adequate information to deal, next Session, with the question of new Local Government areas?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): It is intended to limit the inquiry by the Boundary Commissioners to cases in which Unions, sanitary districts, and parishes overlap the county boundaries, and where municipal boroughs and urban sanitary districts are not conterminous. It is not at present proposed to direct the Commission to prepare maps of the several areas which, although overlapping each other, do not overlap the county boundary.

  MAURITIUS—SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If a decision has been arrived at in the case of Sir John Pope Hennessy with reference to his proceedings as Governor of Mauritius; whether he can now state it to the House; and, if it is intended to lay the Papers on the matter upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): After careful and anxious study of the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson—to whose ability and impartiality in conducting this painful inquiry I desire to bear testimony—after reading all the voluminous evidence given before him, after hearing Sir John Pope Hennessy's explanations for seven days, and reading the papers which he prepared in his defence, I have decided, though not without hesitation, that sufficient cause has not been shown to justify my advising Her Majesty to remove Sir John

  775
  Pope Hennessy from the office of Governor of Mauritius. With the permission of the House I will read the two concluding paragraphs of my despatch, which will be published in the Colony, and which I propose to lay on the Table of the House to-morrow—
  "I do not conceal from myself that much will depend upon the attitude and line of conduct which Sir John Pope Hennessy adopts on his return to the Colony; but I trust that this investigation will show him the absolute necessity of maintaining a strict impartiality, and of giving a careful consideration to the claims and interests of all persons, whether opposed to his policy or advocating it. I shall enforce upon him the necessity of working cordially with those who hold office under him, and of subordinating his own personal views, religious or political, to the general good of the Colony; and, on the other hand, I confidently expect that, notwithstanding all that has passed, those who hold office under him will in future give him a loyal and generous support.
  "If all parties meet in this spirit it may be hoped that the unfortunate differences which have so materially affected the welfare of the Colony may cease, and that general confidence in the Administration may he again restored. I have, &c."
  I am quite aware of the difficulty that must be felt in appreciating the full bearing of certain parts of this despatch, as reference is necessarily made in it to the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson; and I have carefully considered the question of laying other Papers before the House; but I have arrived at the conclusion, in which I trust the House will concur, that in the best interests of the Colony, and of all parties concerned, it is inexpedient to present more than my public despatch. In the course of this lengthened investigation charges were brought against officials and other persons which have not weighed with me in the consideration of the case, as to a great degree they were collateral to the main issues; but which it would be unfair to those persons to publish until they had had an opportunity of meeting them with denials or explanations. This fact in itself would render present publication undesirable; but I may add that I strongly deprecate publication, even at a later date, as it would tend to keep alive those differences and that bitterness of spirit which have unfortunately prevailed in the Colony, and which everyone must earnestly desire to remove who wishes for the peace and welfare of the Colony, and for a re-
  776
  turn of confidence in the Administration.
  MR. CHANCE: What about Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  MR. HANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that full justice will be done by the mere announcement of his decision; and is there any precedent for a decision of this kind being arrived at in camerâ by a Minister without full details being laid before the country?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I can only repeat the arguments I have already stated against the publication of Papers. I am not aware of any precedent upon this point. The case is a peculiar one; and my desire is to preserve, as far as possible, the peace of the Colony.
  MR. MUNDELLA: To whom is the despatch addressed?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: It is addressed to the officer administering the government of the Mauritius.
  SIR. GEORGE CAMPBELL: Do the allusions in the right hon. Gentleman's answer referring to the official cover Mr. Clifford Lloyd?
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I would respectfully suggest that hon. Gentlemen should read my despatch, which will be presented, I hope, to-morrow, before they ask any further Questions. I may add, however, as mention has been made of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that he will not return to the Mauritius.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Have the salutary admonitions contained in the right hon. Gentleman's despatch received the assent of the Cabinet, and will they also be addressed nearer home?
  [No reply.]

  CRIME (IRELAND)—STATISTICS, 1886.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House any particulars of information which support the statement made by him that the serious offences reported in Ireland for the year 1886 were 767 in number?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The statement that 767 serious offences occurred in 1886 is erroneous. I am not perfectly sure I made this statement;

  777
  but as it is reported in The Times [Mr. GLADSTONE: And other papers], and as I find that in the Memorandum from which I quoted the figures occur in another connection in close contiguity to the true figure, it is most probable that while hastily quoting in the course of my speech. I inadvertently read to the House the wrong number. The true number is 632, and this was the number which I had present to my mind in replying to the right hon. Gentleman, and was the number upon which I based my argument. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy himself of this if he refers to my speech, in which I summed up the argument thus:—
  "The contention of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to this—that in 1870 an amount of crime not much more than half what it is now was not to he tolerated; but that now, when this House has been occupied in passing measure after measure for the amelioration of Ireland, we are quietly to acquiesce in a state of things incomparably worse than the right hon. Gentleman supposed that he was justified in legislating for in 1870."
  The right hon. Gentleman will notice that if I based this argument upon the figures 767 which I inadvertently used I should have been able to say—and it would have been for the interest of my argument to say—that the amount of crime before 1870 was less than half what it is now, instead of saying that it was not much more than half.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— ARMS OF THE ENGLISH, IRISH, AND SCOTCH MILITIA.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for War, If the Irish Militia, armed with the Snider (Converted Enfield) rifle, have to compete in the inter-regimental rifle matches on the same footing as the English and Scotch Militia armed with the Martini-Henry; and, if so, whether any allowance will be made to the Irish Militia in consequence of their being armed with an inferior and practically obsolete weapon: and, whether there is any intention to arm the Irish Militia similarly to the English and Scotch?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The rifle matches referred to are not under the control of the War Office; but I am not aware that the Irish Militia is restricted in these matches to the use of an inferior weapon. Martini-Henry
  778
  rifles are ready for issue to the Irish Militia; but as the regiments are now, for the most part, out for training, the Military Authorities in Ireland prefer that the exchange of arms should not take place till this training shall have been completed.

  CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUMS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND)—COMPARATIVE PAY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the scale of pay and the scale of allowances is lower in the Irish than in the English Criminal Lunatic Asylums?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said he was unable to institute comparison as regards salaries between English and Irish Criminal Lunatic Asylums; but salaries were paid according to the circumstances of each asylum. With regard to Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, the pay of officials had been increased from time to time.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ORDINANCES IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will state to the House the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken with respect to the Contagious Diseases Ordinances in the Colonies and Possessions of this country, with the results of any action which they may have taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The Colonies in which Contagious Diseases Ordinances were in force in October last were Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbadoes, Labuan, Ceylon, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, Malta, and Fiji. In Jamaica, Trinidad, and Barbadoes, repealing laws have been passed, which have been confirmed. In Labuan the Ordinances have been suspended, and their repeal has been ordered. In Ceylon, Hong Kong, and the Straits Settlements the Governors have been directed to introduce measures repealing the Ordinances; but there has not yet been sufficient time to carry out the instructions. In the case of Malta, the Governor has been instructed to invite the Council to follow the example of the United Kingdom in

  779
  this matter. In Fiji, in view of the special circumstances affecting the health of the native population, and especially in consequence of the coolie immigration from India, I have decided not to press for the immediate repeal of the Ordinances. In the case of Gibraltar, where there is no Ordinance, the Governor has been directed to put an end to the system of the examination of women. In St. Helena the Ordinance of 1865 was allowed to lapse in 1879. I should add that I believe that there is no law or regulation on the subject in Mauritus; but the hon. Member having expressed his opinion that there is such a law, an inquiry was made by my Predecessor, to which no reply has yet been received. I will make further inquiry.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTER AT BORRIS-IN-OSSORY, QUEEN'S CO.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDasked the Postmaster General, Whether an emergency man named Thomas Tynan has been appointed to the office of postmaster at Borris-in-Ossory, Queen's County; whether Tynan is advanced in years, and is with difficulty learning the art of telegraphy; whether a number of suitable candidates, including the widow of a policeman, applied for the office, but were rejected; whether, before the appointment was sanctioned, a Memorial praying that a more suitable person might be selected was presented to the Department; whether this Memorial was signed by 155 householders, all residing in the district, including the parish priest, the Catholic curate, and two Poor Law Guardians; whether the prayer of the Memoralists was refused; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether he will inform the House on the recommendation of what persons residing in the locality the nomination was made?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): As I explained to the hon. Member on the 13th of May, the nomination to the appointment of postmaster at Borris-in-Ossory rests with the Lords of the Treasury, who nominated Thomas Tynan. I have no knowledge of the comparative merits of any other candidates, as all correspondence and Memorials on such subjects are referred to the Treasury. I made careful inquiry in regard to
  780
  Tynan's fitness, and I satisfied myself that there were not sufficient grounds for rejecting the nomination, and accordingly gave directions that it should be proceeded with.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALDsaid, as the appointment had been made, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the son of the postmaster, who had been convicted and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment for robbery, would not be permitted to take any part in the business of the local post office on behalf of his father?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman should have revived that story. For a very small theft the son had received the exemplary punishment of 15 months' imprisonment some years ago; and as he had left the country and was at present in California, he had no intention of returning to Ireland.

  WAR OFFICE—MEDICAL OFFICERS IN CORK BARRACKS.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the usual number of medical officers available for duty in the Cork Barracks; what was the number on the roll on the 30th of May; what is the daily number of patients occupying beds in the Cork Military Hospital; whether it is a fact that on or about the date mentionod the surgeons were only obliged to go on orderly duty every twelfth day; what is the usual term of rotation; and, what has hitherto been the usual complement of medical officers at that station?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The reduction in the troops in Egypt has resulted in a temporary excess of medical officers in various military districts, of which Cork is one, and all military medical officers not exclusively employed in. the station hospital are available for duty in barracks. The number on the roll at Cork on the 30th of May was 14, of whom two were on leave; and on the same date there were 80 sick in the station hospital. It is the practice to place one medical officer on orderly duty each day, so that with 12 officers available the turn of each would come round every 12th day. The usual term of rotation depends on the number of officers, which for Cork (exclusive of Cork Harbour) is eight.

  781
  The other officers, although not on duty, are all employed. I may add that, in consequence of the present temporary excess, admission to the medical staff has been suspended until the supernumeraries are absorbed.

  ADMIRALTY—THE COASTGUARD IN THE SOUTH OF IRELAND—H.M.S. "SHANNON."
  DR. TANNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is a fact that a number of coastguards, stationed in the South of Ireland, latterly received orders to join H.M.S. Shannon, as part of her crew, on the 5th instant; whether 21 of these men, coastguards from the Cork district, after answering the summons, on arriving on board were then informed their services were not required; whether these men's fares and return fares are to be paid by the Admiralty; and, what individual is responsible for the alleged blunder?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)in reply, said, H.M.S. Shannon had left port; and until she arrived again, in the course of a few days, no answer could be obtained to the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

  WAR OFFICE—THE GARRISON CHAPLAIN IN CORK.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the salary paid the Garrison Chaplin in Cork; whether it is a fact that the capitation pay of the Roman Catholic clergyman who officiates as chaplain only averages £80 per annum; whether a Protestant local parish clergyman receives £150 a-year for assisting the Protestant Garrison Chaplain; whether the duties to be performed by a clergyman in receipt of capitation pay include (in addition to the Sunday services) baptisms, churchings, and funerals, attending the sick in hospitals and reading prayers with the convalescents, giving special religious instruction to the children and drummers every week, and attending to the religious instruction and welfare of troops, including officers; whether the Roman Catholic Chaplain is expected to be, and has always been, a clergyman of standing and experience; whether the Roman Catholic Chaplains at Dublin, Buttevant, and Spike are exclusively employed in the performance
  782
  of similar duties, and what remuneration is given each of them; and, whether steps will be taken to give the Roman Catholic Chaplain to the Cork Garrison adequate pay, an allowance for quarters in vicinity of the barracks, and thus enable him to devote his exclusive attention to his duties as chaplain?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Church of England Garrison Chaplain at Cork is a commissioned chaplain, and as such receives 17?s. 6d. a day for pay, besides allowances. He is assisted by an officiating chaplain at £3 a week, who discharges the duties at Ballincollig and at the Military Prison, Cork. The officiating Roman Catholic clergyman is, under the Royal Warrant, paid by a capitation rate on the number of Catholics in the command. Last year the payment amounted to £82. There is also a Roman Catholic clergyman at Ballincollig, paid at capitation rates; and another at Cork Military Prison on £35 a-year. Officiating clergymen are appointed on the recommendation of the officer commanding at the station, and their duties are as stated in the Question. There are five Roman Catholic clergymen employed in Dublin, three on capitation rates, and two with £150 and £ 100 a-year respectively. At Buttevant the remuneration is by capitation, and in Spike Island the pay is £100 a-year. These clergymen are not exclusively employed.
  DR. TANNERasked, was it not a fact that the number of Roman Catholics varied according to the regiments stationed in Cork; and as the Roman Catholic clergyman was obliged to reside a considerable distance away would it not be better to give him a grant of money to enable him to live nearer the scene of his duties?
  [No reply.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—ORANGE PROCESSION FROM PORTADOWN.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that on Sunday the 10th July a number of Orangemen from Portadown proceeded to Drumoree Church near the town; whether they marched through the Catholic quarter of the town protected by police; whether during the service a

  783
  portion of the congregation who came out attacked the orchard of a respectable Catholic farmer, named Patrick O'Connor; whether he was subsequently attacked by the mob and severely injured; and, why was it that the police escort did not interfere to preserve law and order, and prevent the attack?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)in reply, said, he had caused local inquiries to be made, and had not yet received an answer.

  THE MAGISTRACY (ENGLAND AND WALES)—LIST OF NOMINEES FOR THE NEW BOROUGH BENCH.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a letter sent by the Lord Chancellor to the Town Clerk of West Ham, enclosing a list of gentlemen whose names, his Lordship says, have been submitted to him to form the new Borough Bench of Magistrates; by whom was such list submitted to the Lord Chancellor; and, whether, of the 14 names enclosed, only three are those of Liberals, and seven only those of residents in the borough?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, it was not a fact that only three of the 14 gentlemen whose names were submitted were Liberals. All the gentlemen were the occupiers of houses, warehouses, or other property in the Borough. There was no reason to suppose that politics had anything to do with the appointments made. It was not the practice of the Lord Chancellor to disclose the name of his informant in such matters.

  WALES—CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary to the Treasury, In what towns in Wales are Civil Service examinations held?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Candidates in open competitions are, under existing Regulations, examined in Wales for the following situations:—At Swansea, for situations as out-door officer of Customs; at Cardiff, for situations as assistants of Excise; at Pembroke, for appointments as Dockyard apprentices.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—INSANITARY CONDITION OF THE THAMES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the stench from the River Thames round the Isle of Dogs has, during the last few days, been almost intolerable; and, what steps he proposes to take to remedy this dangerous nuisance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the clerk to the Metropolitan Board of Works that no complaints have been made to the Board as to stench from the Thames round the Isle of Dogs; but that possibly the recent great heat and the absence of rain may have combined to render the state of the river less satisfactory than it should be. He further states that the Metropolitan Board is doing its best to deodorize the sewage at the outfalls, so that there may be no nuisance from that source. I have, on more than one occasion, directed the attention of the Board to this important subject, which is under their exclusive control.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked, whether it was not a fact that the sluices at the northern outfall were sometimes open before the tide ceased to flow, so that the sewage went up the river instead of down.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of the fact; I have furnished all the information which has been given to me.
  COLONEL MAKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes.

  POST OFFICE—CONVEYANCE OF MAILS TO AUSTRALIA AND THE EAST viâ CANADA.
  MR. MACLUREasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Government intends to afford any assistance and facilities for the conveyance of mails to Australia and the East by any Canadian route?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): All that I can at present say, in reply to my hon. Friend, is that I am in communication with my Colleagues on the subject, and that the matter is engaging the serious attention of Her Majesty's Go-

  785
  vernment. I need hardly add how much gratified I shall be if any arrangement for an improved mail service to Japan and China should be found practicable.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND)— THE ENNISTYMON UNION.
  MR. M. J. KENNY(for Mr. JORDAN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Correspondence and dispute between the Local Government Board of Ireland and the Board of Guardians of the Ennistymon Union, County Clare, in reference to, and arising out of, the appointment to the Protestant Episcopal Chaplaincy of the Ennistymon Workhouse of the Rev. J. J. Cooke, at a salary of £10 per annum, on his personal application, and in direct opposition to the remonstrances and Resolutions of the Board of Guardians of the Ennistymon Union of the 2nd June, 1885, 16th June, 1885, 11th July, 1885, 16th November, 1886, 14th December, 1886, 21st December, 1886, 4th January, 1887, and 31st May, 1887, and to the reply of the Local Government Board, by letter dated 27th July, 1885, refusing to take any steps at present to fill up the vacancy; whether he is aware that the grounds on which the Guardians insisted that no permanent chaplain should be appointed, and to which the Local Government Board then assented, were that there were no Protestants in their workhouse; that there were few in the union; that the services of the late chaplain during nine years were never called for; and that the Guardians proposed that, should it happen that any casual Protestant required clerical ministrations, they were prepared to pay the Rev. J. J. Cooke a capitation grant of 10 s. per head for his services; whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians have agreed with the Report of a Committee appointed by them condemning the appointment; and, whether, in view of the whole circumstances of the case, he will advise the Local Government Board to reconsider their recent action in this matter, with a view of annulling an appointment considered by the Board of Guardians to be a sinecure and an unnecessary tax on the ratepayers of their union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply,
  786
  said, he believed the facts were substantially as stated in the Question. The wish of the Guardians to pay for occasional services, instead of paying a fixed salary, was a very reasonable one; and the only reason why the Local Government Board declined to accede to it was that they were advised they had no legal powers to do so. As it appeared to him the Guardians were very reasonable in the matter he would make further inquiries.

  EXCISE (SCOTLAND)—ILLEGAL SEARCHING AT SLUMBAY.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, on the 8th of May last, the supervisor of the Lochcarron district, along with his men, and aided by the local police, forcibly entered and searched the house of David Poison, of Slumbay, without having a magistrate's warrant to do so; whether a warrant was granted for searching the house of Duncan Macdonald, Slumbay, on that date; whether, on the 14th May, a warrant was granted to search the houses of both these men; whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue Board has refused to censure its officer for this act of alleged illegality, and referred Poison to the Court of Session if he felt aggrieved; and, whether the Government will cause an inquiry into the matter?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The answer to the first and second questions is "No." A warrant, applicable to the premises of Duncan Macdonald, was obtained on the 7th of May, and the search was made there on that day. The answer to the third question is "Yes." No complaint was made to the Board of Inland Revenue, and the Board has not refused to censure its officers. The Board did not refer Poison to the Court of Session if he felt aggrieved The only communication received by the Board was from Poison's solicitor, stating that he was instructed to raise an action; and on receiving notice of the question inquiry was made, with the result stated.

  EGYPT—SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  787
  Affairs, Whether Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has yet received his final instructions to quit Constantinople; and, if so, for what day his departure stands fixed?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I can add nothing to the distinct statement which I made in answer to the hon. Gentleman last Tuesday. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff intends to leave Constantinople on Saturday next.
  MR. BRYCE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would give a more specific answer to the particular point of my Question, which is—Has Sir Henry Drummond Wolff now received his final instructions, or is it intended to give him fresh instructions?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I have stated to the House exactly how the matter stands. I have stated that it is not intended that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's stay shall be prolonged, and that he intends to leave on Saturday. To ask any further Question on the point is pressing me rather unduly.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before the Diplomatic Vote is taken in Supply, can the right hon. Gentleman furnish the House with the total expenditure connected with this Mission?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am afraid I cannot furnish the House with a more definite statement than that which I gave the other night, because the accounts of the last half-year will not be audited by that time. I have stated to the House that the accounts up to the end of last year amounted to £22,500; and we have reason to believe that up to the present time the expense will not be more than £800 a-month.
  MR. BRYCE: As I have no desire to press my right hon. Friend unduly, perhaps he will allow me—and perhaps the House will allow me—to say that I now understand him to mean—[Cries of "Order!"]—I only ask—I now understand him to mean that he has instructed Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to leave on Saturday?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I must ask my hon. Friend to understand simply what I have already said, and which is perfectly clear.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ORANGE POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Post Office officials in Ireland are prohibited from taking part in Orange political meetings; and, if not, whether the Government will cause this to be done?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Question is not one for the Irish Government. It would be more properly put to the Postmaster General.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to put the Question to the Postmaster General.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Officers in the Post Office are prohibited from exerting their influence either for or against any political candidate for election as a Member of Parliament; but no prohibition against their being present at ordinary political meetings has hitherto been enforced. If any complaint were made in respect to such conduct on their part in any particular case, he should be guided in his action by the consideration of the character and objects of the meeting.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is open for Post Office officials to attend Orange political demonstrations for the purpose of insulting the Catholic and National portion of the population; and if it is not open to officials to do so, whether he will inquire into the case of a Post Office official, Creswell, at Enniskillen, who turned up in Orange regalia at an Orange meeting and joined in insulting the Catholic and National people?
  MR. RAIKES: I will be happy to make inquiries in any particular case if the hon. Gentleman gives me the particulars.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I shall give the particulars to the right hon. Gentleman.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE BOLTON RIOTS—IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN LABOUR.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether information has reached him that the Bolton

  789
  riots were caused through the importation of foreign labour, in competition with British workmen; if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation on the subjects?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have no information that the strike was caused by the importation of foreign labour; but I have reason to believe that some irritation has since been caused by the arrival in the town of labourers from a distance. The Government are considering the question of the importation of foreign paupers, and that will involve the consideration of the question of the importation of foreign labour.

  LAW AND POLICE—ARREST OF MISS CASS—MR. NEWTON, MARLBOROUGH STREET POLICE COURT.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he will be in a position to inform the House of the decision of the Lord Chancellor on the conduct of Mr. Newton in the hearing of the charge made against Miss Cass at the Marlborough Street Police Court, on the 29th of June; and, whether the Lord Chancellor has been furnished with a copy of the evidence taken before Sir Charles Warren, so far as it relates to what took place in the police court and the conduct of Mr. Newton?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Lord Chancellor thinks it would be very inconvenient at the present time to say more than that he is carefully inquiring into the matter, and that his decision will be communicated as soon as it is arrived at. He is also unwilling, during the progress of the inquiry, to make any statement as to the sources of information which he considers it desirable to consult.
  MR. CONYBEAREalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, pending the inquiry into the case of Miss Cass, it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to take any action with regard to the position of Mr. Newton, the police magistrate?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Lord Chancellor is of opinion that it would be impossible for him to determine as to any action to be taken before his own inquiry is complete. I am unable to say whether he will think it necessary to
  790
  await the result of the inquiry into the conduct of the police constable.
  MR. CONYBEAREwanted to know whether there was any reason why the superior people should not be suspended as well as the inferior—in other words, if the police constable was suspended, why not the magistrate?
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he knew of no reason. He had endeavoured to answer the Question on the Paper.

  SCOTCH FISHERY BOARD—THE REPORT—BEAM-TRAWLING IN ABERDEEN BAY.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, When the Annual Report of the Scotch Fishery Board, now upon the Table, will be printed; and, whether he is aware that the Aberdeen Bay was opened for beam-trawling on the application of one St. Andrews trawler and a single Company in Grantown only, notwithstanding the unanimous remonstrance of all practical line fishermen in the Aberdeen district? I would also ask the Lord Advocate, as arising out of his answer to another Question, if he does not answer in this House for the Secretary of Scotland, who does?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Report is in the hands of the printers, and I am unable at present to say how soon it will be ready for circulation; but I hope the delay will not be long. In regard to the second part of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 4th of July, when he asked the reasons why the bye-law prohibiting trawling in Aberdeen Bay was revoked. In reference to the last Question of the hon. Member, my reason for not answering any Question about neglect of duty by the Secretary for Scotland is that I do not think it would be becoming in me, as a junior official to him, to enter into such a matter. As such junior official, it is also not my duty to state who is to answer Questions in reference to such fault imputed to the Secretary for Scotland.

  BURMAH—THE RUBY MINES.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware of the date

  791
  of the permit granted by Mr. Crosthwaite to Mr. Streeter, junior, to enter and work the Ruby Mines; whether he will inform the House of the date when Mr. Crosthwaite's Report that he had issued such permit was received at the India Office; whether he will cause an investigation to be made among the officials of the India Office to ascertain the truth, or otherwise, of the current statement that certain of these officials possessed a knowledge of the fact that such permit had been issued prior to the 7th July instant; and, whether he is aware of the names of the persons interested with Mr. Streeter, junior, in the aforesaid permit, and will place the House is possession of this information?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Secretary of State is not aware of the exact date of the permit granted to Mr. Streeter, junior. It does not, however, appear to be a permit to enter and work the mines, but to dig for rubies on the old system without the use of machinery. Mr. Crosthwaite's Report was received on Friday, July 8, after office hours. I read it to the House on Tuesday, as I was absent from the House on Monday. The Secretary of State, on seeing the Question, made inquiry, but cannot learn that there is any foundation whatever for the statement as to the officials of the India Office. The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the persons interested with Mr. Streeter in the permit. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that the Papers have only just arrived at the India Office; and I hope the House will not expect me to reply to any Question which is not in the interests of the Public Service.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that Papers dated as far back as January and February, 1886, have only just arrived at the India Office?
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is rather a matter of debate than a Question. Negotiations in connection with these matters have been going on with the local Government in Burmah for a great number of months past; and the whole matter, as I have repeatedly explained, has now been referred to the Secretary of State in Council for their decision. Papers will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days, and then would
  792
  be the time for the hon. Member to raise any objection.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I raised no question of debate. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was a fact that Papers dated January and February, 1886, had only just arrived?
  [No reply.]

  THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE—MEDALS FOR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many medals are to be provided for the Metropolitan Police; and, what is the estimated cost?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, that the number of medals to be distributed would be between 13,000 and 14,000. The estimated cost had not yet been finally settled with the Mint Authorities.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether the Metropolitan Police Fund was not partly made up from public taxes and partly from Metropolitan rates; and, if so, by what authority it was proposed to use part of that fund to buy Jubilee medals?
  MR. MATTHEWSasked for Notice of the Question.

  RUSSIA—ARREST OF MR. DILLON, A BRITISH SUBJECT, IN ODESSA.
  MR. DILLONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information in relation to the arrest of Mr. Dillon, a British subject, in Odessa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No information has been received at the Foreign Office in respect to such an arrest.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiries, because the gentleman referred to telegraphed to me yesterday asking me to bring his arrest before the House?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: If the hon. Gentleman lets me know the particulars of the case I will inquire into it. The Foreign Office is not informed of the arrest of any British subject in a foreign country unless there is something peculiar in the case.

  STREET IMPROVEMENTS (METROPOLIS)—STEPS OF ST. MARTIN-IN- THE FIELDS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has approved the plan promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works for altering the steps of the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, that no such plans had been submitted to him by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he was not aware of any such plan at present. He had no authority whatever in the matter.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—APPOINTMENT IN THE PROBATE COURT, MANCHESTER.
  MR. MACLUREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that Mr. A. B. Stallman Bridgeman, a late clerk in the London Registry of the Probate Court, has been appointed by Sir James Hannen to the office of Registrar of the District Registry of the Probate Court at Manchester; whether there are solicitors in Manchester capable of filling the office competently, and more, if a solicitor were not to be appointed, whether there was already a fully competent official of 30 years' experience on the spot having the requisite statutory qualifications and the full confidence of the profession in and about the neighbourhood of Manchester; whether the Registrar of the Probate Court at Manchester has to assist the Registrar of the High Court; and, whether Mr. A. B. S, Bridgeman has the necessary qualifications therefor?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir James Hannen has not appointed Mr. A. B. Stallman Bridgeman to the office of District Probate Registrar at Manchester; but he has appointed Mr. Bridgeman Simpson, a late clerk in the London Probate Registry. The appointment was made because Sir James Hannen considered Mr. Bridgeman Simpson the fittest man he could select, having regard to Mr. Simpson's long experience in the London Office. It was considered that this experience would enable him better to discharge
  794
  the duties than a solicitor or the chief clerk in the District Registry. If Mr. Simpson should have to assist the Registrar of the High Court Sir James Hannen has no doubt that he will be found to have the necessary qualifications.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— "SOLICITATIONS" IN THE PUBLIC STREETS.
  MR. M'LARENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements, made by Mr. Willey, of the firm of Howell and James, at the meeting of Regent Street shopkeepers, held on 7th July:—
  "But, if you are going to deal with this question, it is impossible to restrict your attention to one sex only. It was not the women, but the men, who were the cause of most of the evil in Regent Street. It was a shame the way in which innocent women and girls were hunted through the streets by well-dressed scoundrels. A case had occurred, within his own knowledge, in which a virtuous and respectable young girl was tracked from Regent Circus to Charing Cross Station by a man who persistently molested her until she reached Charing Cross, where her brother was waiting for her; there was another case, in which a young employé of his had been tracked down the street to his place of business by 'a perfect gentleman;'"
  whether it is known to the authorities that cases of solicitation and annoyance by men against perfectly respectable women, in all ranks of life, are of every day occurrence, and that they cannot be punished, because solicitation by a man is not an offence against the law; and, whether the Government will bring in and press a Bill to make the law against solicitation equal for men and women?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am afraid that cases such as those described do occur in very large towns and escape punishment because of the difficulty that has always been felt in framing any law to meet the evil. Even in the case of women, solicitation is not an offence. The law only strikes at the public nuisance of a common prostitute exercising her calling in public thoroughfares to the annoyance of inhabitants or passengers. The Government are most desirous to abate the grave scandal to which attention has been drawn, and are considering whether it would be practicable to institute legislation against

  795
  solicitation, by either men or women, for immoral purposes in the public streets. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware of the failure of the attempted legislation of 1885; but that will not in the least discourage the Government in their present attempts.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL— LEGISLATION.
  MR. SALTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he intends to proceed further with the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill; and, if so, whether he intends also to introduce and to pass a Lunacy Law Consolidation Bill during the present Session, since considerable inconvenience may arise from the addition of many new and important provisions to the Statute Law without a general consolidation of the laws relating to lunacy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, it would be a matter for great regret if the Bill did not pass this Session; but it was in the hands of the House.

  THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE—ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY FROM THE LADIES OF THE PRIMROSE LEAGUE.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following announcement in The Morning Post of the 11th July:—
  " The Primrose League.
  "The Duchess of Marlborough, as acting President of the Executive Committee of the Ladies' Grand Council of the Primrose League, had the honour of an audience of the Queen at Windsor Castle, on Thursday last, to present to Her Majesty the subjoined congratulatory address:—
  "'To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
  "'May it please Your Majesty, we, the members of the Ladies' Grand Council of the Primrose League, humbly approach Your Majesty and crave permission respectfully to tender our loyal and dutiful congratulations on the auspicious completion of the 50th year of your glorious reign.
  '''We earnestly pray that it may please Almighty God long to spare Your Majesty to the many and various races of your vast Empire, which have so greatly prospered under your beneficent rule.
  '"Signed on behalf of the said Ladies' Grand Council by the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and members of the Executive Committee;'"
  and, whether it is in accordance with Constitutional usage for addresses to
  796
  be received from recognized Political Associations?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is quite in accordance with Constitutional usage for all Associations, political or otherwise, to present addresses of congratulation to Her Majesty, provided that no debatable or contentious political matter is introduced into such addresses. Numerous examples of such addresses from Associations of all shades of politics have occurred. No exception could be taken to the language of the address from the Primrose League.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote any single precedent to justify his statement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour to furnish the hon. Gentleman with examples.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will make arrangements for suspending the third reading of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill in the other House of Parliament until opportunity shall have been afforded to that House of discussing and deciding upon any Amendments which may be made to the Irish Land Law Bill by the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am unable to enter into any arrangement with the right hon. Gentleman of the character suggested.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE BROOKE ESTATE, COOLGREANY, CO. WEXFORD.
  MR. DILLON: On Tuesday I asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention had been directed to the burning of a house during the evictions on the Brooke estate? I wish, as a further Question on the same matter, to ask him, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the letter of a correspondent in The Pall Mall Gazette this evening, that—
  "Pat Grennell, the tenant, swore that he was concealed in his own house when he heard a voice say three times, 'Put the match to it,' and that, being then in fear of being burnt alive,

  797
  he cried 'Police,' and that police came and dragged him out. Robert Hart swore that while concealed in the orchard, 12 yards from the house, he saw Captain Hamilton go through the motion of rubbing a match upon his leg, then step upon some old timber, lift the edge of the thatch, insert something, press the thatch down again, and that a few seconds afterwards fire burst out from the place. Matthew Curran swore the same, so did Bartholomew Kavanagh, and several witnesses heard a constable exclaim with an oath, 'Hamilton has set fire to the house;'"
  whether these facts occurred before the Sheriff had taken possession of the house; and whether, in spite of this testimony, Captain Slacke, R.M., said the Government would not prosecute, and would not issue a warrant for the arrest of Captain Hamilton?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If the hon. Gentleman had given me any Notice of this Question I would have brought down the actual words of the information in the telegram I have received on this subject. I understand there wag no injury done and no hardship inflicted by the burning of the house on any individual; and it was not known whether the burning was the result of accident or not. With regard to the authority which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, if the correspondent is the same gentleman who was correspondent for The Pall Mall Gazette at Bodyke, the fact of his holding a certain opinion is no ground why it should be entertained by anybody else.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman says there was no hardship inflicted on any individual by the burning of the house. He has not answered my Question, whether the house burned was the tenant's house, and whether the Sheriff had taken possession? He has cast doubt on the credibility of my witness; but he has abstained from answering the Question. ["Order!"] Surely I am entitled to an answer to a Question on a very important matter. I ask him whether it is true, as stated by this correspondent, that these men came forward, and are prepared to swear to the facts I have read; and that the Resident Magistrate refused to give an opportunity to investigate the matter, and stated the Government would not prosecute?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gave the hon. Member all the information in my power; he gave me no Notice, and,
  798
  therefore, I cannot supplement the answer. I must point out, however, that, as in the case of Bodyke, a large number of pure fabrications were sent over to this country—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: What were they?]—and Questions asked about them in the House of Commons, and as even the most ingenious Resident Magistrate cannot foresee what particular story will be the subject of inquiry, it is impossible, without Notice, for those responsible in this House for the conduct of Irish affairs to keep themselves abreast of every Question which hon. Gentlemen may ask. But if the hon. Member will put down his Question I will endeavour to make myself acquainted with the facts.
  MR. DILLON: I will put the Question down for Monday.
  MR. COX: The right hon. Gentleman has said the reports that came from Bodyke were fabrications. I wish to say that I was all through the eviction campaign and that every one of them was true.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the stories were more a fabrication than the story of the Galway midwife?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked, if the Government could state, presuming that the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill would be got rid of to-night, what Estimates would be taken in Supply, and whether a Vote on Account would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. H. SMITH): Assuming that the Irish. Land Law Bill is read a second time to-night, it is intended to proceed with Supply to-morrow at a Morning Sitting, and to ask for a Vote on Account for the remaining Civil Service Votes. It is absolutely necessary that we should obtain a Vote on Account for these Services without further delay. It is then intended to proceed with Supply—the ordinary Civil Service Supply—tomorrow at the 9 o'clock Sitting. It is proposed to take the Navy Estimates on Monday next; to deal with Supply on Tuesday and Wednesday; and to go

  799
  into Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill on Thursday; so that there will be an interval of a week for hon. Gentlemen, if they think fit, to put down Amendments.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he could lay on the Table that evening his proposals with regard to the glebe purchasers and the purchasers under the "Bright Clauses" of the Land Act of 1881, so that the Irish Members might have an opportunity of consulting the people in Ireland who were interested in these matters?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he could not put the proposals down for a few days; but would do so as soon as possible.

  EGYPT—SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Vote on Account would cover the current expenses of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Vote on Account must make provision for the Civil Services for a month or five weeks; but I am not aware whether it will include the current expenses of the Mission. But, under any circumstances, there will be a substantive Vote on the Mission—within a very short interval of time—when the subject to which the hon. Member refers can be raised.
  In reply to Mr. BRYCE,
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)said, it was impossible, without reference to the Account Department, to say whether the Vote for Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission was exhausted or not; but he certainly would inform the First Lord of the Treasury before the Vote on Account came on.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would endeavour to give the House as much information as he could in the course of the evening; but it was not possible to give an answer off-hand to the Question.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  MR. BURTasked, when this Bill would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he was under an engagement not to take the Bill on Friday. It might be done; but he promised the hon. Member to give good Notice of the day on which the Bill was proposed to be taken, with the view of concluding the Committee on the Bill. He hoped hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the meausure would confer with the Home Secretary with the view of decreasing the number of Amendments on the Bill, and so save the time of the House.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, Whether the Government had definitely abandoned the idea of introducing the Employers' Liability Bill this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not in a position to say so.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL—THE DEBATE OF JULY 12—CORRECTION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, when he spoke in the debate on the Irish Land Law Bill, he mentioned that, along with the hon. Member for South Derry (Mr. Lea), he received a Resolution in favour of the second reading of the Irish Land Law Bill from the Ulster Tenants' Defence Association. He received the Resolution just before entering the House; but he now found that it was from a Special Committee, composed mainly of prominent members of that Association, and not from the Association itself.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]
  (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  IRISH LAND LAW BILL [Lords]. [BILL 308.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time,"
    And which Amendment was,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, taking into view the circumstances set forth in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1886 on the Land Acts of 1881 and 1885, and the recommendations of that Commission, is of opinion that no Bill for amending the Laws relating to Land in Ireland can he satisfactory which shall not provide, not only for entitling leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act of 1881, but also for affording such means for the revision of the judicial rents under that Act, as will meet the exigencies created by the heavy fall in agricultural values since the passing of the Act,"—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, as I have not ventured this Session to address the House at any length, or, indeed, at all with any observations on Irish affairs, and finding the House once more in consideration of the Irish Land Question—which is to me not altogether unfamiliar ground—I hope I may, without undue presumption, ask the indulgence of the House for a brief period while I offer some observations on the subject. In the first place, I would make, with some boldness, this proposition, that we have, in our dealings with Irish land, arrived at a very critical period. We have before us an opportunity, which Parliament may or may not be able to avail itself of; but it does appear to me that we have arrived at a point where the roads seem to part, and where it is possible for Parliament to follow the road of inaction, or of failure to legislate with regard to the Irish Land Question—a road which, I believe, will lead to immeasurable tumult and immeasurable disorder in Ireland—a state of things in which the last state of Ireland will be worse than the first. Or we may be able to follow now a road which, if wisely followed and adhered to, might lead to the amelioration and to a vast improvement of agricultural affairs in Ireland. In these matters, we should be careful to avoid, as far as possible, unnecessary conflict; and it is for that reason—viewing the situation in Ireland at the present moment and the surrounding circumstances—that I respectfully, but
    802
    very earnestly, deprecate the Amendment which has been brought before the House by the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). It appears to me that that Amendment raises altogether a false issue, and does what I both deplore and deprecate—that is, it raises unnecessary conflict, and it forces Parties in this House to range themselves on this question in sharp opposition; and I fancy the general disposition of the House to be not to so range itself. What is the principle of the Bill? On that principle, I imagine, there will be considerable agreement. I take that principle to be this—that it is absolutely necessary in the interests of Ireland and of the United Kingdom generally that relief should be afforded by legislation to the tenants of Ireland, and that that relief should take the form of remedying those defects and applying those shortcomings which have been proved, and are admitted to be proved, to exist in the working of the Land Act of 1881. I will make one general assumption, which will be the foundation of all that will follow in what I say. It may be considered a large assumption. I think it is undeniable that there is a general desire among all Parties to find some way, if possible, of coming together in order to ameliorate the condition of the Irish tenants. That, I take it, is the position of the Government; and I say it is absolutely certain that it must be the desire of the Government. It is absolutely idle, and seems to me almost extravagant to impute to the Government bad motives, want of intentions, and want of bona fides in this matter. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if there is any method conceivable to the mind which would more alleviate the anxieties of the Government, and more remove difficulties from their path, than legislation that might be satisfactory to the Irish tenants. I come now to the regular Opposition, and I cannot for a moment suppose that it would be disagreeable to them—on the contrary, I think it would be agreeable—that the defects and shortcomings of that great Act of 1881, where those defects are proved, should be remedied and settled in a manner agreeable to the wishes of the Irish tenantry. Well, then, I come to the Irish Party; and of this I am perfectly certain, that whatever may be

    803
    their views with regard to the future government of Ireland, whatever may be their views as to the nature of the treatment which that question has received from this side of the House, still, when they remember how critical is the condition amongst the tenants of Ireland, and how greatly the Irish tenantry are supposed to be in their charge and under their protection they will dismiss from their minds every thought but one—how they can extract from the general wisdom and desire of Parliament such a settlement as may improve the condition of those whom they think look for protection and support. Therefore, I do not think it is an extravagant proposition when I say that the foundation of my observations will be that there is a general desire on the part of the House to provide a satisfactory settlement of this matter—a Parliamentary settlement of this matter, rather than by a Party settlement. That being so, I pause for one moment to allude to the attitude of the Irish Members, as it seems to be supplied in the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) on Tuesday; and I would address, in view of what I have already said, a remonstrance to the hon. Member with regard to a certain line of observation which he made. He quoted from Lord Salisbury's speech a passage in which Lord Salisbury invited from all quarters comments, advice, and Amendments—[Mr. DILLON: Stated that he had invited.] Yes; but the hon. Member said that Lord Salisbury did not invite comments and advice from the Irish Members. Well, I can see nothing in the speech of Lord Salisbury on this question, and I am sure there was nothing in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) the other night, that should give any cause whatever for the hon. Member to suppose that the advice and opinions of the Irish Members on the Irish Land Question would not be received with attention by the Government. I am sure of this, though I do not profess to have any knowledge whatever of the feelings of the Government, except what I have gathered from their attitude and their speeches in this House, that, whatever the feelings of the Government may be on the matter, I am quite certain that there are very many Members on this side of the House who are not
    804
    prepared to allow the heated controversies upon this great question in which we have been engaged to disturb their minds to such an extent as to prevent them from hearing with attention, and receiving with all care and consideration, the opinions and proposals for the relief of the Irish tenants which may emanate from those whose authority and experience on the subject qualify them to offer suggestions to Parliament. At the same time, I am bound to say this—that I think it is only due to the House and to themselves that the Irish Members should, on this very difficult question, make suggestions of a much more definite character than any which they have yet made to the House. There is one very disagreeable and gloomy feature in the situation, and that is the time of year at which we have arrived. Now, this is the situation. "We have, it seems to me, reached a period of the year at which anything like prolonged controversy has become almost impossible. There is an absolute necessity for the Government—a necessity even in limine—to legislate on the aubject of Irish land before the Session closes. That necessity is imposed upon them, not only by their pledges, but by their official responsibilities. I can imagine no more terrible and odious task than for the Irish Government to have to administer the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, which has passed through this House, and is now in the other House of Parliament, unless the administration of it is made easier by the passing of a measure for the redress of the grievances of the Irish tenants; and, therefore, even having regard to the administration of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill itself, it is almost absolutely and imperatively necessary for the Government now to legislate on the subject of Irish land; yet I admit that I think that the Government are to be commended for having adhered so frankly and faithfully to the pledges which they gave some time ago with respect to the settlement of the question, because one could hardly imagine a stronger temptation than that which is presented to a Government to shirk a labour of this kind at this time of the year, and to delay the fulfilment of their pledges. But that temptation has been resisted, and for that, I think, some measure of praise

    805
    is due to the Government. But while this imperative necessity for legislation on the Irish Land Question exists, another inexorable fact imposes a limit upon our legislation on the matter, and that is the period of the Session which we have reached. We have come to a time of the Session when, I assert with considerable confidence, it is not within the range of physical possibility that hotly contested and hotly opposed legislation should be carried through Parliament. The legislation which Government can carry through Parliament at this time of the year may be beneficial in the highest degree, but I think it must be legislation in its nature and essence, founded upon the consent and agreement of all Parties; and it does not appear to me possible for the majority of this House, with regard to the question of Irish land, or, perhaps with regard to any other legislative question, to impose its will upon a strongly resisting minority. But I am not at all clear that it would be advisable to do so, even if it were possible. Perhaps the great fault of the Land Act of 1881 and the origin of all the difficulties under it, arises from the fact that it was forced upon the Conservative minority and also upon the Irish minority by the great strength of the Liberal Party of that day. Therefore, whether having regard to what is physically possible, or to what is politically expedient, legislation as to the Irish Land Question must, as far as possible, be founded upon the agreement and consent of all Parties in this House. May I then be allowed to examine very cursorily and very rapidly the clauses of the Bill in the light of the reasonable probability which exists as to that general assent and agreement being arrived at, And I do not hold that I am departing from the custom of the House in giving a cursory examination to the clauses of the Bill, viewing them collectively and separately, as the second reading is practically the only occasion on which such an examination can be made by a Member of Parliament. If, then, I glance as rapidly as I can at the clauses in order to discover the possibility of agreement, I find as follows:—The 1st clause received a good deal of approval from the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), both of whom are specially tenants' Representatives; but
    806
    both of them object to the restriction upon Clause 1. I find no difficulty whatever in agreeing with those hon. Members in their objection to those restrictions. In agreeing with their objection, I am only agreeing with many Irish landlords and Members of the House of Lords; and as we have it now admitted that a great mistake was made in the Land Act of 1881 by excluding leaseholders from the operation of that Act, I think that our reparation for that mistake should be full and complete. And as a reparation we should not endeavour to mar the effect of this Bill, or to spoil its general operation by restrictions which do not seem to rest on any strong or solid ground. If you are redressing grievances among the people, there is no greater mistake than the one which this House has often made, but which I hope in this instance it will cease to make, to give with one hand and to withhold with another; and I am told on high authority that if the restrictions on Clause 1 are maintained by Parliament, the effect would be to exclude almost half of the leaseholders of Ireland from the operation of the Bill. That, I believe, would certainly not fulfil the intention of Parliament, or of the Government; and I feel confident that after discussion in this House and in Committee there will be no difficulty in arriving at agreement on that point—at least, I cannot imagine why there should be any. Then, as to Clause 2, that is altogether approved by hon. Members opposite, and to Clause 3 much the same remark applies. Now we come to Clause 4. Here I differ from a Gentleman of great authority, the hon. Member for South Tyrone; but I am not impressed with the benefits of Clause 4. I have the greatest possible doubt whether that clause will work in the way that I am certain the Government wish it to work. I am aware that the defence of that clause by the Government is not only an honest and a genuine, but a very plausible defence; but, at the same time, I should greatly fear to entrust, not to Irish landlords, but to their land agents and attorneys, the powers that would be given by that clause. I would only put one question to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on this point. I put it especially to him, because I understand that he will represent the Government

    807
    in the debate to-night, and because I know to my certain knowledge that he is more acquainted with Irish matters than any of the Colleagues who sit round him. Surely it is within the knowledge of many hon. Members opposite, and of many on this side of the House, that the First Lord of the Treasury has for years paid a close attention to the Irish Land Question. Therefore, I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman that he may judge, in the only way that he can, not only as to the merits, but the dangers of Clause 4. What would the state of Ireland be at the present moment if, in the course of the last autumn and winter, Clause 4 had been the law of the land? I have little doubt that the state of things would have been this—that one-quarter, or perhaps one-half, of the tenantry of Ireland would have been caretakers at present; and the great remissions of rent which have been made by the landlords would probably not have been made, because of the irresistible pressure that would have been put upon them by their agents or their attorneys if Clause 4 of this Bill had been the law. The state of things would have been appalling, and such as one dreads to contemplate. Whether the First Lord of the Treasury agrees with me in that or not, it is evident that Clause 4 will be hotly opposed, and would lead to protracted controversy. I could not, therefore, find it in my power to condemn severely any protracted opposition to the clause, which seems to me to come within that category of legislation which it is not in the limits of physical possibility to proceed with at this period of the year. For that reason alone, I would counsel the Government again to examine with great closeness and minuteness the operation of the clause, and take advice from disinterested quarters, and, if possible, to lighten the Bill—as they undoubtedly will to a most considerable extent—by omitting that clause from the Bill altogether. The First Lord of the Treasury will observe that Clause 4 is a very long clause. It takes up two whole pages of the Bill. Therefore, my advice to him is to come to a conclusion with regard to it, and I think my advice is really practicable, when I counsel that the Government, if they possibly can come to that conclusion, should withdraw it. I now come to Clause 5, as to which there is no oppo-
    808
    sition, and which is a beneficial clause. Clause 6 also excites no opposition, but as to which the hon. Member for South Tyrone, with a great deal of justice, urged the extension of its operations. I do not think that this is a matter which will excite prolonged controversy in the House. It may be carried out without exciting Party heat. Clauses 7 up to 19 are clauses connected with the purchase of land, and I do not imagine that these clauses will excite any hostility at at. As to Clause 19 I have a word to say. I object to it, not on the grounds put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but for economical reasons. I suppose that in it you take powers to strengthen the Court of Appeal. I am not taking objection to that. You propose to add three new Members to the Court. Well, I suppose the object is to enable the Court of Appeal to overtake the arrears of appeals which come before it. But what do I find in Ireland? I find arrears of official business which ought to be dealt with undoubtedly; but, looking at it from a purely economic view, I think it is very advisable that the arrears should not be allowed to accumulate, but they ought to be dealt with by the present judicial staff, which is now largely underworked and largely over-manned. I feel strongly about it, and I say this—if you have judicial arrears you ought to apply your judicial staff which is underworked and over-manned, and your appointments of three or four new men will be unnecessary. And another thing to be considered in this connection is, that you will relieve the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government and Dublin Castle from the task, which they cannot undertake without exciting the greatest amount of criticism and hostility. I do not believe also that it is in the power of this Front Bench, or of that Front Bench if they were in Office, to strengthen the Court of Appeal by fresh appointments from one political Party or the other, without calling down upon either Party the fiercest condemnation from rival Parties in Ireland. I urge the Government, therefore, to consider whether, in the amending of this clause, they cannot make a considerable saving in utilizing the superfluous and superabundant strength of the Irish Judicial Bench. So much for Clause 19. Now, I come to a clause which gives me a little pleasure—Clause 20; and here I

    809
    really cannot refrain from giving a little nudge and a pinch to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I think, must have slumbered soundly when the clause was put into the Bill. I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer's special attention to it. I invite him to contrast it with the sub-section introduced into the Land Act of 1881. I invite him to estimate the total amount of unnecessary charge which it will put on the public. When he has done that, then I am perfectly certain that I have said all that is necessary, and that he, being the vigilant guardian of the public purse, will come down to the House and propose himself to omit Clause 20 from the Bill. It is unnecessary to detain the House on that point. I come next to Clause 21, and I again advise the Government to reconsider their position with regard to this clause; because I believe that if they do consider that position, they will come to the conclusion that they will do more injustice than justice by pressing the clause. I expect you will find, in cases where an Irish landlord has lands unlet, in innumerable cases it will be impossible to relieve him from the charges of management, and if you cannot relieve him you have no right to relieve him from the rates for local expenses. But I wish to remind the Government, and especially the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the Skye landlords were in almost an analogous difficulty to the Irish landlords. In many cases they got no rent for their farms for a very long time, and when they thought of refusing to pay the local rates, not only did the Government come down upon the Skye landlords with all the powers of the law, but they were told that the proposal to relieve them from the rates was perfectly ridiculous and absurd. They were ordered to pay them, or to submit to the penalty of non-payment. I see no reason why you should extend to the Irish landlords a totally different and a much more favourable treatment than was extended to the Skye landlords, and only a very short time ago. As to this Clause 21,I would say that it seems to be a clause which is likely to excite such long discussion, and to arouse such strong opposition, that unless the Government are of opinion that its provisions are absolutely dictated by the highest possible principles, they would
    810
    do wisely to omit it from the Bill. Now I come to Clause 22, which provides for conferring on County Court Judges large powers of equitable jurisdiction with regard to claims by landlords for arrears of rent, and I am bound to say that I find this a most valuable clause, and much more valuable than the Irish Members seem to think. It is valuable for three reasons. In the first place, the application of the clause must tend to diminish harsh and unreasonable evictions. I believe that most of the evictions in Ireland take place for arrears of rent for two or more years; and, therefore, to arrest evictions on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent is most valuable. But the clause is most valuable, also, because it gives to the County Court Judges the power to make an equitable composition. [Home Rule cries of"No, no !"] I think it does. It gives them very great power indeed with regard to spreading payment over a very long period, and this practically amounts to a composition for arrears. It is also extremely valuable because it affords to the House a basis for the expansion of its provisions. Allow me to pass from that. Then I come to clauses—no less than 10 of them—of great length, which provide for relief being given to certain tenants in Ireland by means of proceedings in bankruptcy. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think that any remarks I make on this subject are prompted by a spirit by which really they are not dictated, and will not twist or distort them from the purpose to which they are directed. I conceive that no more difficult subject could well come before a Government than the question of how they might most speedily and effectually remove the present difficulties in Ireland. I can imagine that the Government, balancing one proposition with another, might light on a proposal which, at first sight, might not command the assent either of the House or of the country, and I cannot admit that any blame attaches to the Government in this matter, even if these clauses should not receive the assent of Parliament, or even if Parliament should put pressure upon the Government to alter them. With regard to these clauses I must say I see immense difficulties, and, subject to the maturer and better judgment of the Government, there appear to me to be objections to them alto-

    811
    gether insurmountable. My chief objection is based upon the morality—or rather, I should say, the immorality—of driving or inducing a large portion of the community to have recourse to bankruptcy for relief from their debts. Undoubtedly, a great deal of our legislation in regard to Ireland has not been directed to raising the fibre and strengthening the character of the people. ["Hear, hear !" from the Treasury Bench.] Ah, but you who have made that objection—with which I entirely agree—are you taking steps to formulate legislation of a different kind? Are you quite certain that, by these 10 clauses, you are not doing more to lower the moral tone of the Irish people, when you invite them, as it were, into the Court of Bankruptcy? That is an objection which has been taken before; but it is an objection to a plan which, if passed, may have disastrous consequences to the moral tone of the people. But there are other objections to the clauses. I take it that these clauses must produce an innumerable mass of litigation. Think how much more prosperous and how much better cultivated Ireland would have been if you could get back from the lawyers the thousands and tens of thousands of pounds which in recent years have flowed from the pockets of the tenants and the landlords into the pockets of the lawyers. That is a stupendous matter. Is it not time to be extremely careful about taking any steps in Ireland which shall promote a great additional mass of litigation? Not only do you provide that any number of tenants almost can have recourse to these bankruptcy proceedings, but you admit an appeal in each single proceeding. That alone will give to the House an idea of what is likely to be the mass of litigation which will arise in the course of these proceedings. Then look at the machinery. Again, I cannot help referring to my economical grounds. Again, I cannot help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer slumbered whilst this Bill was being drawn. Look at the army of officials it is proposed to create. Under Clause 26 you give to the Irish Lord Chancellor a power which I would give to no Irishman, and certainly not to an Irish Lord Chancellor—namely, the power to employ almost any number of briefless barristers, who will undoubtedly be highly paid, to assist the County Court Judges. More than that,
    812
    under Clause 31 you give the Land Commission power to create a whole army of valuers, who may be paid what the Treasury thinks fit, and I know how impotent the Treasury is to limit their remuneration. Whether on the ground of this unnecessary public expenditure, whether on the ground of the strong temptations to jobbery and improper appointments, which you offer to a system which is not able to resist temptation of that character, I say, on one of these grounds or another, even if there were no other objection to the Bankruptcy Clauses, almost insurmountable objections can be raised against them. Then, as far as I can make out, under Clause 25 you propose that the County Court Judge shall be responsible in the minutest detail for the agricultural management of thousands and tens of thousands of acres of Irish land. Power is also given to the Official Assignee to interfere with the holding for 18 months. Now, can anything be more preposterous than that you should place in the hands of the County Court Judges the agricultural management of innumerable holdings, and that you should expect in such circumstances that agriculture could possibly flourish? Then look at the enormous temptations you offer to fraud. I see endless openings to collusion between landlord and tenant—endless inducements to both tenants and landlords to act in collusion in order to mislead the Courts of Justice which you have created. That is a very simple, and everyone will come to the conclusion that it is an extremely probable, result. There is one more objection—there are hundreds, but I will not dare to mention them all—and the one other objection I wish to mention is the utter want of finality about the Bill. What is going to be done at the end of 18 months? As far as I can make out, at the end of 18 months, even suppose your Bankruptcy Clauses come into operation, and can be carried out in the way you suggest—at the end of those 18 months, during which the Official Assignee will have in his possession the resources of the tenant, the state of things will be fifty or a hundred times worse than it is now. Yes; there can be no doubt that during that time an immense proportion of the resources of the tenants of Ireland will be in the hands of the Official Assignees. How, then, at the end of that period, can the

    813
    tenant be in a better position than he was before? He must be in an infinitely worse position, and the object of your Bill, which is to put the tenant in a better position at the end of the 18 months, will not be attained. Then the Chief Secretary for Ireland said, and rightly enough, that the Government look upon this Bill as only a temporary Bill, and, in fact, as a modus vivendi, until a much larger Bill of Purchase shall be brought into operation. Now, I do not believe there is any question more full of inextricable complications, more large, more widespreading, more likely to arouse the fiercest Party conflicts in this House, than the question of Land Purchase in Ireland. It is, I think, a question which must not only be brought before Parliament, but which will involve the fate of more than one Government and possibly of more than one Parliament. Are you wise in thinking, and in basing your proposal on the thought, that it will be sufficient to legislate for 18 months, and that at the end of 18 months your larger measure will come into operation? That appears to me extremely dangerous, and therefore I do not think the House ought to be guided for one moment in considering this Bill by the fact that a larger Bill may come into operation. There is another point. I spoke of the large numbers who will take advantage of this Bill, and I am completely confirmed in that view, not only by the machinery, the vast machinery, which the Government have proposed for dealing with a number of cases likely to come into Court, but also by the speech of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) the other night. So far as I can recollect the speech, it was to the effect that there were 200,000 tenants who had had their rents fixed, of whom a large number were on the brink of insolvency. My noble Friend said that you must provide some machinery which will not only free them from their debts to their landlord, but also from their debts to their other creditors. It is obvious that the noble Lord contemplated that the large number of 200,000 will come into the Court of Bankruptcy. But suppose there are only two-thirds of this number? Then some 150,000 tenants will have recourse to the Court of Bankruptcy. Further, as far as I read the
    814
    Bill, I am distrustful of every limitation. Other tenants beside those who have had their rents fixed can go to the Bankruptcy Court, and there is no reason why 300,000 tenants should not have recourse to it. Mark also what inducements you offer them to do so, for you relieve them not only of their debts to the landlords, but of all their debts. Further, you put a premium upon the tenants who come into bankruptcy and you put a penalty on the tenants who keep out. You say that in the course of next year you are going to bring in a great Purchase Bill which will settle the Irish Land Question. But when you bring in that Bill, it is quite on the cards that then half the tenants of Ireland will be in the threes and agonies of bankruptcy. How can you propose an advance of public money, for that must be made under a Bill of this description, on any reasonable basis to an enormous number of people whom by your legislation you have invited to come into bankruptcy? It seems to me you are endeavouring—only the assumption is too absurd—to build up a great system of national credit upon a widespread foundation of national insolvency. Now, there was a proposal with respect to bankruptcy which came before me last year. It was a proposal which I understood at the time and still believe originated with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). But it was a very different proposal from the present one, though even then I did not see my way to agree to it. I understood the proposal to be this—that certain provisions for the relief of debtors which are sometimes acted on in this country might be extended with benefit to certain of the smaller tenants of Ireland in such a way that the name and stigma of bankruptcy should not necessarily apply. But it was very different from the proposals in the present Bill. Certainly, I do not see the objections which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland sees to it. My right hon. Friend says that we could not grant the tenants relief without attaching to them the stigma of bankruptcy, and the reason he gives is that such a course has not been pursued in any other country in the world. Well, that is the oddest reason for any Minister to give for not doing a certain thing in regard to Ireland that I ever heard. I

    815
    think there was a good deal to be said for the proposal, though. I also see some objections to it. Why not? Look at your dealings with Irish land, and tell me whether in any country in the world you can point to any analogous proceedings to those of the last 10 years with regard to Irish land? It is no argument at all, if the suggestion is good, to say that it cannot be tried because it has not been attempted before. However, in any case, I think there would be considerable objection to a proceeding of that kind. I come now to what appears to me to be the enormous difficulty of the situation, to those Members, at any rate, who wish to see a satisfactory settlement arrived at. Our difficulty is this—there is no alternative proposal. The Bankruptcy Clauses, to use an expression which has become classical, "hold the field." If you omit your Bankruptcy Clauses and do not expand Clause 21, your Bill will not afford any adequate relief to the Irish tenants. If some substitute is not suggested, your time will have been altogether wasted, and Parliament will have made another abortive effort. I say, moreover, that it is absolutely impossible for a private Member to suggest an alternative proposal. What is it that makes it almost an act of folly on the part of private Members to suggest any alternative proposal? That impossibility arises from the constant attitude of the Irish Members on these questions—an attitude which I will venture, I hope without exciting their indignation, to describe. The Irish Members have a way of coming down to the House and stating Irish grievances with great force and colour; those grievances lose nothing at their hands, except, perhaps, some of that close communication with fact which the statement of a grievance ought to maintain. Their case is generally stated with immense force and colour, but with great exaggeration, and English Members on both sides of the House are generally ready to admit that there is a great deal of truth in the grievances laid before the House. But what happens? English Members are foolish enough, unwise enough, inexperienced enough to admit the grievance, and they submit a remedy; the admittance of the grievance is seized upon, but the remedy is denounced as ridiculous and absurd, with all the Parliamentary force of the Irish Party.
    816
    The admission of the grievance is not only seized upon and made much of, but it is used, against you, sometimes with most terrible and fatal consequences. I would illustrate that assertion by what occurred when the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) declared that no settlement of the Irish Land Question could be of the smallest value unless a general admission were made that all prices had fallen, and that no Bill could have the smallest effect on the land difficulty that does not reduce the judicial rents 40 or 50 per cent.
    MR. DILLON: I made no such statement; I said nothing that could bear such an interpretation. I only said that the hon. Member for West Birmingham had understated the extent of the Irish grievances.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I apologize to the House for having misrepresented the hon. Member. I am delighted that he should correct me in the manner which he did. I only intended to use what I thought was a fair and correct illustration, to show the uselessness of making alternative proposals for the remedy of Irish grievances. I would suggest, acting upon what I said before, that I think it their duty to make definite suggestions upon the point. I say this—suppose the Irish Members were, on their own authority and responsibility, to suggest such an expansion of Clause 21—[Cries of "Clause 22"]—well, the Equitable Jurisdiction Clause—as would give to the Judge not only the power of dealing with rents, but of composing rents, and replacing on an equitable footing rents fixed before; well, no one could prophesy what would take place. I would not be so foolish or presumptuous as to prophesy what would be the fate of such a proposal; but of this I am sure—that it would not only commend itself to the very careful consideration of the House, but would, if election were permitted between it and the proposals of the Government, outweigh and outbalance and displace the Bankruptcy Clauses. What would be the effect of that? Why, the Bill would be lightened by one-half; the Bankruptcy Clauses, which must inevitably excite not only doubt and distrust, but protracted opposition, would disappear from the Bill, and the Committee upon the measure would be immeasurably relieved. But we have no such pro-

    817
    position before us, and the fact is that the clause, which must excite doubt and distrust, is without alternative. I will now indulge in another proposition. I suppose a suggestion that, in view of the great and general grievances, recognized in the House on all sides, a certain fall in prices had rendered a certain number of rents unfair, instead of fair—I suppose that in view of that fact, and in order to alleviate the suffering of the Irish tenantry, and to reduce the mass of litigation which must arise, Irish Members should suggest that power should be given to a Land Court to review generally certain rents all over Ireland, on a large scale, according to the different counties, and to make an order that certain reductions should take place, counterbalancing the fall of prices which is admitted to have occurred, and giving as a safeguard to the landlords the power of showing cause before the County Court Judge or Court of Appeal why the reduction should not operate upon a particular holding. Such a course, I think, would not be impracticable, although, of course, great objection could be raised against it. But I take this course and compare it with the Bankruptcy Clauses, and I have no hesitation in saying that it would be far superior to the proceedings under the clauses which I have named. But we have no alternative put before us by hon. Members from Ireland, or from any other quarter, which will allow us to deal with it; and I say that, viewing the necessity for legislation, the imperative necessity which is imposed upon the Government to give relief to the Irish tenants, if no alternative proposal, backed up by sufficient authority, is made, I shall be forced, greatly as I dislike the Bankruptcy Clauses, and insurmountable as are my objections to them, to vote for those clauses, rather than run the risk of giving no relief at all to the tenants. That I find to be the position, and I think it is really worthy of the consideration of the House, if the object be to establish some large, complete, and final settlement—some settlement which, at any rate, shall be final as far as the fixing of rent is concerned. I have only one more point to bring before the House. I hold very strongly indeed that the time has arrived and is propitious for taking into consideration the position of the
    818
    Irish landlords as affected by the former Land Laws, and by the proposed laws of the present day. I do think there is a general and widespread opinion on both sides of the House that it would not be inequitable or unreasonable or impolitic for the House to consider the position of the Irish landlords as affected by the legal reductions of rent—their position, I mean, in connection with settlements and mortgages. I wish to press most urgently upon the Government the adoption of some such course as that. Of course, it could not be carried through in the face of hostile and bitter opposition; but the Government, I think, might well test the temper of the House upon the point. Could they not devise and put into the Bill some clause giving power to the Land Court to review, with a large, equitable jurisdiction, the charges and mortgages on an estate on which there have been judicial reductions of rent? Could they not give that Court the power to make certain reductions in the charges and mortgages, which should be in proportion with the reduction of rents forcibly effected by Parliament? I make that suggestion in the interest not only of the Irish landlords, but also of the Irish community at large. It is not to our interest, nor is it our business, to ruin and extirpate the Irish landlords; neither is it the business of hon. Members opposite to fleece, and ruin, and extirpate the landlords, who might, in certain circumstances, some day be a class doing incalculable benefit and good to Ireland. If, therefore, you are determined to pursue a course of legislation which will give substantial relief to the Irish tenant, you would be wrong and unwise and unjust if you left out of your calculations the demand for relief of the Irish landlord. Those are the observations which I wish to address to the House, and I wish to thank hon. Gentlemen for having allowed me to make them. I hope that I have not in any way added to the difficulty of the situation. My one object and desire has been to mitigate, at least, if I cannot entirely clear away, all difficulties, so far as I am able, because I believe that if the House of Commons can pass a Bill which shall deal effectually with the most pressing grievances of the Irish Land Question it will do more to secure tranquillity and order in Ireland than

    819
    could be done by any other Bill which the human mind can devise.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have listened to a most interesting and instructive and, I will venture to say, most satisfactory speech. If we were asked to give a second reading to the Bill drafted by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) I think there would be no opposition. The noble Lord has invited the expression of the views of the Government upon the statement which he has made, and we await that expression with the greatest interest. If they are prepared to accept—I do not say in every detail, but in the main—the doctrines laid down for their guidance by the noble Lord, I am quite sure that there will be no disposition to oppose the second reading of the Bill. The noble Lord has performed, with all the skill of a first-rate surgeon, a capital operation upon the Bill of the Government. The operation was performed under chloroform, but there were not wanting signs towards the end that the effects of the anæthetic were wearing off. He has cut off every member of this measure; he has eviscerated it and re-stuffed it with a great deal of new and good material. He has told us that he expects to find a convert in the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who is the only one of his former Colleagues who he thinks knows anything about Ireland. That is, after all, not unnatural, for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did once pay a visit to Ireland. As I listened to the noble Lord, the thought struck me that by some breach of confidence the Amendments that we intend moving had been communicated to him. It was a very satisfactory speech. But what a pity it is that that speech was not made last autumn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: We had not the Report of the Commission then.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There were persons in the House then who did know something as to the state of Ireland if he did not. We have certainly progressed since last autumn. There was then a Bill brought in which contained almost all that the noble Lord has left of this Bill. What has he left of it? I think that if Clause 1 is en-
    820
    tirely altered so that the limitations to it are removed, and if Clause 22 is made entirely different to what it is, and if all the Bankruptcy Clauses are cut out, and if something proposed by the Irish Members be put in, then the noble Lord is prepared to recommend this Bill. The noble Lord has invited and almost implored the advice of the Irish Members. I am glad to hear that language from the noble Lord, and I will not say of him what I am obliged to say of the Government—that by every form of calumny and insult they have rejected and repudiated the advice of the Irish Members. It signifies not on what question it be—whether on the political or land government of Ireland—if the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) or any one of his Party make suggestions the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) jump up, and with their organ, The Times newspaper, give but one answer—"You are the companions of assassins." It is upon that assertion that you are trying to win public support, and that you are losing it. Last autumn the hon. Member for Cork introduced a Bill that would have admitted 100,000 leaseholders to the benefits of the Land Act. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: No.] The hon. Member for South Tyrone denounced that Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I opposed it just because it did not do that.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Bill distinctly provided for the admission of leaseholders, and if the hon. Member objected to some of the other details he could have endeavoured to amend the Bill in Committee as he now proposes to do with regard to this Bill. Why is it that he takes a different course now? He has warned the Government that unless they do justice to the leaseholders Ulster will be lost to the Union. I dare say it will; but I think the hon. Member probably saw a still greater danger—namely, that he himself would be brought to the Unionist Party. How did you treat that Bill which, with your majority, you could have amended as you like? The men who now sit on the Treasury Bench denounced the Bill, and

    821
    they set up the Home Secretary to state that it was not within the moral competence of an honest Parliament to meddle in any way with the settlement of 1881. The Government took up an attitude of non possumus and of complete refusal to modify in any way that sacred settlement. What part did the Liberal Unionists take? I heard with great satisfaction the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) the other night; but last autumn when the hon. Member for Cork's Bill was brought forward, he was basking among his flowers and in the smiles of his hon. Friend—I forgot the constituency he represents—I mean the hon. Member for the three acres and a cow. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was also absent, but by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) the Bill was denounced. Yet now it had been stated by two right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench that this Bill goes further than the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): If the right hon. Gentleman refers to me, what I said was that this Bill was more comprehensive than the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think it was the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) who made the statement I refer to. However, all this is very encouraging. It shows progress. One of these days the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, will get up and say in introducing their Home Rule Bill that it goes further than the miserable Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). Let us therefore take comfort. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that we must in considering this Bill have regard to the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and he said the landlords formed a weak and unpopular class. He added, in his usual courteous and generous spirit, that
    822
    I was naturally the sworn friend of the opponents of any unpopular class. If he referred to the Government he was not far wrong. That they are an unpopular class I am not in a position to deny, and my opposition to them is quite natural. But when he says that the Irish landlords are weak I am at issue with him. They have the Government and 30,000 bayonets at their backs. They have still a giant's power, and both the Acts of 1870 and 1881 proceeded upon the basis that Parliament could not trust the Irish landlords to do justice to their tenants; that certain restrictions ought to be imposed on them; and that if due restrictions were not imposed there would inevitably be illegitimate combination on the part of the tenants. We told you last year that your refusal to legislate on the basis of the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork was the immediate cause of the Plan of Campaign, of which you complain so much. Now, how have the landlords of Ireland used their powers? I have not wantonly introduced this matter into the consideration of the Bill; but it belongs to the subject as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself says. He has started with the extraordinary theory that admitting the behaviour of the Irish landlord has been different from that of the English it is because you have put him in a different position from that of the English landlord; but before 1870 he was in the exact position of the English landlord, and it was because he had abused that power so grossly that you were compelled to pass that Act. After 1870 he used every ingenuity to defeat that measure, and when he found he was unable to confiscate the improvements of the tenants in one way he proceeded to do so in another by raising their rents. In 1881 you fixed fair rents by law, because you could not trust the Irish landlord to fix a fair rent. You gave the tenant fixity of tenure to prevent the landlord from evicting him unjustly; and you established free sale, because if you had not done so by law, then the landlord would have proceeded to take advantage of the tenant in that respect. What is the meaning of this Bill? If you can trust the Irish landlord, why are you going to re-open leases? You are not going to do it in England. Thousands of Eng-

    823
    lish landlords have made fair allowances to their tenants. Why do you compel the Irish landlords to have a revision of rent? Why, because you cannot trust them. Why have you got an Equity Clause? Because you cannot trust the Irish landlord. You say, when you hear of shortcomings in this Bill—"Oh, it is true we do not provide for everything, but trust the Irish landlord; you only put exceptional cases, he is sure to show mercy and to do justice." Lord Salisbury made a remark in his speech, which I think shows that frank cynicism which is characteristic of him. He said—
    "I greatly doubt whether the conduct of any large class is guided in the long run by anything but an appreciation of their own interests."
    That is quite true; and it is more true of the Irish landlords than of the members of any other class. Then Lord Salisbury proceeds to show that it is to their interest to get rid of the tenants as a burdensome obligation, and then, with the utmost inconsistency, he makes this appeal—
    "I think we must look to the holders of property in Ireland from high and patriotic motives to exercise some restraint."
    What is the use of making that appeal? I have on this subject the authority of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who spoke on this argument of whether abatements had been or would be made by the landlords in Ireland? What did the hon. Member for South Tyrone say? He said—
    "It was no answer to say that the case had been met by reductions given by landlords. In the South and West it was an answer where the landlords had given abatements, and where intimidation had done its work, and he thought that it was a scandal that this should be the case. Ulster was precisely the province where these reductions had not been made."
    That is to say, where the National League has had the power reductions have been made; but in Ulster—loyal Ulster—where there is no fear of bad passion, where everybody is good, and peaceful, and admirable—there the landlords make no abatement. That is the testimony of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. There is one very remarkable piece of evidence which I should like to read, although I do not wish to overweight the House with quotations. Here is the evidence of Mr. Waine, who was the agent for Lord Gosford's estate, given before the
    824
    Cowper Commission. I believe that Lord Gosford is not an exceptionally bad landlord, but a very fair specimen of a good Irish landlord. His agent was asked—
    "Do you think that the arrears now due are caused by any inability on the part of the tenant to pay?" Answer.—" I am afraid in many cases they are." "Have you given an abatement?" Answer.—"Not on the judicial rents since 1881."
    He admits, therefore, that in many cases the tenants were incompetent to pay, and yet no reduction was given. Mr. Waine went on to say—
    "I consider it a very unwise thing for any landlord to do, because he is taken advantage of the very moment he does it. The fact of abatements having been given was mentioned in the Land Act, and I think if the landlord gives abatements now it will be said that he considered his present rent was too much, and that fact will be brought into argument when it comes to purchase."
    Yes; the landlords of Ireland are screwing and keeping up rents with a view to the purchase of their estates, to which they are looking forward. That is what this means; and yet this is not the case of an exceptional landlord. Mr. Waine was asked—
    "And you do not think that the landlord should give any reduction upon the judicial rents?" Answer.—"I do not think so." Question.—"And so you think that the landlords in other parts of Ireland are acting foolishly?" Answer.—" If I was a landlord I would, not do it." Question.—" Are there no landlords in your locality who have given some reductions?" Answer.—" Not a penny." Question.—"It is not customary?" Answer.—"No."
    I cannot quote this evidence at length to the House, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said he had read this evidence and had come to the conclusion that abatements had been generally made. I come to the opposite conclusion, and I say that abatements have been rare. As the hon. Member for South Tyrone tells us, they have not been made except upon the compulsion of the National League. I may be allowed to read to the House some evidence from Clare, which has been held up to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as being a particularly bad county. It is the evidence given by Mr. Stacpoole, a proprietor and agent to relatives and friends in all directions in the County of Clare. He is asked—
    "Are the farmers on the estates with which you have to do receiving abatements?"

    825
    Answer.—"Where their rents were not judicial I gave them 15 per cent." Question.—"But not on the judicial rents?" Answer.—"Not on the judicial rents." Question.—" As to those who are not paying, do you think they can pay? "Answer.—" In the majority of cases I think they could pay. There are some few cases in which it is not so." Question.—" In these cases do you intend to give abatements?'' Answer.—"I do not intend to give abataments on the judicial rents at all."
    That is the kind of language that runs through the whole of this Report. Now, you are going to disarm the tenants by your Coercion Bill; you take from them their only protection which has enabled them to get abatements; what are you going to give them in its place? The landlords plead their poverty very much as the apothecary in Romeo and Juliet; but I should have more sympathy with that plea if the poverty had originated in money being borrowed on mortgage for the improvement of their estates; but in these Irish mortgages how much money has been spent upon the improvements of estates and on the welfare of the people? The landlords borrowed money for the improvement of their estates, but that money has been advanced by the tenants, whom they evict because that money has been spent. The Government talk about a great purchase scheme as a remedy for the condition of Ireland. I doubt whether any great purchase scheme ever can or will be carried in this country. For party and political purposes you fouled and poisoned that ground at the last Election. You never can have a purchase scheme which puts one single farthing upon the English Exchequer after the language you have used and the manner in which you have acted. If you are going to make a scheme of purchase out of the resources of Ireland, then, I tell you this, that if you are going to buy the land in Ireland at anything like a fair market price, the bankruptcy will not be that of bankrupt tenants, as you now propose in your Bill, but of bankrupt landlords, because, if these landlords sold at a fair price, they would not have enough to pay the charges on it, and when that comes to be felt you can only carry a Purchase Bill on those terms. Well, now, the speeches of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington just now, are only illustrations, enlargements, confirmations of the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the
    826
    Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). The objections made to this Bill may, indeed, be said to have been identical from every quarter of the House. There has not been a defence of the Bill from anybody. Where is there a person who has a word to say for the Bill as it stands? There is one point on which I will say a word. I agree with the noble Lord that the Appeal Clause is a very dangerous clause, and I hope it will be reconsidered. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland tried to fix me with some responsibility for it on account of what I had said of the treatment by the House of Lords of the Commissioners in 1882. I repeat again the censure which a great majority of this House pronounced on the conduct of the House of Lords in that matter. I say it had a most injurious effect upon the working of the Land Bill of 1881. We have had the misfortune in our land legislation that in no Bill that we had produced has the House of Lords failed to endeavour to introduce the seeds of failure, and part of that failure is due to the manner in which our Bills have been treated by the House of Lords. What did the House of Lords do? They appointed a committee of vigilance to look after the Commission. The argument upon which Lord Salisbury rested himself was this—namely, "We never understood rents were to be lowered; we never would have passed the Bill if we had thought so; and we will take as good care as we can that they shall not be." Lord Salisbury then attacked the Commissioners by name, and added—"The landlords of Ireland were plundered by the operations of a packed tribunal." But are you quite sure when you have constituted your court of appeal there may not be equally violent language used, that there may not be some who will say that the tenants are being "plundered by the operations of a packed tribunal?" What does your Friend the hon. Member for South Tyrone say with reference to these appointments of Irish officials? He says that "the recent appointments in connection with the Land Court have filled the tenants with fear and dread;" and he asks whether these appointments would be left to the "underlings of Dublin Castle, who would wreck the best Government that ever lived?" Well, there—on the Opposition Benches

    827
    —is the best Government that ever lived; they are being wrecked by the underlings of Dublin Castle. Yet the hon. Member for South Tyrone was the most constant and vehement supporter of that Coercion Bill which is to be administered by those very underlings. Those underlings are the tools of Orange landlords—all those landlords who mobbed and denounced Earl Spencer when he was in Ireland because he would not do their will—even the Chief Secretary and the Government are, where they are, very much as the agents of the Orange landlords of Ireland. Well, now, it is quite unnecessary, after the speech of the noble Lord, for me to go into details upon the clauses of the Bill, further than to express my entire concurrence in almost every sentence he expressed. It is said we want to throw out this Bill. We do not want to do anything of the kind. We have not got the power to do so even if we had the will, and we have not got the will if we had the power. First of all, technically speaking, the character of the Amendment would not throw out the Bill, but it might throw out the Government, which is a more important thing. What we want to do, in concert with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, is to turn the Bill inside out, to make it a totally different Bill, to turn out all the bad in it, and to put into it all the good which it does not contain. For that purpose it is obvious that the Bill must be kept alive. We want to make it a just Bill, instead of an unjust Bill; a real Bill, instead of a sham Bill. Then it is asked, why do you move an Amendment? Well, everybody who has any knowledge of the House of Commons knows that you cannot have a debate in which attention, will be concentrated on the leading features of a Bill unless you have Amendments; and the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and, above all, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington are a justification, in my opinion, of our having moved the Amendment. What we propose is, as regards the 1st clause, that all the limitations should be struck out, and that the operation of the clause should be in the
    828
    option of the leaseholder. That makes that clause satisfactory, and, so far, so good. I doubt whether the noble Lord has left anything else alive. There are the Bankruptcy Clauses; but after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs those clauses have been dead for some days. They died from the ridicule heaped upon them by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] I assume the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is a respectful mourner over these clauses. Now, if my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham were here I should have made an apology to him. He imputed to me that I had charged him with the authorship of the clauses; but to my infinite surprise the noble Lord has fixed him again with the responsibility, and I cannot reconcile the two accounts. The truth is what has happened reminds one of the plays of Sheridan, wherein he says the gipsies disfigure the children whom they have stolen in order to make them pass for their own; and so I have no doubt the gipsies of the Treasury Bench stole the Bankruptcy Clauses of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and then they disfigured them in order that they might pass them for their own. The noble Lord has alluded to the Equity Clause; but his testimony as to its merits rested rather, I think, on a misapprehension of its character.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said it was a most valuable clause. I suggested its enlargement.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I quite agree as to the enlargement. The noble Lord said it gives power to the Court to give a composition. But it gives no such power without the consent of the landlord. The equity supposes, first of all, a man who is in bad circumstances, and who cannot pay his rent—we will assume that this is one of the judicial rents which is too high—a man cannot make immediate payment, he goes into Court. What is the equity? That he shall pay the rent that is unfair in instalments. That is surely only like renewing an evil; you spread it over a time, but you do not redress the injustice. It is a farce to call that relief. The Court has no power to reduce the rent, or in any degree remove the arrears. It is obvious that will not prevent evictions at all,

    829
    If a man makes default in the instalments the eviction takes place at once; and, therefore, this so-called Equity Clause has precious little equity in it as it stands.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, rising, read as follows from the Bill:—
    "The Court may put a stay upon the execution of the judgment of the Court for such time as the Court thinks reasonable, and the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that the arrears of rent and the costs, or such sum in satisfaction thereof as may be agreed upon between the parties, shall be paid by such instalments as the Court may appoint."
    I would add that it is in the power of the Court to spread the instalments over a quarter of a century.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not see what benefit it is to a man to have instalments of an unfair rent spread over a quarter of a century when that unfair rent is running de die in diem. We condemn it, and we propose that the Court shall have the power of fixing composition on the basis of a fair rent, and to fix a fair rent in the future. Then you will have an equitable clause. There was nothing of the kind now, and the clause will do nothing whatever to stop unjust evictions. I agree with the noble Lord in what he said about Clause 4. It is a most mischievous clause. Clause 4 is only meant to hide the scandal of not giving any redress, not to redress the evil. It is not to cure the sin; it is to avoid the shame. The consequence of it will be that notices will descend on the tenants of Ireland like flakes in a snowstorm. You will then turn all these men into caretakers at once; and then you think you have avoided English public opinion by the process. But you will not; you have to evict the caretaker in the end; it will come ultimately to eviction; you will only postpone the evil for six months; and, in the meantime, you will have encouraged people to make these evictions, relying on the facility of the process and also on the Coercion Bill; and the consequence will be, therefore, that so far from diminishing evictions, the Bill will greatly increase them. There was a portion of the noble Lord's speech which was a little less clear than the rest, and that was the part where he spoke of the Equity Clause applying to the insolvent tenant. But what has been demanded by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the right hon. Member for West
    830
    Birmingham, and the right hon. Member for Stirling District, is that you shall do something for the solvent tenant. That is what the Cowper Commission asked you to do. It was not to send the insolvent tenant into equity or bankruptcy. They wanted the man who was struggling to be honest, and who could pay, but who was greatly impoverished by excessive rent, to have some remedy, and an opportunity of getting a fair rent. It is necessary, therefore, that you should deal with these cases. Lord Dunraven stated that this Bill did nothing for the cases commented on by the Cowper Commission. The bankruptcy proposals of the Bill are so futile and ridiculous that they are not worth talking about. Are you going to stay eviction against the solvent tenant? Under your Bill you must be ruined before you help him. Injustice to this man will be greatly aggravated by what you are going to do to the leaseholders. One of the great defects of the Act of 1881, I admit, is the omission of the leaseholders. Why were they omitted? In face of your violent opposition the Bill could not carry any more weight, and the leaseholders were omitted. You are now going to give the leaseholders the benefit of the judicial rent on the fall of prices; but you leave the judicial renters, whose rent was fixed, say, a year or two ago, in a worse position than the leaseholders. On the information which has been given to me, the leaseholders will get a reduction on the present prices of something like 40 per cent. The judicial renters have had a reduction of something like 20 per cent, and if this is so, then they will be twice as badly off as the leaseholders. It is impossible that you can leave 200,000 men in Ireland with their rents fixed on the old prices, when, at the same time, you have 100,000 whose rents are fixed on the new prices. What we propose is this. Until you learn that you have to take the advice of the Irish Members you will never get on in Irish questions. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; an hon. Member groans at the notion; but it is that groaning at the notion of taking the opinion of Irish Members on the Irish Land Question that has been the cause of a great deal of mischief. If you had tried to settle this Land Question according to the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork, probably a better job

    831
    would have been made of it than this Bill will now make, because that Bill came from persons who thoroughly understand what they want. The suggestion I have to make on behalf of my Friends is this—that you should put the leaseholders and the men whose judicial rents were fixed before the fall of prices on the same footing in respect of revision; that you should introduce a sub-section in the 1st clause, and that you should give to the leaseholders, without exception, at their option, a right to go to have their rent revised under the Act of 1881; and you should also give to the men who had their judicial rents fixed before the fall of prices the right to go in a similar manner and have their rents fixed on the present prices. That is the suggestion I have to make for the consideration of the House, and especially of the Irish Members. If you adopt it you will do what you must do in the end—put the leaseholders and the judicial renters on the same footing. If that is done, then we shall have got a satisfactory Bill. We shall have a Bill which in Clause 1 will do equal justice to the leaseholders and to the judicial renters in respect of their rents fixed before 1885, or some other date, and you will have an equitable clause with reference to the insolvent tenants who cannot pay, which will give to the Court a power of staying evictions on a fair composition, which will be based on a fair rent. If there is any disposition on the part of the Government to meet us in these matters we shall withdraw the Amendment at once. We have no desire whatever to throw obstacles in the way of the progress of this Bill.
    MR. DALRYMPLE: Then why this debate?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: A Member of the Government makes the remark. He is of opinion that this debate has been injurious to the progress of this Bill. I do not think he will get many hon. Gentlemen sitting on his own side of the House to agree with him. I believe that in the few days' debate on the Bill a great deal has been done in the progress of the Bill. It was only possible at this stage to take a view of the Bill as a whole. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in spite of the observation of the hon. Member, will agree that
    832
    any time has been wasted improperly on this Bill. If time has been wasted who has it been wasted by? I suppose by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who have taken up a large part of the time of this debate. If there is to be, as I hope there is, a concurrence in those points, surely the Government will give us some intimation to that effect. I have been a little surprised that the Government intended to postpone for so long the Committee stage of this Bill. We are quite ready with our Amendments, and the Irish Members are no doubt ready with theirs. What is this delay for? The Government cannot make up their minds what they are going to do. Under the pressure which is coming upon them from behind and before they cannot announce how they are willing to transform their Bill. For my part, I should be glad to go on with the Committee on the Bill after the speech of the noble Lord on Monday. The Government thought 24 hours long enough to put down Amendments on the Coercion Bill; and now this Bill, condemned as it is from every quarter of the House, cannot be proceeded with because the Government are at their wits' end to know what to do with it. Let the Government pluck up their courage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the views of the Government on the subject, and will say that he agrees generally with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—Sentiments in which we cordially concur. That is the support which the noble Lord invited for the Government. We offer that support. To their Bill as at present framed we must offer opposition. We consider it a worthless Bill. With the exception of an imperfect clause dealing with the leaseholders, there is nothing good in it. A great deal needs to be put into it, and a great deal to be cut out of it, and if you give us a skeleton Bill we will try to put some decent clothes on it. It has been said that the Bill of the Government has been stripped so bare that it is not decent. There is nothing of it left. Let us make something of it. That is the best we can do under the circumstances. And as there seems to be a general concurrence

    833
    of views as to the case of leaseholders, as to the remedy for the solvent tenants, as to making the Equity Clauses for the insolvent tenants better and more effective than they are, why should not the thing be done? But all this depends on one very serious consideration. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) asked the question whether the right hon. Member for West Birmingham meant business? Does the right hon. Member for West Birmingham mean business; does the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale mean business; and does the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington mean business? If those Gentlemen mean business, we mean business, and the Irish Members below the Gangway mean business. I hope the Government will make a virtue of necessity, and throw overboard the inside of the Bill. You can leave in the last sheet—"A Bill for the Amendment of the Land Laws of Ireland "—strike out all the remaining pages, and then, by putting in a couple of pages with some sensible clauses, we may make a very good Bill of it. I think that is a very reasonable proposal, made in the spirit of peace, and if we have a general cooperation all round we shall get the Bill through in a reasonable time. I hope we shall begin it on Monday, and if the Government are amenable to the advice they have received from every quarter of the House there is no reason why it should not be finished next week. Do not tell us after that we are obstructive. We offer a programme which is not obstructive at all, but a programme which is worthy of the House of Commons, which would lead to a spirit of union among Parties that is much to be desired, and which would be of advantage to the tenants of Ireland.
    MR. BARTLEY: I would urge that if we are to consider the question of the revision of judicial rents, we should also introduce a clause to fix the tenant right at the same time. If Parliament is not very careful, after having bought out the landlords, we shall have to buy out those further landlords created by the giving of those large tenant rights. Statistics show, and I will admit, that the condition of a great part of Ireland is most deplorable, and that many of the tenants, as a class, are very much worse off than they were before, and have not the means of paying their
    834
    rents. But the reason for the passing of the Land Act of 1881 was that the tenants could not pay their rents; and that Act not only reduced rents from 18 to 20 percent, but it also introduced into the law the system of tenant right and the power of free sale for the tenant. The Act enabled the tenant to sell his holding at any price he could get, and also to borrow money on the security of his holding. Some of the tenants, after having their rents judicially lowered, have sold their tenant right in some cases for 10, 20, and even more years' purchase; and the incoming tenant has thus practically to pay a proportionately-increased rent, which is higher than the old rent before it was judicially reduced. The practical result of further reducing judicial rents, as is suggested by the Amendment before the House, will be to benefit the existing tenants; but the ultimate result, in a very few years, will be that in re-selling their holding the tenant right will increase, and more than the amount of the reduction in the judicial rent will be added to the tenant right. The lower the rent the greater the tenant right, and the greater, therefore, the temptation to the existing tenant to sell. Between 1881 and 1886 the loss to the Irish tenantry from fall of prices and other causes amounted to £15,000,000 on crops, and £9,000,000 on stock; and is it to be supposed that that heavy loss can be made up by reductions of rent to the amount of £2,500,000? If they had their land rent free, would the position of those poor people be substantially improved? I much fear that no legislation can place them in a comfortable position, and that reduction of rent is a thing altogether beside the question. Mr. Tuke's evidence before the Commission is conclusive that the people cannot live upon their land, rent or no rent. The living is not in it, and other sources of living and employment must be resorted to. To talk about reduction of rent in such circumstances only encourages delusive expectations; and, on that ground alone, I think the Amendment is to be condemned. Before we can get Ireland into a fair course of improvement we must get rid of the idea that by the reduction of rent living on the land may become possible. If a landlord charges too high a rent, there is a law by which it can be altered; but something more

    835
    is necessary to ensure prosperity to the country and contentment to the people. No reduction of the rents in the poor and miserable districts will remove the difficulty. What are the facts of the case? The total agricultural rental of Ireland is £13,000,000, and a further reduction of 20 per cent on the judicial rents will reduce this total by about £2,500,000. If every person in Ireland got an equal share, the reduction would amount to about 2½d. per week per person. I believe strongly in the power of the penny; but it will be absurd to say that that sum will convert the tenants into contented and comfortable citizens. And, moreover, it will be the well-to-do tenants who will get the bulk of the money. The fact is the poor districts are over-populated; for, although the population of Ireland has decreased very largely in the last 30 or 40 years, the decrease has not extended all over Ireland. In some of the poorer districts the population has increased fully 10 per cent. I deny, further, that a reduction of the rent will affect evictions. Agriculture may be improved, technical instruction in agriculture may be afforded, and much good may be done thereby; ten times more good than will be effected by the mere reduction of rents. I trust that even hon. Members below the Gangway opposite will see that something more must be done than reducing rents and keeping the people on the soil if the Irish problem is to be settled, and Ireland made a prosperous and contented nation.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, no one could have turned his attention to the question of Ireland and Irish land without being immediately struck with the great difficulties of dealing with so complex a question. He gave to Her Majesty's Government every credit for bringing in this Bill as an attempt to deal with it, encompassed as they were on every hand with difficulties of one sort or another; but what disappointed him was to find from the various Members of the Government who had addressed the House that the tendency was to look to this as a temporary measure only, dealing only with the fringe of a large and important subject, with the hope in the future for something better; something, perhaps, more radical, something, at all events, more satisfactory. The word "tempo-
    836
    rary" was so used that they were obliged to come to the conclusion that, while Coercion Bills were to be perpetual, relief to the Irish tenant could only be dealt with by temporary expedients. It was a conclusion he did not like to draw. It was the duty of a Government dealing with the question to look well at the state of the country, to see what evils were to be redressed, and then bring in a measure as large and comprehensive as they could devise to redress these evils. The temporary character of the Bill was upheld by the leading journal of the day, which described this as "stop-gap" legislation, and as such he could only look at it; but he hoped to show that there was no need at the present moment for stop-gap legislation. The House was in a position to deal with it thoroughly, or, at all events, to a far larger extent than the Government had endeavoured to deal with it. The Bill certainly had been pretty well criticized by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who had anticipated many of the criticisms he (Sir Joseph Pease) had intended to offer. First, he must congratulate the Legal Advisers of Her Majesty's Government for incorporating in this Bill more Acts of Parliament than he had ever within his experience of Parliamentary proceedings seen incorporated in any one Bill. The 13th and 14th Vict., the 20th and 21st, the 23rd and 24th, the 33rd and 34th, the 35th and 36th, and he might go on till he arrived at a total of some 13 or more other Acts of the Reign of Her present Majesty embodied wholly or in part in this Bill. He wished to discuss this question, keeping ever before him what he had always considered the great feeling as to this and other Irish questions—the preservation of the Union of the United Kingdom. There was, in his opinion, no real Union at the present moment; it was but a parchment Union; and the House had the duty to devise measures to make the Irish people one in feeling with the people of this country. All those who travelled the streets of this City during the recent Jubilee celebrations could not have failed to mark the unmistakable loyalty of all classes; but crossing the narrow channel no such feeling to such an extent was found existent, and there lay the duty before Parliament, that of creating by just legislation a feeling of loyalty to the

    837
    Crown and Government, equal to that in England, Scotland, and Wales. It was no use Liberal Members being told they were taking part with those who had done those things they ought not to have done. If there had been evil associates of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway at one period of their history all the more reason existed for redressing the grievances that had given rise to such association. Did not the history of all time show how justice ignored and grievances unredressed had torn countries to pieces? Go through Ireland, and the traces of the evils found there were met with at once—great poverty, great complaints of high rent, the unequal incidence of taxation in many instances, with other evils not alluded to by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) who had just sat down. On the small holdings of the West of Ireland the absence of the work that the people formerly found in England and Scotland, together with that which every Englishman could not fail to be struck with, a total want of sympathy between landlord and tenant. Non-resident landlords had been and were one of the great evils of the country. That non-residence arose from causes he would not now dwell upon; but accustomed as Englishmen were to go about among their tenants, or the tenants of their friends, they found that all that harmony, sympathy, and mutual support that existed in other parts of the Kingdom were absent in Ireland. Too long had landlords been nonresident, spending the rents they drew from Ireland elsewhere than in Ireland. During his travels he found thousands of people living on nothing but potatoes, cabbages, and Indian meal. Sometimes these poor people got white bread, and sometimes a little tea. One wondered how they lived. They lived as no Englishman would live, as no working class toiler in this country would live. Still they toiled early and late. He maintained that the landlords of the district had been living in a great measure on remittances sent by the servant girls of New York, and on the poor people who had emigrated to that country, and who sent money across to Ireland to pay the rents of those miserable holdings. There was proof sufficient that even the rents fixed by the Land Court were much too high. Those rents were fixed utterly irrespective of what some hon. Members
    838
    thought at the time of the passing of the Land Act ought to be the case, that there ought to be a sliding scale for rent according to the price of produce; but, of course, it was very difficult to draw a clause providing for such a scale. The value of the stock of cattle had been greatly reduced in Ireland, and the land had yielded small crops, worth but little in value; but still the people were asked to pay the rents fixed in 1881 and 1882. That was the great difficulty of the Irish Question, because if the rents were left alone tenants would 10 years hence be paying the same price as they did when the stock and crops of Ireland were worth £20,000,000 sterling more than they are at the present time. It could not be questioned that the rents were much too high at the present time; indeed, Lord Cowper's Commission distinctly recommended that the Irish rents should be revised every fifth year. The recommendation, however, had been scattered to the wind just as their other important recommendations had been disregarded. High rents were the cause of all the agitation in Ireland. General Buller considered it was the pressure of high rent which produced agitation. Lord Milltown said that all the agitation for rent was forced on the people by the conduct of the landlords. That had been his belief for years. He had lately inquired into the facts connected with the Bodyke estate, where the evictions had recently been taking place, and he found a large number of cases in which the old rent was twice as much as the Poor Law valuation. The people over a course of years had been bled to death. If the Land Question were settled he believed we might give Ireland Home Rule with perfect safety. Indeed, if the Land Question were settled, he was assured the existing great demand for Home Rule would be limited to those really Irish questions which ought to be in the hands of every free people. The Bill of the Government declined to carry out the principal recommendation of the Cowper Commission, the five years' revision; it declined to deal with solvent tenants, and would only deal with tenants when they were bankrupt. But they did not want bankrupt tenants on the farms, they wanted to place them there in such a position that they would be solvent. He quite

    839
    believed that before they had done with the question they would get to the solution of an annual revision. There was another great evil in Ireland—that was the charges and mortgages on the estates. He believed that so soon as the State stepped in and said that it would fix the rent and break the contracts, it was bound not only to deal with the income of the estate, but with the outgoings also. There was nothing in the Bill dealing with the charges on an estate. They would never get the landlords to reside in Ireland until they had some margin of income over the charges on the estate. The Cowper Commission said that those charges should be settled by a competent tribunal. Mr. Townsend Trench very strongly held that view. There was under the present system a great greed of land, and a great greed of rent, and it was painful to hear on what slender excuses the rents were raised. The people of Ireland were of the opinion that they were not fairly and generously used; they felt that every possible occasion was taken of raising their rent when the rent was not already settled by the Land Court. Those were matters which bred discontent, and with which the Bill did not deal. Then there was the question of the congested districts. He believed that emigration or migration was most essential for the people in the South and West of Ireland; but there was nothing in the Bill to provide for that. The country would be better when some of these congested districts were freed from their congested population by a good scheme of emigration, or by migration only. Then they came to the evictions. People were now being evicted at the rate of 20,000 a-year, and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale had described them as sources of danger, scandal, and disgrace. It seemed to him also that the eviction of a caretaker at the end of six months would be more troublesome than that of a tenant, and the eviction must come, and he could not see how the Bill would stop evictions in anyway—it only postponed them for six months. Evictions could only be stopped by putting the rent down to a figure which the man could afford to pay, which the Bill did not provide for. The Bill dealt with leaseholders, but that only in an emasculated way. Clause 21, which provided that landlords and tenants who were
    840
    getting on well together should pay the rates of those who were not, was monstrous. There seemed to be nothing in favour of the tenant unless he was bankrupt, or in favour of the landlord except the posting of the notice of eviction instead of actnal eviction at the moment. The Government seemed to say they would give the Irish people coercion perpetually, and would reduce none of the burdens which were so heavily oppressing them.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, a great number of speakers on the opposite side had fallen into the error of looking at this Bill as the Government plan for settling the Irish Land Question. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) spoke as if he thought that landlords in Ireland still had the power of raising their rents whenever they pleased. He also misconceived the nature of this Bill. It was merely a temporary measure, intended to tide over a short period; but the real policy upon which the Government would be judged by posterity was the policy of land purchase—a measure to carry out which the Government had emphatically promised to introduce as soon as the state of Public Business permitted. He had been glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) say that there was practically unanimity as to the principle of the Bill, though, as he listened to the noble Lord's criticisms, it was occasionally difficult to bear in mind that the noble Lord himself was in favour of the principle of the Bill. The principle of such a Bill as this ought to be not to disturb, under any circumstances, the settlement of the Act of 1881. He thought the words of Mr. McCarthy, one of the Commissioners under the Act of 1885, deserved to be inscribed in letters of gold over the door of that House—"I highly object to perpetual chopping and changing in legislation with regard to land." Did that Bill come up to that definition? With one great exception of the question of leaseholders he thought that it did. It appeared to him that the principle of admitting leaseholders to the benefits of the Act was radically bad; but there were many things which now made it advisable. Undoubtedly it remedied a

    841
    logical defect in the Act of 1881, and they were not now called upon to inquire into the correctness of the principle of the Act of 1881. It appeared, also, that both classes interested in the land were in favour of this change. It had been said that the Bill gave nothing to the tenant class in Ireland. In his opinion it gave them a great deal; and he thought that the tenants of Ireland ought to be very grateful that such a measure was to be passed. Mr. MacElroy, who represented the farmers of Ulster, had given evidence before the Commission to the effect that the leaseholders of Ireland had entered into their leases freely and at rents regarded at the time as fair, although they had become unfair owing to the fall in prices. Was it to be admitted as a principle that when a man found that his bargain was not a good one he was to come to Parliament to be relieved from the consequences of his own act? Under the circumstances, however, he did not see any reason for being more in favour of the landlords' interest than the landlords themselves; and, therefore, he was not prepared to vote for the rejection of the Bill because the leaseholders were admitted to the benefit of the Act of 1881. Still, he thought it ought never to be quoted as a precedent for the future. For the rest, the Bill was emphatically a small measure, and was only intended to help those who could not pay through no act of their own; but he thought, under no circumstances, ought they to lower the judicial rents. With regard to the Bankruptcy Clauses, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) seemed to think that they were drawn up entirely in the interests of the landlords, because the landlords had tried to put the Bankruptcy Law in force in order to counteract the Plan of Campaign; they had been foiled in their efforts, and, therefore, now came to Parliament to secure an extension of the Bankruptcy Law. He would point out, however, that most of those who had acted under the Plan of Campaign could not come under the Bankruptcy Clauses of the Bill except by perjury. It appeared to him that the principle was a very good one, and one which had been recognized again and again in legislation, and at this stage it was the principle of the Bill which they were to consider. Relief was given to those who were unable to pay through
    842
    no fault of their own; and, secondly, the principle was laid down that occasionally it was for the interest of both debtor and creditor that the strict letter of the creditor's rights should not be enforced. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington had asked what advantage the Bankruptcy Clauses would be to the tenant. In the first place, if the tenant conformed to the requisitions of the Court he would have relief from the whole burden of his debt, and all that was necessary for him to work with would be left in his hands. The noble Lord had spoken of 200,000 or 300,000 tenants being in the hands of the Court; but the Bill was only to deal with exceptional cases. It must be remembered that it was impossible by any enactment to provide for the revision of the rents of a few solvent tenants in Ireland whose rents were too high without opening the door to the revision of all the judicial rents in the country. In his opinion the rents fixed before 1885, although calculated on higher prices than now prevailed, were still fair rents, and ought to be maintained. In fixing the judicial rents the valuers looked forward to a possible fall in prices. No doubt the Cowper Commission had recommended the reduction of the statutory term from 15 years to five; but Mr. Justice O'Hagan, the head of the Land Commission, in his evidence before them, said he would be sorry to alter the time at present. But there was a consideration more important than Judge O'Hagan's evidence. The Members of the Unionist Party sitting on both sides of the House had pledged themselves not to interfere with the judicial rents, and he did not think that Her Majesty's Government would ask them to be false to their pledges. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington had all declared against tampering with the judicial rents. He quite agreed with the remark of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) that if the Government tried to conciliate every section of the House the Bill would be reduced to its outside sheet; but, at the same time, the only result of such an attempt would be to increase opposition to the measure on one side of

    843
    the House in proportion to the decrease of opposition to it on the other. He trusted that all sides of the House would combine to reject the Amendment and to read the Bill a second time.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the Government, in considering Amendments which had been suggested to them, would not adopt the views and tone of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranborne) who had just spoken. Hon. Members were in a state of perplexity as to what should be done with the Amendment before the House. The right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) asked the House to discourage a measure which contained great advantages in favour of an Amendment which did not, and could not, deal with arrears; and without dealing with arrears they could not stop evictions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had expressed a positive pleasure in the idea that Amendments should be made which would enable the Amendment of the right hon. Member to be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) had taunted the Unionist Party with inconsistency in not having done in August last what they were doing now. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly a good judge of consistency. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) did not know which would be the most curious piece of reading—the right hon. Gentleman on consistency, or consistency upon the right hon. Gentleman. Now, what those had to consider who were thinking how they would cast their vote on the Motion for the second reading was, what would be the result of the vote? They knew very well that there were great benefits in the Bill as it stood. [Cries of ''No, no!"] That was so plain that he declined to argue the point. The Division List would be a curious study, because the House had heard a great deal as to the enormity and brutality of evictions in Ireland, and the Amendment afforded a quick and real test of the anxiety of right hon. Gentlemen who supported it to stop those unjust evictions. The country would scarcely understand the language indulged in about evictions if hon. Members cast a vote the effect of which would be to destroy a remedy for those abuses. Now, one could not criticize this measure except in direct con-
    844
    nection with others which the Government had promised. The Government, having recognized the two principles of admitting the leaseholders and of preventing unjust evictions, would not, he trusted, hold back on a question of degree, for there had been no Amendment asked for which would violate any principle which they had adopted. He was aware of the enormous difficulties of a revision of the rents fixed under the Act of 1881, and it was marvellous how hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench could speak so lightly of such a revision. But the suggestion made by Lord Spencer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that the landlords should make abatements for a year or two would, he thought, got over the difficulty. They had only to compel the bad landlords to do what it was understood the good landlords were doing. What was to be gained by carrying the Amendment? Of course, he was aware it might bring the former Government back into Office; but would not that postpone to an indefinite time the rendering to the poor people of the immediate help which they needed? He was aware it was commonly supposed that it was the duty of a Government which came in to proceed with the question on which it was returned; but he did not believe that the late Government, if it came back, would proceed to deal with this question—and he would justify his statement. Eighteen months ago the situation was similar to the present. The actors were the same. The right hon. Gentleman now in Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) came into power on an Amendment affecting the agricultural labourers—an Amendment far more defined than that now before the House; but as soon as they came into power they threw the agricultural labourers absolutely aside, and the question had not been dealt with to this day. He was not going to forsake experience for faith, and he would advise the Representatives of the Irish tenantry not to vote for the Amendment in the belief that they would get immediate help if the Amendment were carried. If the Bill passed, even as it stood, the scenes at Bodyke and Glenbeigh would not be possible, and he asked hon. Members if they were going to vote for an Amendment which would kill a measure

    845
    that offered a remedy? By the admission of leaseholders to the benefit of the Act, the Government had the courage to do what had been persistently refused by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House; and assuredly if those who sat on that side stuck to the old Radical doctrine of measures, not men, they would accept a measure which, good in itself, had been always refused by a Liberal Ministry when in power.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he did not intend to criticize the several proposals in the Bill, but to suggest a practical Amendment, which it appeared to him would remedy its greatest defect and secure the ends they had at heart by mitigating the hardships of the still solvent and striving tenant without doing injustice to the landlord. The plan he had to suggest would not only do that, but it would prepare the way for the Land Purchase Bill promised by the Government, for surely a Land Purchase Bill was impossible until you had first discovered some means of determining what were fair rents on which to base it. To be practical, any such suggestion must show a method of determining fair rents, resting upon a rule so simple, definite, and obvious that neither landlords nor tenants would find it difficult to understand or carry out. Neither would they find it to their interest to take cases into Court, otherwise the amount of litigation involved would frustrate the object of the Act. The principle of the proposal had actually been embodied in an Act of Parliament dealing with the leases of a large and important Irish Corporation. It has also been carried out to a very considerable extent in regulating payments in Scotland. Lord Salisbury said that he objected to constantly re-opening the question of judicial rents; but his objection would not apply to a self-adjusting system of settling rents more fairly between landlord and tenant. The plan he was about to suggest was not perfect. No such system could be perfect; but it would approach far nearer to justice than the present law or the proposals of the Government, and it would be valuable even more by indicating to landlords and tenants the basis of a fair settlement between them than by their applying to the Courts for its enforcement. Indeed, a just law was far more
    846
    effective in that way than by actual process of law. They had a precedent for what he suggested in Scotland, where, he believed, the system of regulating payments by the value of agricultural produce had worked extremely well; and they had also precedents in the permanent leases of Trinity College, Dublin. By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 128 (1851), the leases of the College were to be revised, if required by either party, every 10 years, and the revision was to be made in accordance with fluctuations in the prices of certain kinds of agricultural produce in varying proportions. In fixing these rents oats naturally had the largest proportionate influence—very nearly one-half of the whole; beef and butter came next; and mutton and wheat were of less importance. The latter, in several markets in Ireland, had ceased to appear as a native product at all. The system had not been strictly carried out by the College, because it was found that the expense of ascertaining and settling by arbitration the prices of the various articles in not less than 10 different towns in Ireland was so great, when divided among the leases of a single property, that it led to a compromise; and the leases had been nettled from time to time in accordance with the fluctuation of prices by general agreement, but without going through all the formalities required or adhering strictly to the terms of the Statute. But these difficulties would not apply to a large measure extending over the whole of Ireland, where you had got already in the Land Court and in the local Courts the means of dealing with the question, and where the expense of collecting information would, when applied to all the leases of Ireland, be very small. On calculating what would be the effect of working out such a provision, it seemed to him to confirm very much what had been found just by the Land Court in Ireland. For instance, in the first two years after 1882, when the new system commenced, there were very slight fluctuations in the value of produce; and, consequently, it did not seem to have been until after the considerable fall in 1884 that the Land Court in 1885 began making materially larger reductions of rent. In other words, the Land Courts had found it necessary, in their recent decisions, to regulate reductions of rent by fluctuations in the prices of

    847
    agricultural produce, and what he proposed was to make these fluctuations of rent practically automatic. Anyone who wished to understand how the principle might be worked out had only to refer to an existing Act of Parliament, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 128, in the clauses and schedules of which he would find the system explained. A still more simple system might be adopted under which the Courts would experience no real difficulty in calculating the percentage of reductions which were to be applied in accordance with it to each county, and landlord or tenant could make his own calculations as easily as he could estimate the discount which he was to give or receive on ordinary business transactions, such as the payment of his tailor's bill. On this plan, of course, it would be possible for the rents to fluctuate annually with the varying prices of agricultural produce, as when once the system was established the calculations would be easily made, and he did not believe there would be many appeals; but it was probable that a system, say, of triennial adjustment, would be preferred. Of course, it would be said against this plan that it did not take into account all the dangers to which farming was exposed; that you might have a year of high prices, and yet in Ireland of produce so small that the farmer might still be unable to pay his rent. From this or other causes there would always be exceptional cases, with which no law could be expected to deal with absolute justice. Therefore, this must be, as it were, a provisional settlement from which, in exceptional cases, there must be an appeal. He did not believe those appeals would be numerous, as they would be expensive; and it might be assumed that, on the indication of what the law would give, the landlord and tenant would settle matters out of Court, particularly if, in cases of appeal, the Courts gave the grounds on which the settlement was arrived at, which would be a guide for voluntary and unofficial settlements out of Court. He had not troubled the House without first taking advice as to the practicability of drafting clauses to carry out such a settlement, and he was advised that such a system could be made very elastic. The Land Court might be directed to ascertain annually the price of various articles of agricul-
    848
    tural produce, on the fluctuation in the prices of which they were to depend, and to decide periodically what in different districts—say in counties—should be the articles, and also the proportion in which they should influence the rents. The Court to which appeal was given in individual cases could lay down the principles on which it decided its cases, and on which, in deciding future cases, it would be guided in calculating the fluctuations of prices; while agricultural districts in Ireland, which were very full, and might be made, if necessary, still more exact, would be guides to the Land Courts in making their decisions. You had the machinery at hand; it would only need to be strengthened, and the House would see that if this plan would not deal with all the uncertainties which affected the power of the tenant to pay rent, it would deal with the largest and most important hindrance, and remove the great element of disturbance which had brought on our present difficulty. Of course, the Government would say that they were not prepared to accept a principle until they saw the clauses which were intended to practically carry it out. But he thought he could assure them that either by himself, or some more influential Member of the House, such clauses would be placed on the Paper.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I think it is unfair to find fault with the Bill of the Government because of its temporary character. All classes in Ireland, however they have been divided hitherto on the Land Question, and whatever opinions they may now hold as to the present remedies which can best be applied to existing grievances and complications, are agreed on the one point—that the only permanent settlement will be one that abolishes dual ownership in land. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has pointed out sufficient reasons for excusing Her Majesty's Government from bringing on, at this period of the Session, a measure of such an important character. The present measure is designed to meet difficulties that have recently arisen, difficulties that the Government and the Opposition will admit could not have been foreseen at the time of the passing of the Act of 1881, and even at a much later period. The hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony),

    849
    who has had considerable experience of agricultural operations, and with the working of the Land Act, declared his readiness to oppose the measure, because it falsified and was hostile to the principles of the Act of 1881. It is to be presumed the hon. Member was making use of an oratorical expression as a basis for his emphatic opposition to the Bill, for he did not attempt in his lengthy speech to point out—and, indeed, he could not point out—how any principles of the Act of 1881 were invaded—fair rent, free sale, and fixity of tenure. In no single point is the Bill hostile to these principles. In point of fact, the direct reverse is the case. In one particular the Bill does invade the Act of 1881. It encroaches on the immutable and permanent character supposed to exist in the old Act—a permanent character which its authors adhered to and refused to alter for any appeals, and it amplifies the benefits that Act conferred on the tenants. The Bill, on the one side, is attacked as being hostile to the interests of the Irish tenants; and subjected to criticism on the other side because the landlords do not accept it; but I hope Her Majesty's Government will decline to recognize denunciations coining from either extreme. It is their duty to satisfy themselves as to the nature of the evils existing and the best remedy, and apply the remedy as speedily as possible. Hon. Members have assumed the impossibility of anything favourable to Irish tenants coming from the House of Lords; but Irish landlords may well ask had the House of Lords an existence, for they have failed to discover on any one of these provisions any one favourable to the landlords. I am bound to say that throughout the measure is true to the principle for which it was brought in—the relief of the tenants. Only one clause may be said to be favourable to the landlords, that relating to rates, which exempts landlords from paying rates on a farm which is unoccupied, because of the action of certain combinations declared to be illegal. Hon. Members who adopt the Cowper Commission cannot find fault with that clause, for if there was one thing emphatically and unambiguously expressed, it was the fact that there were extensive combinations to prevent the payment of rents, and for other purposes. The Leaseholder's Clause has drawn a good
    850
    deal of attention, and I rejoice that this large and important body of tenant farmers will shortly be relieved from the difficulties under which they are placed by the Act of 1881; but I will point out in face of the attempt to minimize its benefits that it will have a serious effect upon a portion of the Irish landowners. A suggestion has been made that Parliament should give relief to those landlords who will be injured by this portion of the Bill, and I should be glad to see the restriction upon the Leaseholder's Clause swept away, provided the House will consent to give some reasonable compensation to such interests as landlords are able to prove are substantially injured, and which they would have a right to place before a proper tribunal. Clause 6, dealing with town parks, has been denounced as a sham and delusion, but I cannot share that opinion. I am perfectly convinced it will confer great benefits on owners of town parks. It has always been a strong subject for complaint, especially in the North, since the passing of the Act of 1881, that restrictions, contradictory and unwise, had been placed on that property. I am glad that the measure will leave those charged with the administration of the Act no doubt as to whom they should admit to the benefit of the Act. The object of the Bill is to prevent harsh and capricious evictions—to relieve tenants from evictions which are the consequence of circumstances over which they have no control. The difficulty, however, to face is how to decide the meaning of harsh evictions, as in and out of the House various interpretations are given. The House has hardly any data to go upon. The evidence before them in the Cowper Commission is, to a great extent, contradictory, and even the extent of the fall in prices is disputed. The hon. Member for North Meath devoted a long argument to proving that the statistics of the Registrar General relating to the amount and value of agricultural produce are entirely untrustworthy, yet on these statistics the Cowper Commission has based one or two of its most important recommendations. It is perfectly evident that the House cannot apply a remedy to every evil. All that it can do is to devise a remedy to meet the average case. That is all that can be expected from legislation, and I believe

    851
    that Clause 22, and the clauses following, are capable—though on this point I differ from the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell)—capable of providing a remedy that will meet efficiently the average circumstances. The clause which deals with the equity jurisdiction of the County Court Judge will not be sufficient to meet the case by itself, because it only relieves the tenant in an insolvent condition from arrears due to the landlord. It still leaves him embarrassed by the debts that hang round his neck to the money lender, and leaves him still sinking in his debts to other creditors. If the Bankruptcy Clauses are struck out, and the tenant is relieved in another way from the landlord's arrears, he will only be set up for a few months longer in a tottering condition, growing worse and worse. A way out of the difficulty of casting on the tenant the opprobrium of bankruptcy is by developing the Equity Clauses, and I should be delighted if some method could be discovered by which the stigma of bankruptcy could be avoided. I would suggest, not being quite sure if it can be carried out, that the County Court Judge should have within his cognizance and jurisdiction the liabilities owing to the money lenders and other creditors, at the same time that he deals with the tenant's obligations and arrears of rent. That will probably meet the position of affairs in Ireland at the present moment. It cannot be the desire of anyone that the tenant shall be in a worse position than he now occupies; but I wish to impress on the House, as I said before, that it is no use releasing the tenant from one class of creditors while he is left sinking in debt to other creditors; and if the Bankruptcy Clauses are cut out, without replacing them by something equally beneficial relieving the tenant from other creditors, little good would be done. But the measure is temporary, and I look forward to the measure to which I understand the Government is pledged with the assent of all sides, though hedged with difficulty, a measure directed to the abolition of dual ownership. The question is, in reality, so complicated not only by the social, but also by the political relations of Ireland at the present moment, that, for my own part, I think the Government is quite right in only dealing with it in a temporary manner in
    852
    the Bill before the House. I must say that, without dealing with the more controversial points of the Bill, I think that some of the clauses have sufficient merit to entitle the Bill to the favourable consideration of the House, so far, at all events, as to induce us to read it a second time, with a view to afford to the Irish tenant farmers that relief which they require in their present difficult and embarrassed position. There is only one other suggestion made in the course of the debate which I should like to allude to—that is as to the charges of various sorts which exist on many Irish estates. These charges are, no doubt, in many cases very heavy; nor can it be denied that they have, in many cases, placed many landlords in a position of great embarrassment and difficulty. If this House, or if Parliament, is now prepared to consider, with a view to legislation, the question of affording relief to the Irish landlords, either by diminishing the claims of the mortgagees, or reducing family charges, or by granting such assistance to the mortgagors as they have given to the tenants in Ireland—[Cries of "No, no!" from some of the Parnellite Members]—then there can, in my opinion, be no conceivable objection to the dealing with any property which landlords may now have in Ireland. Then there is another part on which I wished, in conclusion, to say a few words. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has turned his attention to, and has made some observations on, the political aspect of this measure. Now, I must say that I do not think that it would be right for the House to legislate on this matter with regard to any possible or probable effect which its legislation may or may not have now or hereafter upon the political situation in Ireland. I must say that I differ to a great extent from the opinions which the hon. Member for South Tyrone has expressed, as to the effect this Bill may have upon the tenant farmers of Ulster. It cannot, indeed, be denied that our farmers do entertain very strong feelings upon the Land Question, in which they are so deeply interested; but, at the same time, I do not think that they are prepared or disposed, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to suppose, to repudiate their political feelings or opinions on account of any relief which may be granted to them, or withhold

    853
    from them, by the Imperial Parliament in regard to the tenure or the rent of their land. I firmly believe they will, at all events, receive the measure which is now engaging the attention of the House of Commons as an earnest and an honest attempt to benefit and to relieve those classes of the cultivators of the soil who are now, and have been so long, suffering from the severe agricultural depression.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who, in the course of this debate, have spoken of the great difficulties which surround this subject have only done justice to the position of the Government. A more complicated question, a question more surrounded on every side by almost insolvable difficulties, has seldom been presented to Parliament. We may be at issue, and we shall be at issue, more, perhaps, than my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) contemplates, during the course of this debate; but I think that all the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Benches opposite will freely admit that we have a task before us in endeavouring to settle, temporarily even, this land problem, which is equal to any difficulty which they themselves have had to deal with in previous times. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby may think, I do not believe that it is possible to reduce the opinion of this House upon this question, or even the opinions which he holds, and which are held by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, to a sufficient state of unanimity to sustain the confident belief entertained by him that it would be possible in two pages of space, and within a week of time, to solve one of the most intricate problems that could ever be submitted to Parliament. We do not disguise from ourselves the difficulties which are before us, and, in rising to give utterance to the views of the Government upon a good many of the points which have been submitted to us in the course of the debate. I wish to speak with the greatest frankness and with such clearness as I may be capable of. Let it be distinctly understood that we do not wish to buy a single vote on this stage of the proceedings by holding out any hopes which we may not be able
    854
    to fulfil, or by pretending or assuming any agreement of opinion which is not an absolute agreement, and which would not express the convictions which we hold. I fear that the words which may follow from me may disappoint some of the hon. Members and the right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate. But there are great questions of principle involved, and there are principles in this Bill which we intend to maintain by speech and vote throughout the whole of the proceedings on this measure. Now, as if the difficulties which arise out of the Bill itself were not enough, some further considerations have been submitted to us as to points with which we ought to deal. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) have both submitted that we should attempt to deal with an extremely grave question which lies outside the present proposal, though it is one which might fairly engage the attention of Parliament at a future day—I mean the question of family charges and of mortgages upon the estates of Irish landlords. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington certainly spoke with much eloquence and with much justice as to the position in which we stand at the present moment of the Session, and he deprecated the introduction of unnecessary topics and of any subjects which would require lengthened debate into the Bill, and. he advised us to drop as much controversial matter as we could manage to throw overboard. But, at the same time, he invited us to discuss as thorny and difficult a subject as could possibly be submitted to our attention. I do not propose to argue at any length this question of mortgages and family charges; but I am perfectly willing to admit that it is a question which de-serves the attention of Parliament and must be thoroughly examined, and perhaps it is one which Parliament may find itself ultimately willing to address itself to. But there are the most serious problems connected with it. In the first place, what ratio should we apply in dealing with family charges and mortgages; and what date will you assign to the commencement? And will you limit this new principle to Ireland, or are you prepared to set a precedent which is to

    855
    be applied universally in future; and are family charges and mortgages to be interfered with throughout the British Isles? Because clearly this is not a measure which can be logically or consistently applied to Ireland alone—it is a question that must be raised in connection with Great Britain generally. Ought it to be contended that in Ireland, where reductions of rent have been forced upon the landlords by the State, mortgages and family charges should be reduced, while elsewhere, where landlords have made voluntary remissions of rent, a similar relief should not be applied? Again, when the time comes, it will be necessary to submit to the attention of Parliament and the public to what extent the interference with mortgages and family charges would destroy the possibility of raising any money upon land and obtaining any credit for the purpose of agriculture, and to what extent it would injure permanently and deeply the prospect of the application of capital to land in future. These, it strikes me, are matters which would not require simply a week's consideration at the end of a long and protracted Session, but the attention of the best men in Parliament consecutively and closely for a considerable time. I do not wish to convey the impression that the Government reject the idea that family charges and mortgages may have to be dealt with. But we declare it utterly impossible to deal with the question in the present Session, without far more and closer inquiry than it would be possible for the Government or Parliament to devote to it now. That is one of the points which have been submitted to us, as having been omitted from the Bill, and as deserving to be introduced. I have shown that we do not consider it possible to deal with the question in the present Session. I will now approach the consideration of the various clauses in the Bill, taking them somewhat in the order in which they were dealt with by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was most interesting to see on Tuesday how my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) had nothing whatever to say with regard to the Bill itself, except to echo the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. And, again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
    856
    Derby to-night accused the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington of taking his Amendment, which might have been communicated to him by some indiscretion. The right hon. Member for Derby spoke in a very amusing manner with regard to the possible effect of the Bankruptcy Clauses originally in the mind of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham being adopted by the Government; and he now accuses the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington of having stolen his Amendments. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Our thunder.] Your thunder. I know that the thunder of my right hon. Friend is very loud; but I understood that his Amendments had been stolen, and that by some indiscretion Amendments which were to have been proposed by the right hon. Member for Derby had got into the hands of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Derby thought that the same fate would befall his Amendments in the hands of the noble Lord as has befallen those of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, or whether he was content with the position taken up by the noble Lord, because he hoped that during the rest of the debates the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would be found working together to eviscerate the Bill. That was evidently a process which had great attraction for the right hon. Member for Derby, and he revelled at the prospect of holding out his hand again to the noble Lord; but to what extent that prophecy will be fulfilled remains stilt to be seen. However that may be, the Government have their own views with regard to the Bill before the House, and views which they will endeavour to maintain and induce the House to accept. I think that I shall best give the key to the anxiety of the Government by, at this point of my observations, stating what we conceived to be the cardinal points in introducing our Bill. It has been stated before, and I desire to state it again, that it is a temporary measure, and that we do not wish by the introduction of any principles into this Bill, or by the admission of any clauses to damage that prospect of purchase, which we consider to be essential to the solution of this question. [Cheers.] I do not quite understand those cheers coming from

    857
    hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I will re-assert the proposition. We wish to admit nothing to damage purchase, and in some of the propositions made from different quarters of the House there lurks the danger that if we accept them, plausible as they are, we may do something that may posssibly he destructive to purchase. The right hon. Member for Derby ridiculed the idea of our carrying out a purchase scheme at all. He thought the question was so beset with difficulty, and that the events which took place in connection with the scheme to which he himself was a party were so decisive, that we should not be able to carry out a purchase scheme under any circumstances. That is not the view of the Government. We think that to end dual ownership is the one great object to be aimed at in regard to Irish land. We are aiming at that, and we wish to resist all proposals in connection with this Bill which seem to us to be inconsistent with that cardinal principle. We shall not resist Amendments which do not touch that cardinal principle. There are many points as to which we are prepared to consult with the House in order to the best means of solving the difficulty; but where we come into conflict with that great principle, the House, I think, will not find us to be in a yielding mood. I will test the 1st clause by what I have just laid down. It has been suggested that we should give up the restriction which includes what are called the English-managed estates—namely, the restriction with regard to those cases where the landlord has spent large sums upon the estate. It is urged that we should extend the benefit we propose to grant from leases of 60 years to leases for a far longer term. It is urged upon us that we should omit the words as to tenants being bonâ fide in occupation of their holdings, and it is also urged upon us that we should extend our concessions to perpetuity leases. When we are asked to extend our concessions to perpetuity leases, we seem to come into conflict with the principle of purchase. [Laughter.] Hon. Members must not think that ridiculous. It is a fair argument, though they may not agree with it. Our point is this. A perpetuity lease is simply another form of purchase; and you might as well say, when a man has received a sum down for the land which he sold some 10 or 15 years ago, that he
    858
    ought to give up a portion of that sum because the transaction has turned out badly for the purchaser since, as say that you ought to make a reduction in the perpetuity rent which was agreed upon in lieu of a sum down. A perpetuity lease is simply, I repeat, a form of purchase; and that is a view which commended itself to my right hon. Friend on the Front Opposition Bench some time ago. I would be prepared to admit, however, that as leaseholders under the Land Act of 1881 were admitted to the benefit of the Act, if it could be shown that any undue pressure had been brought within a certain period to secure those leases, so if it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that these leases had been obtained by coercion or any undue means the Court should have the option to revise them. That is a suggestion which we should not be averse to entertain. But we hold that simply to say that perpetuity leases should be treated like all other leases is inconsistent with the principle of purchase; and you might as well argue, after you have passed a Purchase Bill, that the instalments ought to be varied according to prices, as to say that perpetuity rents ought to be altered with reference to prices. With regard to the question of the English-managed estates, by which term I describe the reservation which is made in the clause in favour of landlords who have expended a certain amount upon their properties, the object of that clause was this—to distinguish between cases where the landlord has done his duty to the land, and has spent a large sum of money on the holding, and where it is consequently considered that the leases should not be broken, and other cases. On that point the right hon. Member for West Birmingham made a suggestion which is worthy of consideration—namely, that the interest upon the capital which he has expended should be treated as a kind of preferential charge, and that the remainder of the rent should be treated in the ordinary way. This is a matter the Government would be prepared to examine in order to see whether they can meet the views of hon. Members. There is another phrase which limits the benefit of the Act to cases where a leaseholder is in beneficial occupation. It was suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone that these words had

    859
    been put in by an insidious lawyer with some intention to take away with one hand what had been given by the other. But a study of the 'Land Act of 1881 would have shown him that it was an historic phrase introduced by the Law Officers of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. This shows how ill-founded suspicions may arise with regard to the phraseology of these clauses, and how unfair it would be to visit upon the present Government precautions and reservations which were contained in the original Land Acts which place upon us tremendous difficulties in endeavouring to amend them and bring them to something like a practical form. There are legal decisions which have made these words necessary; and if better words can be found in order to meet the difficulties of these recent decisions, the Government will do their best to meet any such suggestion. I only protest, and I have a right to do so, against the supposition that the words have been put into the Bill by Her Majesty's present Advisers with any malevolent intention of limiting the advantages of this clause, which otherwise commends itself to the approbation of almost all parties in the House. I now come to an important clause on which great differences of opinion exist, by which we seek to substitute the service of a written notice for the cruel process of eviction, [Laughter.] Yes; I am going to grapple with this. Hon. Members have had their say on this clause; I hope they will allow me to have mine.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We may laugh, surely.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I wish to grapple with the position they have taken up. I do not know whether hon. Members who have not looked carefully into this matter know the peculiar state of the law as regards evictions. In almost every case there are two evictions, or there may be two evictions where one would suffice. In the first place, an eviction takes place in order to certify the fact, as it were, that the landlord has got the right to turn the tenant out. Then he is reinstated as caretaker, and if he makes no arrangement with his landlord during the following six months he may have to be again evicted at the end of that time, and so there may be two evictions from the one holding. It would strike most people that it would be well to get rid
    860
    of evictions as a preliminary process, and then, considering that a vast number of tenants settle during the six months, the total number of evictions would be much reduced. Let it be thouroughly understood that if you do away with these first evictions you will have done away with the great majority of evictions, and there will be left only a certain balance of evictions which occur at the end of the six months. Then read Clause 4 along with Clause 22, which stays evictions for arrears, and you will see the extent to which the Government go. They are confident that by the two clauses they will be able to diminish greatly the number of evictions. But to our surprise not only Irish Members opposite below the Gangway, but right hon. Members above the Gangway, and even the noble Lord on our own side, prefer that evictions should continue.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would not misrepresent the noble Lord, and I am glad that that was not the tendency of his argument. But hon. Members below the Gangway maintain distinctly that it is an object to keep up the number of evictions, because they have an influence on English public opinion. [Cries of "No, no!"] It was said that the incidents and the publicity of these evictions acted on public opinion, and we were accused of attempting to do away with these evictions in order, as someone said, to hustle tenants out by notice without attracting public attention. That is to say, needless evictions are to go on in order to keep English opinion up to the mark. This enables one to understand how it was that in a great number of eviction cases aged and sick persons were not removed from houses that were fortified to resist the attacks of the police. One would have thought that such persons would have been removed from motives of common humanity to the houses of neighbours while gallant defenders were pouring boiling water on sheriffs and the police. I now understand that the object in keeping the aged and the sick in the houses of the tenants who were to be evicted was to excite public opinion by making the evictions appear to be carried out in a barbarous manner. Therefore, hon. Members do not wish to put a stop to the evictions; they do not

    861
    wish to see notices given quietly. In order to prejudice public opinion against landlords by the horrors of evictions they wish to keep up what we consider to be a barbarous and unnecessary process. I shall be interested to see to what extent hon. Gentlemen will continue to support this process of eviction, which is unnecessary when a written notice will suffice. Do they see no public advantage in doing away with the scandal of these evictions, and in doing away with the cost of the police and the presence of the military? Do they not object to see the law brought into disrepute? How is the law brought into disrepute? It is by the spectacle of people shaking hands with the girls who pour boiling water on the bailiffs and police. It is by the exhibition of sympathy with the law-breakers against the agents of the law. Can hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to continue these scenes? If not, is it not desirable to substitute some other process for them? There is nothing ridiculous in that. [Dr. TANNER: Indeed, there is.] I can tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will not promote the efficiency of these debates by ridiculing a serious subject. This is a serious subject. I wish to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are law-abiding, whether they do not see that the law is brought into disrepute by these processes; and, if so, why it is that they wish to continue these evictions? The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington has repudiated any sympathy with the view that these evictions ought to be continued; but he is disposed to go against the clause.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I never said anything about it. I said there were grave doubts as to the wisdom of the clause.
    MR. GOSCHEN: And he put a very pointed question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.
    LORD BANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Let him answer it.
    MR. GOSCHEN: He asked what would have taken place if the clause had been in force before, and I gather that he thinks it would have been a misfortune if this clause had been in existence; in other words, that it would have been a misfortune if a written notice had before now been substituted for the present process. Well, it appears to me a dangerous thing to continue these evictions—dangerous
    862
    to the good government of Ireland—and I trust that hon. Members will assist us in doing away with them. The noble Lord spoke of several of the clauses as if they had escaped my attention as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as if I had not been sufficiently vigilant in the interest of the public purse; but to the noble Lord, as a most economical Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would put this question. What is the cost of these evictions? What is the cost of sending police and military, and of having a series of sieges and military operations, in order to do that which a written notice will equally do? Looking to the protection of the public purse I think I am justified in adopting the sensible, economical process of sending a written notice as proposed. That will be a far more satisfactory and a great deal more peaceful, and it will achieve the same thing.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It is not worth thinking about.
    MR. GOSCHEN: We, therefore, are not prepared to accept the suggestion from various quarters of the House to drop this clause from the Bill. We consider that it will promote law and order and economy and the good government of Ireland. We do not wish to see the hillsides of Ireland devoted to eviction scenes simply for the purpose of calling the attention of Great Britain and Ireland to their existence, [Cheers.] Those cheers show how entirely right I am. If we put a stop to the evictions we put a stop to half the stock-in-trade of the agitators. I leave that clause and now proceed to the Bankruptcy Clauses. In the first place, I wish to refer to the view taken by the opponents of these clauses. It is the view that every creditor is to be satisfied, and the landlord alone is to bear the reverse. Much merriment has been made of the Bankruptcy Clauses, but I do not think that any hon. Gentleman has tackled the principle. If a tenant is insolvent not only through a high rent, but from other causes beyond his control, is the landlord to bear the whole loss? It may be that this principle is accepted by hon. Members opposite because they say—as it was said by the hon. Member for East Mayo—that the landlord's debt is a dishonest debt, fixed though it was by a Judicial Court under the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is a dishonest debt, although fixed by the law of the land.

    863
    I make no comment on that view further than to state the proposition. Now, as the clause is drawn by the Government, if the tenant is insolvent his creditors generally must contribute to his release; that is the release to which hon. Members opposite object. They desire that the whole loss should fall upon the landlord so long as there is any rent to pay. He is the man from whom everything is to be deducted. That is their position with regard to the fi. fa. The landlord is to be prevented from entering, but other creditors are to be allowed to seize the tenant's goods. On this matter of fieri facias, the Government are perfectly prepared to meet the views of hon. Members if there is to be the same justice and equal treatment for all creditors. That is to say, the Government are absolutely determined and anxious to stop evictions, and for the sake of stopping evictions they have proposed Clause 22. But in case Clause 22 is insufficient, and there is a door open through some other legal process by which the landlord can bring about a similar result, we wish to close that door. But we do not think the remedy should be taken from the landlord, and at the same time all the other creditors should be at liberty to seize the goods and sell the goodwill. We shall appeal to the House, and we trust with success, to see that while all assistance is given to the tenant the principle shall be upheld that, if sacrifices are to be made, other creditors shall be called upon to contribute to them and to suspend processes by which otherwise the tenant might be ruined by his other creditors. For, remember, the tenant may be ruined by the gombeen man as well as by the landlord. It would be doubtful policy to leave all his remedies to the gombeen man, such as the power of selling the tenant right and the stock—to leave these untouched, and, at the same time, to lock the door on the landlord. But to return to the Bankruptcy Clauses. We are prepared to investigate these clauses with the help of the Committee. These clauses we frankly and honestly believe to be to the advantage of the tenant. They are introduced with the object of assisting the tenant. But the landlords do not like them—naturally they do not like them; and if the tenants refuse them, then I admit there will be very little encouragement to the Government to leave these clauses in the Bill. But the noble
    864
    Lord the Member for South Paddington spoke as though we were going to found a system of purchase on insolvency; and it was one of the host points in his able speech. It was a very clever thing to say that we were founding national credit upon national insolvency. But the truth is—andit was pointed out the other day by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—it is not the fact of going into the Bankruptcy Court that makes the tenant insolvent, but the fact that he is insolvent which obliges him to go there. I am not arguing this point, because I am willing to admit that a certain number of solvent tenants might go into the Bankruptcy Court on the ground of insolvency. But it might be argued with much greater force that the purchase scheme is to be successful it would be no use to introduce it with a number of insolvent tenants with debts round their necks, and it would be a natural preliminary to such a scheme that if they are insolvent, if their debts are such that they would never have a chance to relieve themselves, they should be given a fresh start by going first into the Bankruptcy Court. But said the noble Lord—it was a strong objection—"It would injure the moral fibre of the tenants in Ireland to be asked to go into the Bankruptcy Court." At all events, I do not think their morals would be injured to the same extent as by the Plan of Campaign. I call attention to this view of morality. Break all contracts with your landlord, ask for a revision of rents fixed by the State; the moment it is inconvenient to pay, tear up all agreements affecting your tenancy. That is no matter. But it is an injury to your moral fibre if you do not pay the gombeen man. I admit that all these measures are injurious to the morality of all classes. We have been injuring the morality of the tenants in Ireland ever since we embarked in the course which has landed us in our present difficulties and put us in this position, that, turn where we may, we seem to be confronted by these difficulties. It is too late in the day to say that these clauses would injure the moral fibre of the tenants of Ireland. I have stated the view of the Government with regard to these clauses. I must apologize to the House for having taken so long; but I have to touch on one point still, which is, perhaps, the most impor-

    865
    tant of any with which we have to deal, and that is the counter-plan which is suggested to us as compared with our Equity and Bankruptcy Clauses—namely, the revision of rents. We are asked to revise rents. No hon. Gentleman, no right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has given us any indication whatever how far they would carry that process. We are charged, in the first instance, with having rejected the recommendations of the Cowper Commission. From what some hon. Members say who have not read the Report, it might be thought that the Commission recommended a general revision of rents. It is nothing of the kind. The Commission does not suggest an immediate revision. But the extraordinary remedy it suggests is this—that instead of having a fixed rent for 15 years you are to have a revision every five years. I think the expression is that a time should be fixed so short that there could be no likelihood of serious error. Then they go on to recommend five years. If five years had been taken in 1884, the next revision would have taken place in 1889, and therefore, during this period of a fall in prices we should not have been a single inch farther than we are at the present time. A serious error has resulted during the quinquennial period. Therefore we cannot accept the recommendation made by the Cowper Commission. I do not think that sufficient attention has been drawn to that point, for when we examine the Report of the Commissioners we see that their recommendations would not deal with the present difficulty if we had attempted to adopt that recommendation. There are only two proposals possible. Are you with every serious fall in prices to revise the rents throughout Ireland? We cannot disguise from ourselves that that is the question with which we have to deal. If now we were to accept the view of a revision of rents in Ireland who can tell that in two years there might not be a further great change in prices and that we should not have again to revise the rents? It is clear that you could not, except with a gigantic machinery, revise the rents again so as to bring them into accord with prices. I do not speak merely of the enormous expenses; but before you had completed the process the new decisions would again be wrong,
    866
    for in two years you might have another fall or another rise in prices. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby wishes to have a uniform scale. He says—
    " If you admit the leaseholders you must put the others on the same footing, and on the same scale of prices as the leaseholders."
    But long before you arrive at that there will again be a change. You cannot continually revise, and the question is, does the House intend to commit itself to a revision of rents or to a scheme of purchase? And here I come to one of the main arguments which has influenced the Government in deciding against a revision of rents. Such a revision must be a revision on the scale of prices, and if you once establish that you will have done away with one of the greatest inducements to purchase. If you tell the tenant that his rent is to be varied according to prices, you will have established a totally different principle, which goes to the whole root of purchase. The principle of purchase is that there should be not a fluctuating price, but one which is to be fixed once for all. We attach great importance to the question of regular purchase and of instalments, and we believe that a fatal blow would be struck at that system if you were to approve the system which is now recommended to us. I think that must be acknowledged by hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) is in favour of purchase, but he thinks it is very difficult for the tenants to wait until we shall be able to carry a Purchase Bill. I trust that the majority of the House, at all events, will believe us when we say that we are absolutely sincere in our determination to carry a Purchase Bill at the earliest possible opportunity, if we have the power to do so. We should hold, however, that a great blow had been struck, and that we should almost feel ourselves relieved from our responsibility to carry a Purchase Bill if the House of Commons were to decide that they would substitute for that system a system of rents varying according to profits. That would continue that dual ownership against which I thought every section of the House had decided to vote. We cannot, therefore, accept the suggestions which have been made with regard to a general revision of rents. We will do our best

    867
    to improve our Bill in the direction of the Equity and the Bankruptcy Clauses. but the Amendments proposed must be consistent with the general principle, and we are averse to a revision of rents, which we believe would destroy the general policy on which we are embarked, namely—to solve ultimately this great Irish Land Question on the broad basis of purchase as a final settlement.
    MR. PARNELL: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) upon the determination which he has announced to-night of the Government to which he belongs, that they intend to stand by the system of purchase and the abolition of dual ownership of the land in Ireland, and to resist any Amendments to this Bill that would seem to impede the adoption of a system of purchase as the ultimate settlement of the Irish Land Question. I cordially agree with him in that; but I think the right hon. Gentleman is rather looking to the price at which this purchase shall take place, and to the swelling of that price and the maintenance of that price at a fictitious height and value, rather than to the impediments which the Amendments we seek to introduce into this Bill would throw in the way of dual ownership. By all means do not set up any artificial barrier against a large scheme of land purchase; but when the right hon. Gentleman devotes his great ability and financial experience to this attempt to bolster up the inflated rents on Irish estates under the present system, he is doing all he can to prevent any system of purchase from being adopted, or, if adopted, to doom it to a near and speedy failure. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he desires to abolish eviction; and so do we. But the way in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to abolish eviction is by calling it by another name. Under the system of the right hon. Gentleman, proposed in Clause 4, evictions will take place just as they take place now; but none of them will be recorded in your Blue Books. Undoubtedly it presented itself to the candid mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in looking over the long record of evictions in the Returns presented to the House, that it would be a most desirable thing to
    868
    abolish this record. Evictions of caretakers are not called evictions in Ireland. They are not carried out by the Sheriff, and they are not given in any Return to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will not get rid of a single eviction; evictions will take place just as hitherto. The only thing he will do will be to get rid of the record presented to Parliament. What happens now is that the tenant, after the actual eviction, has a six months' period of redemption. Within that period he can redeem his holding and save his title from being broken, by the payment of rent and costs, either in full or in part, if the landlord agrees to take less than the full sum. But under the system which the right hon. Gentleman lauds when he tells us that a written notice will suffice, the title of the tenant will practically be broken, without chance of redemption, by the written notice, and by eviction which will follow it all the same. It will be possible for the landlord to break the title which the Land Act of 1881 conferred upon the Irish tenant by the use of this written notice with which the right hon. Gentleman is so much in love, followed, of course, by the summary process of dispossession on a magistrate's order. It is not because we think that this system of written notice will get rid of the scenes that have shocked public opinion in this country that we object to the 4th clause, but it is because we know that this system will not get rid of evictions, and will not do away with the scenes either. The scones will take place all the same; the dispossession will have to come all the same. Evictions under another form will come all the same, and you will find that these evictions will come home to your consciences and the consciences of our constituents just as they do now. The right hon. Gentleman will find that he has been baffled in the amiable purpose which has governed the minds of the authors of Clause 4. This is a very good example of the way in which a Minister of the Crown thinks that he is entitled to mislead the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman actually attempts to prove in this House that by substituting a written notice and postponing the process of eviction for six months he will get rid of evictions altogether. Now I come to the question of the leaseholders. I fear that, after

    869
    the declaration just made from the Ministerial Bench, the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) will find that his confidence in Her Majesty's Government has been somewhat misplaced. The hon. Member sought to deprive me of any credit which may attach to the Leaseholder's Clause in the Relief Bill I introduced last year, by interrupting the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) with the announcement that the clause would not have admitted the leaseholders of Ireland, and that, therefore, he refused his support to the Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Would not have admitted the whole of the leaseholders?
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. Member did not say that. That may have been, and undoubtedly was, his meaning, but he did not say it. However, I accept his correction, and I say that the clause in my Bill, which he refused to support because it would not have admitted the whole body of leaseholders, would have done far more than the clause of the Government, the Bill containing which he now supports. The clause in the Relief Bill was the same as the clause of the Government, minus some of the important restrictions in the latter, and consequently it was a better clause than the clause of the Government; and I ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone how he can consistently defend himself for refusing to support a Bill containing a better Leaseholder's Clause than that in this measure?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If that clause had stood by itself in the Bill of last year, I should certainly have supported it; but the Bill contained a fatal clause which I was not prepared to support. Inasmuch as I was not prepared to support Clause 1, and as I thought Clause 2 defective, I voted against the hon. Member's Bill, and I should do so again.
    MR. PARNELL: Then I am afraid I must class the hon. Member in the category of unrepentant sinners. The hon. Member having sold himself to his Party in connection with the Crimes Bill, and having agreed to vote with that Party, and to be bound by the decision of the majority of that Party—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I never gave such a pledge.
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. Member now finds himself in the position of being dragged at the tail of the Party because they refuse to support him—at least, we understand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Party does—and we believe that the Leader will carry the majority with him notwithstanding the puny efforts of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Gentleman finds himself left in the lurch. I appreciate at their true value the exertions of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain). I look upon that Gentleman as a unit and nothing more in what is called the Liberal Unionist Party. I look upon him as possessing as little influence in the Party and in the country as any other Member of the Party, and certainly as possessing a great deal less influence than some Members of the Party. I hope that the hon. Member for South Tyrone when he revisits his constituents will provide himself with some better excuse for his conduct and perfidy than any which he has given to the House. Now I come to the question of the revision of the judicial leases, which appears to be the question that will excite the greatest difference of opinion when the Bill reaches Committee. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used the most extraordinary argument. He has told us that any attempt to interfere with judicial rents will discourage purchase. Why will it discourage purchase? It will not discourage purchase, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe, because it will unsettle the prospect of variable rents. It will settle the mind of the tenant, because the tenant who is desirous of converting his variable rent into a fixed and terminable rent will have the inducement of being able to diminish the rent at which he starts. It may, however, interfere, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, with the prospect of purchase, because he thinks that, he has thus got the tenant in a cleft stick, and that he and the Irish landlords are in the position of being able to say to the unfortunate rack-rented tenants—" Purchase, or else go out!" And that is the keynote of all the proceedings of the Government in reference to this question. They wish to keep up the prices in order to force the tenant to purchase. I believe this is a very mis-

    871
    taken policy, from their own point of view, for I am convinced the tenants will not purchase on the basis of the present prices, for if they did the result would be disastrous both to them and to the English taxpayer. I do not believe the common sense of the English people would permit such a job as that which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues in the Government are seeking to perpetuate in this attempt to bolster up the judicial rents as the basis of purchase, and to send the tenant forward upon his new career with a small stone round his neck.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the judicial rents would be the basis of purchase; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that the purchase would not be based on any rent at all.
    MR. PARNELL: Well, Sir, I am rather at a loss to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to join the "No-rent" standard, and to abolish rents altogether before he brings forward his Purchase Bill. In that event, undoubtedly, there would be some people—I will not say in Ireland, but over in New York—who would cordially agree with him—Mr. Patrick Ford, for instance; but I do not see on what lines the proposed system is to be based, except upon rents, unless it is upon no rents at all. Surely, if you are going to buy property, you estimate it by its yearly value—by what it produces yearly; and how is the right hon. Gentleman going to estimate the yearly value of Irish farms unless he first ascertains what the fair rents of those farms are going to be? It strikes me as being the only common-sense way in which this operation can be gone about—namely, to ascertain a fair rent, and then proceed to fix the number of years' purchase. If it is otherwise, you and the other persons concerned will have no standard of value whatever upon which to go. You will be in a perpetual state of uncertainty; first of all, as to how many years' purchase should be given, and, secondly, as to the principle of fair rents on which the number of years' purchase should be estimated. But I have another criticism of a more valid character to offer against the plan of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
    872
    the Exchequer. He proposes that these rents should remain as they are, lest their reduction should interfere with the ultimate solution of the question by purchase. That means that the tenant is to be left without any protection except that afforded by 18 months' interregnum constituted by the Bankruptcy Clauses—which, by-the-bye, have now been given up by the Government—it means that the tenants are to be left without any protection except that afforded by the illusory 22nd clause, until this system of purchase, which is to be based upon some other plan of estimated value than what the rent may be, is brought into effect. The right hon. Gentleman is a financial authority of great experience; but has he ever calculated the number of years it will take to investigate the titles and carry out a scheme of purchase upon any proportion of the land of Ireland? I have heard such an estimate made by good authorities that the period required has been put at from 10 to 15 years. I do not see how you can possibly hope to complete the scheme of purchase in the minds of the Government, to abolish the system of dual ownership in Ireland, in a lesser period than eight or ten years. During those years are the Irish tenants to be left at the mercy of these rack rents, for that is what is proposed by the Government? The Government say—"We will not interfere with the Act of 1881, but we will abolish dual ownership with the view of protecting the tenants from unjust and unfair payment." I maintain that long before the system of dual ownership could be abolished by means of your system of purchase it will have abolished itself by the extermination of all the tenants of Ireland. The best authorities in the country have agreed that it is impossible for the tenants to pay the present rents. Why, then, in the name of common sense, cannot the so-called Unionist Party set to work to solve this problem, and give protection to the tenants from unjust rents? We have been blamed for being desirous of keeping this Land Quest ion open. Some people say we want to keep it open in order to increase the strength of the National movement, in order that the sores of Ireland may be exhibited, like those of Lazarus, for the compassion of the world. Others say that we want to close the question in order to get rid of the

    873
    landlords, and so abolish British rule in Ireland. In my judgment, both sot of critics are wrong. I certainly do not wish to keep this Land Question alive for the purpose of attracting attention to the grievances of Ireland. I believe that, whether you settle the Land Question radically, as proposed by us, or whether you leave it open, it will make no appreciable difference to the strength of the National movement. If, however, you leave it unsettled, you will have a continuation of those scenes which occurred lately, you will have the disaffection of the people excited as it is against your rule, and you will have the indignation of the nations of the world against your rule. You will also have to answer to your consciences. [Laughter.] Perhaps they are not sufficiently tender for them to trouble you; but, at all events, you will have your constituents finding fault with your proceedings in the government of Ireland, as they have done at some recent elections, and you will continue to exhibit yourselves and your Government as permanent monuments, or monuments more or less permanent, of stupidity and ineptitude. I could not have believed it possible that the Government would be so foolish and stupid, and so regardless of their election pledges and every principle upon which they took their stand when they were making their appeal to the country at the last Election, as to deal with the Irish Land Question as they have dealt with it since they came into Office. Your whole platform was that you were strong enough and willing enough to do justice to Ireland. How have you dealt with this question? In the first place, you introduced the Bill into the House of Lords, kept it there for weeks while you were chopping and changing it; and now, when it has come down to this House, instead of announcing that you will meet the wishes of the country and bow to the inevitable, you shift and shuffle and bring forward futile and insignificant excuses. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the Report of the Cowper Commission. The Cowper Commission recommended that there should be a revision of rents every five years, not from 1884, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman, but judicial rent in each case was fixed. The result of that would be that 100,000 tenants would have gone into Court to get their
    874
    rents revised, and the revision would have taken place without any of the difficulty or delay suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, because, as he admitted, it would be a revision conducted on the basis of the difference in prices between the time at which the rents were fixed and now. This provision would be a mere actuarial calculation, necessitating no visiting of the farms, or any of the proceedings which characterized the fixing of judicial rents. The revision in respect of these 100,000 or 120,000 tenancies could be disposed of most rapidly. It would not occupy more than a few months; indeed, there would have been none of the delay or difficulty anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman. It may be necessary for us, when the Bill reaches Committee, to show you some way in which the difficulty can be met. I hope the Government will be in a better frame of mind by that time than they are in now, and that they will reciprocate the way in which we have met them in regard to this matter by coming forward half-way, as we have come forward more than half-way, to meet them in the settlement of this great question. Now, Sir, a revision of some kind of the judicial rents is absolutely necessary, and it will be impossible for the Government to go to the country, or to go over to Ireland and administer the Coercion Act, in face of the fact that they leave the grievances of the judicial tenants unredressed. They will be constituting a fresh inequality. Whereas the Act of 1881 left the grievances of the leaseholders unredressed, and whereas every year's experience of the working of that Act showed how more and more necessary it was that the leaseholders should be included in the Act, until at last the Government have admitted that they ought to be included, the working of this new Bill will show every year how necessary it is that the judicial tenants should be admitted to the same privileges as the leaseholders—that they should be allowed to apply to the Court to have fair rents fixed at a time when a great fall in prices has taken place, a fall which, unhappily, as far as all human judgment can foresee, is bound to continue for many years to come. Sir, I have dealt with the different points of the Bill, and I come now to consider the attitude that ought to be adopted by the Opposition at this stage

    875
    of the measure. The Government have dropped the whole of the Bankruptcy Clauses, which constitute one-half of the Bill as it stands at present. Possibly, by the time we reach the Committee stage, they may make up their minds to drop another quarter of the Bill, and substitute for that quarter a couple of pages of common sense and of justice; at least, I think it will be wise for us to give them the opportunity of doing so. I think it will be wise for us, in view of the progress that is being made upon this question, to allow the Government to see our Amendments on the Paper before we challenge a hostile decision of the House of Commons. The responsibility that will be thrown on the Government in the interval between now and the Motion to go into Coumittee will be very great. No body of men have ever faced a greater responsibility. You talk of having been placed in this position by the legislation of 1881. The people who talk in this way talk like fools of that which they know not of. You know not what the legislation of 1881 did. It was not the Coercion Act of 1881, it was not the Coercion Act of 1882, that broke down the Land League movement—it was the Land Act of 1881. I know well the truth of what I am saying. I watched from Kilmainham 90,000 tenants going into the Land Court, and I say that if it had not been for the Act of 1881 it would have been possible for us, even from our cells in Kilmainham, to have pushed the Land League movement to any extreme goal we chose it to reach. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his Colleagues in the Government, and the Irish landlords, may thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) for the lifeboat, as it was truly called at that time, which he launched to their assistance. He saved the Irish landlords at that time, and if the results of his measure have not been so fortunate as they might have been, it is not for you to throw that failure in his teeth; it is not for you who, during 50 nights of opposition in the House of Commons, obstructed the efforts of the Government of the day, and who, subsequently, in the Lords, cut out of the Bill some of its most valuable provisions, who afterwards dogged the proceedings of the Commissioners by every species of intimidation, at one time by
    876
    Motions in the House of Commons, and at another time by the appointment of Lords' Commissioners to examine and heckle the Land Commissioners in the discharge of their duties—it is not for you to taunt the Government of the day with the failure of that message. If it failed, it failed, in the first instance, owing to your exertions; and, in the second place, owing to the operation of the natural laws which brought about the fall in prices which we have since witnessed. However, we are now on the threshold. The Government have conceded something; they have conceded some points; they have given up, as I have said, a great deal of their Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) who has moved this Amendment consider whether, under the circumstances, it would not be right and fair to allow the Government a little breathing time after the two very important speeches that have been delivered, but especially after the very important and able speech of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill)? Everybody who is concerned in this matter, everybody who has any responsibility upon him, should hesitate long and carefully before taking any decided step. I shall be very unwilling, while the mind of the Government may be open—for all I know it is still open, I sincerely and ardently hope that it, is still open—while, I say, their minds are still open and while there is some time, let us not close in hostility with them, let us give them the necessary time, even as long a time as is sought by the Government—namely, till this day week—for the consideration of the Amendments we may place on the Paper and the final making up of their minds. If, then, the Government should make up their minds against justice and in favour of sending this stone to the Irish people when they have asked for bread, upon them will be the sin and the shame of what may follow in Ireland, upon them will be the responsibility if the Bill should be lost.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think that upon one point at least hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House will agree in a common opinion that we have listened to a debate during these three nights of remarkable interest and remarkable

    877
    ability. The House has applied its mind to the subject, and great light has been thrown upon all the main propositions of this Bill. I do not, Sir, under these circumstances, and I should not even if the hour were earlier, propose to enter upon any repetition or upon any detailed examination of any of these arguments; but I wish to answer, if I may, the appeal which has just been made to those who sit near me by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). I wish likewise to direct, as far as I can, the mind of the House to that which appears to me to be the one vital question in the consideration of this Bill, in which all other questions, however important, are included and absorbed. The hon. Member for Cork is of opinion that it would be well, on a double ground, that the Amendment now before the House should be withdrawn. The ground, as I understand, is, in the first place, that the mind of the Government may still be open to consider the changes which would make this measure a really valuable law; and, in the second, that a disposition has been shown in various independent quarters of the House—if any quarter of the House can be called independent—to sympathize with the hon. Member for Cork, and to deal with the position in a manner which may greatly improve the Bill and endow it with increased strength. When my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) undertook to give Notice of this Amendment, we acted alone as a small minority of this House—a minority scarcely exceeding one quarter of the entire House. We had no reason, excepting from general declarations and inferences, to know what were the views upon the present Bill of the hon. Member for Cork, or any of those who act with him, and still less had we any opportunity of obtaining information respecting the section of the House who have played a most important part during the present Session, and who are for the most part represented by my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). But I need not say that at no period, upon no question, in no conjuncture of the many questions that have arisen during the course of the present laborious and anxious Session, have we been ever favoured, directly or indirectly, with the smallest indication of
    878
    the course those Gentlemen were likely to pursue. We had to act for ourselves, and we deemed that the point which was put forward in the Amendment of my hon. Friend was the one great and vital point upon which the ultimate decision of this measure would have to depend. In looking at this Bill, and at the condition of the Irish tenantry, we have brought before us two large bodies of persons. Those two great bodies are dealt with in this Bill upon principles, not only different from, but contradictory the one to the other. The one body is that of the leaseholders, numbering, perhaps, about 120,000 persons; and the other is that of the tenants under judicial rents, who, taking those whoso rents were determined by the Courts and those whoso rents were fixed by agreement sanctioned in Court, together amount to 200,000 persons. What we have felt all along is that it is impossible to deal with these two classes upon opposite principles. By this Bill the leaseholders are to be admitted to the benefit of judicial rents. Why? What pretension is necessary in order to justify the admission of leaseholders? Simply this—that they are over-rented, and that, in many cases, the present rents are unjust. Why should not the judicial renters also have the benefit of the same principle? When you come to deal with them you adopt a principle totally different, and which tends, as we think, and as was admirably pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), to degrade and demoralize the people in Ireland. What says the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) on that subject? In a portion of his speech, which, I confess, I heard with some surprise, he said it was made an objection to the Bankruptcy Clauses that they tended to diminish and deteriorate the moral fibre of the people of Ireland. What answer did he make to that objection? It was that the moral fibre of the people of Ireland had undergone so much deterioration already from the Plan of Campaign that it really was a matter unnecessary for him to examine whether it was likely to suffer further in consequence of the enactments now proposed. Why, I want to know, is a different principle to be applied to tenants under judicial rents and under leases? If

    879
    there is any argument for this broad distinction, it is in favour of the judicial renter, because he has submitted to a rent fixed for him by public authority, while the leaseholder has accepted a rent which, according to all palpable and available evidence, has been fixed at his own discretion. I do not say that it has not been under pressure and difficulties; but it is, at least, by his own act, and not by public authority, that he has incurred the rent which he now pays. Why is the leaseholder to have his rent reconsidered, except on the ground of inability to pay? If it is just that the leaseholder should have his rent reconsidered, why is not the judicial renter to have the benefit of the like consideration? Those are the two points on which this question depends. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated the willingness of the Government to make certain, concessions, which are of a secondary character, as he himself would admit. They are in themselves not unimportant, but they do not touch the great and vital question of the principle upon which you have to deal with 200,000 occupiers who are now subject to judicial rents. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the Government, as at present advised, are opposed to a revision of rents. The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was regarded as one so vital and so difficult to deal with in an effective manner in Committee that we considered it impossible to do otherwise than to call attention to it on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. Since that time we have had an opportunity of learning the views of the Government, and we have also had an opportunity of learning the views of Gentlemen who call themselves Liberal Unionists on the subject. I cannot say that I am sanguine as to the views of the Government. I might distinguish between the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government would not assent to the revision of judicial rent3 except in cases of inability to pay, and the reasons upon which he founded that decision—those reasons referring simply to the difficulties which would arise in establishing a relation between rents and fluctuating prices. I hardly think that so acute a Gentleman as the right hon. Gentleman is believes that his
    880
    reasons are of the slightest practical use. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he indicated that there was some disposition on the part of the Government not to press the Bankruptcy Clauses in the face of the objections taken in so many quarters. But the Government in dropping the Bankruptcy Clauses will drop that which all along they have put forward as the main remedial provision contained in the Bill. They have not proposed or glanced at any substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses, and consequently we shall have to obtain in the best way we can the judgment of the House upon this important question—namely, when shall the judicial renters in Ireland, who are now suffering, like the leaseholders, from the extraordinary abatement of agricultural values which have taken place, be admitted to the benefit of a reconsideration of their covenants in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission which had the confidence of the Government. What are our means for bringing the question to an issue? We have no right whatever to suppose or to hope that we have any chance of pressing it to an issue, except on the part of a very decided minority of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) has made a speech containing propositions of the greatest importance, corresponding in the main perhaps, without any very material difference, with the views which have been independently taken in another quarter by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. The announcements which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on the question of Amendments to the Land Bill have probably been the subject of careful and renewed consideration among hon. Gentlemen forming that section of the House with which he acts. Until I know something to warrant such a supposition, I will not repeat the question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—whether it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to use his utmost exertions to press upon the House the Amendments he had explained with so much ability? I hail this speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and the propositions contained in it, as substantially adopting the principles that arc put forward in the Amendment of

    881
    my right ton. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs. Another important announcement was made to-night in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. No person could possibly have listened to that speech without the conviction that it was the offspring of deep belief in the mind of the noble Lord, and of a careful consideration of the matter on which he was addressing the House. I am not disposed to say anything to decrease the difficulties in which the Government are placed in regard to this measure. I beg pardon; I intended to say that I am not disposed to augment the difficulties in which the Government are placed in regard to it. There is no principle of Party which ought to compel the Government to reject the proposition made to them by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in favour of the revision of judicial rents under the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances which have effected agricultural values within the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke against the arguments of the Commission in a manner that caused me some surprise. The right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the Government when that Commission was appointed; but has he considered the moral pledge given to the people of Ireland by the appointment of that Commission? Is it possible for you to hope that after you have made the primâ facie admissions involved in the very appointment of that Commission, when you have selected a Commission composed of men after your own heart, who would look at the question from your own point of view, after that Commission has carefully examined the whole subject, and has reported and has made it the first and most vital of its recommendations that judicial rents should be revised, is it not demanding too much of the people of Ireland, under the pressure of agricultural distress, to expect that they should be able to acquiesce in your rejection of the opinion and advice and authority of your own confidential representatives, and that they should be content to accept forms of relief which are given to them under no other conditions than those of a previous submission to what they justly deemed degradation?
    882
    Sir, we have to think not merely of the strong recommendations which have been made to the Government, but of the general tone of the House. We have seen no disposition in any portion of the House to sustain the Government in the extraordinary and, I think, unfortunate course that they have determined to adopt in refusing the principal and simple recommendations of their own Commission. I cling to the hope that if happily we can keep this question free from the entanglements of Party associations and recollections, there may be so effective a movement in the House that the Government may, even with some promptitude and before embarrassments thicken around them, be disposed to make changes in the Bill which will bring it to the condition of a valuable measure. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who have assumed to themselves the name of Liberal Unionist must be sensible that upon this question they have an enormous responsibility; that it is for them to determine, in the main, which way the judgment of the House shall be. Most singular, indeed, will be the spectacle exhibited to the world if, after the close cohesion that they have shown upon all subjects connected with the repression and restraint of the liberties of the people of Ireland, they should go to pieces, and prove that they have no cohesion as a Party when it comes to a question of ministering to the practical wants of that people, and so avoiding the recurrence of scenes such as those which have recently shocked the nation. I hope I do not seem to utter that language in the tone of suspicion and mistrust. I utter it in justification of my confidence; I utter it at the same time, I frankly admit, because of the words by which the hon. Member for Cork has somewhat disparaged the weight and importance of the declaration which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and which, until I know to the contrary, I shall believe he has made on the part of those with whom he has so closely and so consistently co-operated, and on the part of those whom he has so constantly undertaken to speak. Well, under these circumstances, I agree with the hon. Member for Cork, and I give effect to what was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby in thinking that our

    883
    main contentions have obtained, in some respects unexpectedly, a vantage ground which, a week or a fortnight ago, we had no reason to anticipate. What we wish is that that impartial judgment of the House should be taken upon this question, and should be taken especially upon the subject whether the great body of the tenants of Ireland who are affected by the judicial rents are or are not to be treated upon principles of equality with those who are now known as leaseholders. We have every prospect I think on going into Committee—I regret there is to be so much delay, but that after all is only a matter of a few days—we have every reason to hope upon going into Committee that the prospect may be improved—the more days intervene between this time and Committee the better it may be for our opinions—we have every prospect of bringing to bear all the elements favourable to the proposition of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). I know I speak his sentiments and the sentiments of those near me when I say that it would be wise in the general interests of the question, and would undoubtedly tend to keep it free from Party associations and Party animosity, if we were to save the House the trouble of dividing on the present occasion, and allow to go forward a Bill to which we can give no sanction or countenance as it stands, but in which we recognize the capability of being brought by judicious Amendments, recommended in an impartial spirit from very different and separate quarters of the House, to such a state that it shall become a valuable and important boon to the people of Ireland, and contribute in its degree to the solution of the great Irish Question.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There is at least one portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in which I cordially concur, and that is in the desire that the House will approach the consideration of this great question free from Party influences and Party aims. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain). Only a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham advocated the
    884
    second reading of the Billon the ground that it was a much more generous and liberal measure than has at any time been proposed. It is on these grounds that we ask the House of Commons to read the Bill a second time this evening, and to read it as it is. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has expressed our readiness to accept Amendments consistent with the general principles of the Bill, those principles being to extend the benefits enjoyed by the tenant from year to year to the leaseholder, and to put a stop to harsh, unjust, and cruel evictions. We desire to give relief to the tenant when he is unjustly and cruelly pressed, and, at the same time, to admit the leaseholder to the benefit of the Act of 1881. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) says that we are now extending to the leaseholders benefits which the judicial renters will not share. It is remarkable that throughout the whole of his Land Law legislation the right hon. Gentleman had denied to the leaseholders the benefits he has been ready to extend to the judicial renters. I cannot conceive that there is any difference whatever in the position of these two tenants. One has entered into a contract as well as the other. One is as free to make a bargain as the other; and it seems to me that the tenant under a lease is at least as much entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1881 as the tenant from year to year. But what is the contention of the right hon. Gentleman? It is, virtually, that the benefits which have been derived by the last tenant under the last fixture of the judicial rent, under the last fall of prices, under the last condition, which can in any way affect the tenancy, shall be applied to all tenants—to all leases and to judicial rents fixed by the Court. A contention of that kind is a contention which destroys all possibility of finality and of settlement under any circumstances whatever. Here is a settlement which has been made under the Act of 1881, an Act passed with great solemnity, and under which we were assured there would be a settlement for a term of years which would not be disturbed. I, for one, should very deeply regret if any of the rents so fixed should, owing to change of circumstances, become onerous and severe on the tenants; and if that is the case, there is a power

    885
    under the Equity Clause of this Bill, Clause 22, which will enable the tenant to put pressure upon the landlord to bring about a settlement; and, for my part, I would infinitely prefer that the old system, under which landlord and tenant came together and made their own bargain for one year, or for two or three years, should be revived. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) referred to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and said that the object of my right hon. Friend was to maintain an impossible rent in order that impossible terms of purchase should be exacted from the tenant. I entirely deny that that is either his intention or the fair and reasonable moaning to be attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the previous evening the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) distinctly stated that the basis on which the Government contemplated purchase was the real value of the land and not the judicial rent. I am sure the hon. Member for Cork must be very well aware that the judicial rent does not express the real value of the land in a variety of cases; the land may be worth more or leas years' purchase. If the principle which was embodied in the Bill of last year were followed a certain number of years' purchase would have been applied to the judicial rent wherever it was found. That is not the meaning we attach to a scheme of purchase. We believe that the value of the land must be found at the time the bargain was made. That is the basis on which we hope to go; but it is conceivable that if Parliament substitutes for an arrangement of that kind a rent expressed by, if you please, a fresh valuation or a fresh adjustment, all inducement for purchase is gone, all motive for purchase is gone; and I am afraid that for a long time to come we may have that condition continued which every statesman and every Member of Parliament looks upon as most disastrous, and I am afraid the dual ownership of land must continue. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) referred to the Bankruptcy Clauses. We hold to the Bankruptcy Clauses as beneficial to the tenant. If hon. Gentlemen say that they are not beneficial to the tenant, and if they put
    886
    obstacles in the way of these clauses being considered and adopted by the House, upon them must rest the responsibility. I am not able to agree with the remarks of my noble Friend the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) with reference to the stigma which is supposed to attach to a man who has been applied to avail himself of bankruptcy in consequence of inability to pay all his creditors. It seems to me that any other method of paying less than the full sum of debts carries equal stigmas to that which is attached to the process of bankruptcy in open Court. It was suggested that the end might be obtained without the stigma of bankruptcy. Let us, at leaat, be frank, straightforward, and open. If a man is not capable of paying all his debts let an arrangement be made under which his creditors will share alike without distinction, and then we shall have a basis on which a man may start again as a free man, capable probably of discharging the duties of life. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the conditions under which purchase may be carried out—possibly by men relieved in this from the liabilities which hang round their necks. I am sure that any hon. Gentleman who is acquainted with the condition of the tenantry in Ireland would very much prefer they should start free from debt and liability than that they should have these encumbrances dragging them down. I will not at this moment occupy the attention of the House further than to refer to the 4th clause. Reference has been made to the 4th clause of this Bill as being an insidious clause. It is intended honestly to put a check upon evictions. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is one thing we desire as much as they, and that is the peace and prosperity and happiness of Ireland. Now, the 4th clause must be taken in connection with the 22nd. Under the 22nd clause, any tenant against whom any process of eviction is levelled can go to the Court and obtain a stay of eviction; therefore, none of these preliminary processes need be gone through if the tenants can show good cause why processes should not issue. If a tenant can only show that his failure has not been due to any fault of his own, the County Court Judge is

    887
    compelled by the provision of the section to put a stay upon the execution of a process and to order that the debts due to the landlord shall be paid by instalments. And then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork says that this is a mere insidious attempt to carry out eviction without obtaining the discredit connected with it. Why it is notorious that 75 per cent of these preliminary evictions do not issue in ultimate evictions.
    MR. T. M. HEALTThat is not so. Where are your figures?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am satisfied that when these clauses come to be examined they will be found to be real boons to the tenants of Ireland, and they will assuage many sores and troubles which we all deplore, and will bring1 about, I hope and believe, a better state of relationship between the landlords and tenants. I have been reproached for the delay in taking1 the Committee stage of the Bill. I must, however, remind the House that we are in a difficulty with regard to Supply. It is absolutely necessary that we should take the Navy Estimates on Monday, and the Civil Service Estimates on Tuesday and Wednesday. The exigencies of Supply compel us to postpone the Committee stage until Thursday next.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 196.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 196.]

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Bill, on Consideration, as amended (12th July].
    And which Amendment was to leave out Clause 39.
    Question again proposed, "That Clause 39 stand part of the Bill."
    Debate resumed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I rise to support the omission of Clause 39, and I hope the House will not misunderstand the object of my rising. Although the clause is in no way against the interest
    888
    of prisoners, yet, as it is only to relieve jurors, and involves no real principle, and as public opinion seems to be suspicious that it might injuriously affect accused persons, I have decided not to press it.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I agree with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that there does seem to be a strong feeling in the direction indicated, and I can quite understand the proposal which has been made to omit the clause. On the other hand, when I was in Office, it was found that there was a great hardship in jurors being summoned from a great distance in seed time and harvest, and it seems to me that the House should be made aware of the strong feeling which exists throughout the country on this subject.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause left out.
    Clause 44 (Prevention of delay in trials).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 15, line 29, at end, add,—
    "Provided also, that where a person accused has been incarcerated for eighty days, and an indictment is served upon him, and he is detained in custody after expiry of such eighty days, then, unless he is brought to trial and the trial concluded within one hundred and ten days of the date of his being committed, till liberated in due course of law, he shall be forth with set at liberty, and declared for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was charged; provided also, that where any person accused has been liberated from prison after having been committed till liberated in due course of law, he shall not be detained in prison more than one hundred and ten days in all, but unless his trial is brought to a conclusion before the hundred and tenth day of confinement in prison subsequent to commitment, till liberated in due course of Law, has expired, he shall be forthwith set at liberty and declared for ever free from all question or process for the crime with which he was committed."
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I would put it to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, whether this clause is not one which might very properly be left out of the Bill? I admit that the Amendment just made does, to some extent, remove the objection there was to the clause; but I am still of opinion that to omit it altogether would be the better course.
    MR. SPEAKER: I call the attention of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire to the fact that the House has already

    889
    amended the clause, and the Motion to leave it out of the Bill cannot now be made.
    DR. CAMERON: I ask, Sir, if it is not the practice first to amend a clause, and then to put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not so on Report.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am quite sure that everything in this clause is to the advantage, and not to the disadvantage, of the prisoner. The clause is not perfect, no doubt; but the accused person will be benefited by it, because it will enable him to bring his case into Court at an earlier date than hitherto was possible.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Sittings of the High Court).
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 14, after the word "necessary," to insert the words "on the requisition of the Lord Advocate."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CALDWELL: It is proposed by this Amendment that the High Court of Justiciary shall only hold sittings for the purposes of this Bill, for which the Lord Advocate makes requisition. It might happen that the prisoner's counsel wanted-to move the Court to fix the trial on a certain day; in that case, the Court would not have the power to do so in the absence of the Lord Advocate's requisition. That seems to me to be putting a restriction on the High Court inconsistent with the powers and dignity of the Court.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The requisition must come from the prosecutors; and if the prisoner is affected injuriously by the course taken, he has the right of applying to the Court.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 55.—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 56 (Clerk to state charge and swear jury).
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I think that in this
    890
    clause the Lord Advocate is imposing on the clerk of the Court a duty which may be performed in a very perfunctory manner, unintelligible to the jury, and perhaps not distinctly heard; and, being in favour of the law as it stands, I propose to leave out the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 56.—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 56 stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I cannot consent to the hon. Gentleman's proposal to leave out this clause. In England and Ireland it is the power of the prosecuting counsel not only to state to the jury the nature of the case, but to state it in an argumentative manner, and practically influence the jury by pleading before the evidence is led. What we propose is that the charge should be stated by the clerk in the form set forth in the Schedule to the Bill before the jury is sworn; and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite that this will necessarily be done in a perfunctory manner.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I entirely agree with the Lord Advocate in his view of this matter. I think it must be within the experience of most lawyers that sometimes the laying of the indictment before the jury tends to confuse them and cause delay, owing to their studying the documents given to them, without considering the facts before them.
    MR. CALDWELL: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) has just stated might apply to indictments in the present form, but has no relation to the now form of indictment that will be laid before the jury. It is impossible that any jury can misunderstand the nature of such a charge as this in the Schedule of the Bill—" You are indicted at the instance of Her Majesty's Advocate, and the charge against you is that on the 20th of June, 1888, in a shop in George Street, Edinburgh, you did steal a shawl and a boa." The new form of indictment lays the case before the jury as simply as it can be done by any Judge. I think that it would be well, and it is only a matter of small expense, as, by means of a manifold

    891
    writer, the necessary number of copies of the charge against the prisoner can be easily taken, and laid before the jury. In centres where the people are not so highly educated, the statement made by the Judge of the charge is very often forgotten five minutes afterwards. It is not fair that you should alter the system of procedure in Scotland which has worked so well, and which ensures that the jury, at least, know what the charge is, and which might, in the way I have suggested, be laid before them in four or five lines.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) opposite is correct in saying that to place a document before the jury is likely to mislead them. An intelligent jury, such as I cannot doubt would be found in Scotland, would have no difficulty in understanding the charge stated by word of mouth; but if there should be a jury so unintelligent as not to be able to remember such a simple charge as that of stealing a shawl, for instance, I am afraid that any document you might give them would only tend to confuse them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 64 (Statutory offences which are offences at common law).
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I think that when the Public Prosecutor brings up an accused person, he should make up his mind beforehand that the indictment should be for an offence either against Statute, or against Common Law; but to give him power of getting conviction under both or either is a thing which I altogether object to, and I shall, therefore, move the omission of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 64.—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 64 stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I cannot agree to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. It is the present law of our country that the same narrative of facts may constitute a crime either under the Common Law or Statute Law—that is to say, one statement of facts is sufficient, provided
    892
    that statement includes what is necessary to constitute the statutory and the Common Law offence. The provision made hero is, again, very favourable to the prisoner. The Judge is enabled to exercise his discretion and give a man six months' imprisonment under the Common Law, who would, under Statute, necessarily be sentenced to penal servitude for seven years.
    DR. CAMERON: There are many things which are crimes at Common Law in Scotland where convictions could not be taken, because of the difficulty of framing the indictment so as to bring it under the Common Law. That was the case with bankruptcy offences. Formerly, every offence under the Bankruptcy Law was an offence against the Common Law; but it was found impossible to obtain convictions, even in case of the grossest fraud. I mention, as an instance, that there are many things which are offences against the Common Law in Scotland that it would be very undesirable to sweep into the net of the Procurator Fiscal. For that reason I shall be inclined to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, unless we have some further information.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): There are some agrarian offences with regard to which it has been thought right to give the prisoner the chance of convictions for the minor offence. I do not think you ought to be able to get convictions under both Statute and Common Law; that, in my opinion, would be very unfair.
    MR. CALDWELL: At present the prosecutor may indict the prisoner either under the Statute or at Common Law. The whole question is, whether the crime is to be libelled under the Common Statute or Law? If the crime do not amount to crime under the Statute, the prosecutors are required to prove the facts as at Common Law. The Lord Advocate wishes, if the indictment fails under the Statute Law, to turn round and, without any previous notice or indictment at Common Law, to say this is an offence under the Common Law. But if you are going to ask for a verdict at Common Law, as well as the chance of a verdict under the Statutes, you must libel both in your indictment. The alternative of Statute or Common

    893
    Law must put down on the face of the indictment.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: Where a man is charged with murder, by the law of Scotland he may be convicted of culpable homicide or manslaughter. In its operation this is a merciful provision of the law. The result is that a man may got off on the lighter charge, who, if the jury were pushed to extremity and there was no alternative but acquittal, would be convicted of the graver charge. I think the Lord Advocate has put the case fairly. The proposal that if the facts of the case justify the prisoner may be found guilty of the lighter charge is in the interest of the prisoner, and is in accordance with the whole spirit of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 61: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 300.)
    [1.40 A.M.]
    Clause 69 (Recording previous convictions).
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 21, line 29, at beginning of Clause, insert—
    "Previous convictions against an accused shall not be laid before the jury, nor shall reference he made thereto in presence of the jury before the verdict is returned; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Public Prosecutor from laying before the jury evidence of such previous convictions where, by the existing Law, it is competent to lead evidence of such previous convictions as evidence in causa in support of the substantive charge and."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 72 (Variance between indictment and evidence).
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 72.—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'no trial shall fail,' stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): This clause is framed with the view of preventing the escape of prisoners on mere technicalities in respect of some difference between the evidence and the indictment. Many cases have occurred in which there was no doubt whatever of the guilt of the prisoners, and yet, because there was some slight discrepancy between the indictment and the evidence which
    894
    came out, the prisoners escaped. It is highly undesirable that that should take place. I quite admit that this clause was framed too broadly; but I take the example of an English Act of Parliament; and I propose, as the hon. Member will see, to insert an Amendment afterwards, which I think will take away the difficulty which existed before. We simply adapt an English Act of Parliament to Scottish procedure.
    MR. ANDERSON: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Motion. The clause is one which is highly beneficial to the administration of the Criminal Law, and the Amendment of the Lord Advocate, I quite agree, will avoid any question of injustice.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendments made:—In page 22, line 25, leave out "sentence," and insert "the case for the prosecution is closed;" in line 28, leave out all after "always," and insert—
    "That such amendment shall not be allowed unless the court shall be satisfied that such discrepancy or variance is not material to the merits of the case, and that the person accused cannot be prejudiced thereby in his defence on the merits."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— [BILL 141.]
  (Mr. Fulton, Captain Colomb, Mr. Ernest Spencer.)
  WATER COMPANIES (REGULATION OF POWERS) BILL.— [BILL 141.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, severally agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Water not to be cut off where the water rate is payable by the owner),
    MR. FORREST FULTON: The clause as it stands provides that the interest should run from the expiration of one month from the time the claim has been sent in by the Company. It seems to me, on consideration, that perhaps some legal difficulty might arise from time to time, in the way of proving when the claim had actually been made, and that it might

    895
    be fair to the Water Company if I expunged the words "from the expiration of one month," and substituted the words "has become due to." The effect of that Amendment would be that the rate of interest would run from the time the money became due, instead of a month after the time.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 26, to leave out the words "from the expiration of one month."—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to adhere to the Bill as it stands. I think, if the interest is to run at 5 per cent, it would act as a premium on the Water Companies in sending in their claims. I do not say they would take advantage of it for such a purpose; but I think it is only fair that they should be bound to send in their claim, and that the interest should only run from a reasonable time after the claim had been sent in.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: As the clause stands, it is required that notice should be given "to him"—that is to say, the occupier. It is, probably, desirable that the words I propose as an Amendment should be added—namely, "or left at his dwelling house." That is the usual form in these cases.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, after the word "him," to insert the words "or left at his dwelling house."—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)
    Question "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. FORREST FULTON: The next Amendment I wish to propose is in line 7, to leave out "next," and insert "thereafter." It occurred to me that the words "next become due by him" would probably raise a difficulty in the case of weekly tenants, and that, probably, the best way would be to use the word "hereafter" in place of "next."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the word "next," and insert "thereafter."—(Mr. Forrest Fulton.)
    Question, "That the word 'next' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'thereafter' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. FORREST FULTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 9, after "recovered," insert "at any onetime;" and in line 10, after him," insert—
    "Or which shall have accrued due from him since such notice shall have been given or left as aforesaid."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MOTION.

  COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Bartley, Bill to amend the Law relating to the recovery of penalties for the unauthorized performance of Copyright Musical Compositions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley, Mr. Addison, Mr. Dillwyn, and Mr. Lawson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 322.]
  House adjourned at five minutes after Two o'clock,

MINUTES.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT—The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, after the death of his brother; The Lord Gerard, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) (164),

EGYPT—THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION—THE DEBATE OF MONDAY, JUNE 11—CORRECTION.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, since the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) the other day contradicted the report that he had used a disrespectful expression with reference to Her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary at Constantinople (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have also looked at my share in that report, where I was represented to say that the right hon. Gentleman was in a state of suspended animation. I beg to state that I never used that expression.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)
(The Lord Ashbourne.)
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 164.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE), in rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time, said: My Lords, the Bill to which I have now to ask your Lordships to grant a second reading is a Bill for the amendment of the Criminal Law in Ireland; and the title of the Bill, which I have read, indicates both the scope and the purpose of the Bill, and, at the same time, suggests two questions, which any such Bill obviously suggests, at the outset—namely, is the existing Criminal Law adequate for the

  711
  purposes that every Criminal Code must fulfill? and, secondly, are the proposals in the Bill sufficient to meet the evil which exists at the present time? It would, I think, be affectation to ask your Lordships if you are ignorant of what has gone on for months in the other House of Parliament descriptive of these proposals, and descriptive also of the state and condition of affairs in Ireland, which have rendered it necessary, in the view of Her Majesty's Advisers, to offer these proposals for adoption to Parliament. The attention of this House has been pointedly directed to the important aspect of this question more than once, and on the Motion of my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Fitzgerald) an important debate took place in the present Session with reference to the jury system in Ireland, which indicated many of the considerations which must be present to the mind of everyone who desires to approach this question with an earnest and impartial desire to do what the requirements of the case obviously call for. That discussion, temperately and fully inaugurated by my noble and learned Friend, indicated with great fullness and plainness that the present Criminal Law in Ireland was insufficient, owing to the wide system of intimidation which then prevailed, and now, unfortunately, prevails in Ireland—an intimidation which does not stop short at any class, and which includes witnesses and which reaches jurors. That debate further indicated that the present jury system under such an ordeal must be taken in a numerous class of cases and in too many parts of Ireland to have practically failed and broken down. Your Lordships are familiar with the history of this question, and of what has taken place in reference to the administration of the Criminal Law. The ordinary law has been tried for a period practically of two years, and I am very glad that that trial was made, because there were numerous statements made that until the ordinary law and the ordinary methods of its administration had been tried and fully tried for a sufficient time it would be unreasonable to ask Parliament to deal with the matter and to provide stronger measures. My Lords, it was also pressed upon the attention of Parliament and of the country that, in view of the great addition to the elec-
  712
  torate in Ireland, it would be unreasonable after granting great privileges to the Irish population not at the same time to give them an opportunity of showing whether the ordinary law, with its methods and system of administration, could not be trusted to preserve peace, order, and tranquillity to Her Majesty's subjects under which to carry on their ordinary avocations. That system has been tried, and I think no man can say that in his opinion the methods at present applicable to the administration of the Criminal Law can be regarded as adequate for working out the maintenance of law and order, so that the subjects of the Queen, our fellow subjects, should be able to rise in the morning and perform their duties, and lie down at night in peace and safety, and free from the dread of outrage, and free from the terrors of intimidation. It is more the machinery and the methods of administration of the law than the actual laws themselves that this Bill deals with, and, although I am sure every one of your Lordships is familiar with what has passed elsewhere, and what is known, if not universally, at all events, pretty generally, as to the state of Ireland, I am bound, I think, to make some short statement which I hope will not be wearisome to your Lordships. Although I do not think, as some think, that statistics of themselves are the only guides in reference to legislation, they are at the same time always useful, and should be presented fairly and reasonably to Parliament. My Lords, statistics taken for a week, a month, or even two months, may present an uncertain picture, and lead to fallacious conclusions, and it is always advisable to take a view of statistics sufficiently broad to enable them to be examined from a fair standpoint, and in a way that will challenge criticism. I will ask your Lordships to contrast two periods of time which will enable a wide and fair result to be inferred. Take the 20 months before the dropping of the last Act of this description, and a period of 20 months which has elapsed since, and I think that examination will lead your Lordships to some important results. In the 20 months from December, 1883, to July, 1885, the total agrarian offences numbered 1,250, and excluding threatening letters, 645, and in that time there was one murder. Taking the monthly

  713
  average the total agrarian offences for that time amounted to 63 per month, or, excluding threatening letters, 32 per month. So much for the 20 months during which legislation analogous to that which I now ask your Lordships to adopt, existed. Now, take 20 months from a period when no such legislation was in existence, and you will find the contrast significant. The 20 months taken from August, 1885, to March, 1887, show that there were no loss than 1,771 agrarian offences, as against 1,250, or, excluding threatening letters, 1,041, as against 645; and, my Lords, the one murder which was returned in the first period of 20 months to which I referred has to be compared with 16 murders which took place during this latter period. The result thus gained from a comparison of these two periods is certainly interesting and instructive. The monthly average during the first period was 63, while in the latter period it was 89. Excluding threatening letters, the 32 of the former period became 52 in this period when no exceptional legislation existed. I decline to rest the whole case of the Government on figures, but I will give your Lordships one more instance. Contrast Juno, 1886, with June, 1887. While putting aside the element of threatening letters, we find that 49 agrarian offences were committed in June of last year, and we find that in June of this year the number is increased to 66. The statistics with reference to Boycotting are these. On the 31st of May last 154 persons were wholly, and 647 persons were partially Boycotted. But, my Lords, these figures taken alone would be entirely misleading, because they would give your Lordships an absolutely erroneous idea of the real facts. You cannot visit one individual with this brutal and disgraceful mode of proceeding without taking into account that his family and his household are bound up with him, and equally suffer from this horrible system of denunciation and intimidation. Thus the figures work out in this way—that in reality 850 persons were wholly Boycotted, and there may be classed as partially Boycotted 3,819, making a gross total of 4,669. These figures are in themselves so grave that they would be weakened by any argument of mine. I doubt if, in all your Lordships' lives in England, in the com-
  714
  fortable and peaceful surroundings of English life, with all the comfort and ease provided by the laws and the administration of the laws, you can realize the painful and horrible position to which every person is subject who is mixed up in this form of intimidation, which is as criminal as it is demoralizing—this system of coercion, intimidation, and interference in every relation of life which spares neither sex nor age from its remorseless and cowardly attacks. My Lords, instead of the manly and righteous indignation which such a system requires, it has been described in language—I will not say of excuse, or of justification, or of palliation—I will not describe the language, lest it should be said I did so in terms of too great force; but words have been used in reference to this system which are not words of indignation, which are not words of reprobation, and which, to the unwary and ignorant, might be taken as amounting almost to palliation, if not to justification, of these gross offences. Your Lordships have read the suggestion that there are analogies to be found in this system to trade unions. It is a slander on the system of trade unionism to say that the system I have described would be adopted in any trade union in this country. Then, it is equally startling to find the euphemism of exclusive dealing used, not as a description of these acts, because they would be abhorrent, but the term "exclusive dealing" is used in sentences and phrases which convey to those who read them that this horrible system of Boycotting can have an analogy in some system of exclusive dealing. I know what a hopeless task it would be for me to attempt to describe the system of Boycotting; but I will adopt the words of Mr. Gladstone when he was carrying a much stronger measure than this. The words in which he spoke are strong, vigorous, and clear. These are Mr. Gladstone's words. Speaking on May 24, 1882, he said—
  "What is meant by 'Boycotting?' In the first place, it is combined intimidation. In the second place, it is combined intimidation made use of for the purpose of destroying the private liberty of choice by fear of ruin and starvation. In the third place, that being what 'Boycotting' is in itself, we must look to this—that the creed of 'Boycotting,' like every other creed,-requires a sanction; and the sanction of 'Boycotting'—that which stands in the rear of 'Boycotting,' and by which alone 'Boycotting' can, in the long run, be made thoroughly effective—is the

  715
  murder which is not to be denounced …I have stated that there might be exclusive dealing between men. But that is a totally different thing; and, unless I am much mistaken, that declaration was made before 'Boycotting' was heard of. …I may have said, and I say now, that I have a perfect right to deal with one man rather than another, and even to tell people that I am doing so; hut that has nothing to do with combined intimidation exercised for the purpose of inflicting ruin and driving men to do what they do not want to do, and preventing them from doing what they have a right to do. That is illegal, and that is the illegality recommended by the hon. Gentleman; and it is plain that those who recommend and sanction such illegality are responsible for other illegalities, even though they do not directly sanction them."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1551–2.)
  It would be impossible for any man to state the case with greater clearness and to indicate more completely the system which requires the denunciation of every honest man, and which admits of neither defence nor excuse. This system of outrages, I may toll your Lordships, has not the same painful intensity all over Ireland; it varies in force and it varies in degree. It is not found at all in some localities and in some places it has great power. The reports of the National League meetings in the local Nationalist Press in Ireland indicate the interferences which are sought to be accomplished by this widespread intimidation, this horrible system of Boycotting in almost every relation of life. I am afraid it will be my duty to read some of those reports taken from the various newspapers. I feel that I should not do my duty if I did not give my authority for these various quotations from the Provincial Press in Ireland which disclose the action of this combined intimidation which was denounced in such scathing terms by Mr. Gladstone. I have gone back two months in the past. The first date I take is the 27th of May and the last the 1st of July in the present year. I quote the following report from The Tuam News of May 27, 1887:—
  "Kiltartan branch, Rev. Father Kerins, C.C., chairman.—Hugh Baldwin was summoned to attend the meeting, the charge of consorting with a notorious anti-Nationalist being brought against him. He assured some members of the committee before the meeting that he did not know what he was doing, and that it would not happen him again."
  I quote the following from The Nationalist and Leinster Times of the 28th of May, 1887:—
  "Moone branch, Mr. P. P. Farnane, chairman.—'That having deliberately inquired into
  716
  the case of landgrabbing in this district in which a man named Patrick Bourke has deprived Thomas Byrne of all chances of regaining possession of his farm, we desire to denounce in the strongest terms such base conduct; and, moreover, as the said Patrick Bourke, who carries on the business of a dealer, earns his living by the support accorded him by the people, we deem his conduct the more reprehensible, and as he has done irreparable injury to Thomas Byrne by depriving him of the opportunity which existed but for his uncalled for and unnecessary interference of regaining possession of his farm, we call on our fellow-countrymen to aid us in marking our abhorrence of such vile conduct.' The hon. secretary was requested to send copies to circumadjacent branches of the League."
  In The Leinster Leader of June 11, 1887, was this report—
  "Monasterevan branch, Mr. Patrick Carroll, and subsequently Rev. James Hughes, C.C., chairman.—The committee, however, desire it to be known that they will not receive anybody into the branch who will take a turf-bank against the wish and expressed consent of the person who usually cuts such bank, and if any member of the branch violates this rule he will be summarily expelled. The people should make their own rules about their turf-banks, and light their pipes with the estate office permits. Mr. James Carroll, Kildangan, came before the committee and apologised for having accommodated the Messrs. Fitzpatrick, of Derryoughta, with a stand in his yard for their horse and trap every Sunday for years past. He acknowledged that he was fully aware of the part of the Fitzpatricks had taken against the National League during all that time, and that he knew that were it not for them there would most probably never have been a landgrabber in the district."
  What do your Lordships think of a state of things in which an unfortunate man is compelled by terror to apologize for having done an act of mere neighbourly kindliness? The People of June 15,1887, contains the following:—
  "Ballaghkeen branch, Thomas Kinsella chairman.—The following resolution passed unanimously:—'That Jack Doran, late of Ballymurry, at present living in the labourer's cottage, Mountdaniel, be turned off this committee and expelled from membership of this branch for putting his horse to graze on the evicted farm in Garrymoyle.' William Murphy, of Derry, is also aiding the grabber by building a house for him on said farm."
  What liberty can there be in a country where a man is not allowed to graze cattle or to build a house on particular land? The Tuam News of June 17, 1887, contains the following statement:—
  "Loughrea branch.—Mr. Lee also appeared and gave his reasons for retaining Graham. A Delegate.—Is this the man that used to be painting the banners for us? (Laughter and applause.) Mr. Lee.—What do you want me to

  717
  do with him? I do not know how I can legally turn him out. Mr. Mulkerns. We do not mind what is legal in the eye of the English law at all; you can get him out as you get him in. (Applause.)"
  Then, again, in. The Leinster Leader of June 25, 1887, appears the following:—
  "Edenderry branch, Rev. J. Kinsella, P.P., chairman.—'That it having come to our knowledge that certain traders regularly supply goods to emergency mea working on Hyland's farm, from which he was unjustly evicted, and on inquiry finding that such is the case, we call on all persons who have hitherto supplied goods and thereby encouraged evicting landlords to desist from this practice, or they themselves must be considered emergency aids and treated as such.'"
  What is the horrible suggestion that is conveyed by the words, "They themselves must be considered as emergency aids and treated as such?" We may affect here to be ignorant of everything that has not been brought fully to our notice, but it would be presuming too much to assert that your Lordships do not know what the meaning of that threat is. Emergency men in Ireland have been murdered; they have been waylaid and subjected to every form of outrage; and with the light of that fact thrown upon the matter we can appreciate the hideous significance of those words. And yet we have been told that we are to pass by those facts because the Irish National League is merely a form of trade union. I say that the trade unions of this country are slandered by such a statement. I will now quote the following from The Dundalk Democrat of June 25, 1887:—
  "Tallanstown branch, Thomas Keiran chairman.—'That we deem it a disgrace to the county Louth that the rich and populous parish of Ardee during this year of trial should have only 78 members enrolled in its branch of the National League out of a possible or more than 600. That we believe the Irishman of to-day who in times to come will be unable to show his card of membership for 1887—for the year memorable for campaigning and struggling for life of the unfortunate Irish peasantry, for the revival of priest hunting, and the suicide of landlordism—we believe such delinquent must in future be regarded as a traitor and a coward, as worth being shunned and unfit to ever trusted.' The resolution was unanimously adopted, after which the meeting adjourned."
  The resolution was, of course, unanimously passed, as they always are, for obvious reasons. I take the next extract from The Tuam News of June 24, 1887—
  718
  "Kilcornan branch.—The following resolution was unanimously passed:—Resolved, 'That any member of this branch who supports or holds any communication with persons who decline to become members of the National League be expelled from this branch; that the names of the anti-leaguers be published after next meeting, and be known as the black list of the parish.'"
  On the 1st of July, 1887, the same paper contained the following:—
  "Mulla branch.—The next case was that of John Briscoe, who was found to be a backslider. He was joined in the Plan of Campaign on the estate of H. B. Trench, but he tendered his rent to the receiver without the knowledge of the Estate Committee, for which he was brought up before the last meeting of this branch, and his case was referred to the Loughrea District Organization, where, after a long deliberation, he was exonerated on condition that he would pay in the full amount, minus the reduction demanded by the tenantry, which he agreed to; hut afterwards he refused emphatically. It was resolved by the committee that all persons who were the cause of the Plan of Campaign being broken in the Clonbrock estate be expelled from the branch, and that a full list of their names should be published in our next report."
  The same paper of the same date contains the following:—
  "Tuam branch.—The hon. Secretary read the following letter from the Cummer branch of the National Leage:—'Corofin, June, 25, 1887. Dear Sir,—Enclosed you will find postal order for 10 s, the amount voted by our branch towards the fees of your solicitor for the League. The following is a resolution passed at our meeting on Sunday last:—"That we, the members of the Corofin League, request our secretary to write to the Tuam secretary to bring under the notice of the next Tuam convention the conduct of some of the Tuam inhabitants who are sustaining a man named Pat Tarpy, of Doonbeg, by giving him employment against the will of this League, by whom he has been Boycotted for grabbing the turf bank of a poor widow." Yours truly, James Mullin, sec'"
  I now come to a case with which your Lordships must have been familiar through the statements that have been made in the public Press. It is the means that have been taken to compel the tenants of a lady at Mitchellstown to stand out against her. In one case the following letter was received by the tenant:—
  "Dearest Madam,—I know you would not like to injure me, and as there is no—coming to market at present, don't come into the shop; if you are seen coming into the shop I may as well shut the door; nothing would free me from blame and things may be settled in a few days please God, and as I can do no good there is no use in you coming about the place. I am dear Madam your friend—"

  719
  In the next case the tenant received the following letter:—
  Jan., 1887. To—Esqr. Sir,—I fear according to the notice of this morning that I could not safely send in—but perhaps we could manage to have it left some place privately for some time. At any place you would say around the—as I nearly supplied them all it must he done very privately as in the present stale of the country the consequences might be something terrible to me. Hoping you will take the matter into consideration, and you will much oblige yours respectfully—. P.S.—If you would kindly drop me a note by this (Monday) evening's post and say what you think on the matter."
  I do not think that your Lordships can fully appreciate—I will not use the word "inconvenience," because it is not a term strong enough—but the suffering that is caused by living under such a state of circumstances. I will now proceed to refer to the charges of Judges to the grand juries of Ireland. Charges of Judges are usually regarded as being of very high authority; and, indeed, I recollect that when a Bill making important changes in the Criminal Law of Ireland was introduced in 1870 the charges of the late lamented Baron Deasy were referred to with approval by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Colleague of Mr. Gladstone, in support of the Bill of which he was in charge. The charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien, which Mr. Gladstone thought unworthy of much consideration, your Lordships, I am sure, will think worthy of your serious attention. Mr. Justice O'Brien said—
  "All the accounts that I have received as to the state of this country since the last assizes concur in representing that no kind of improvement whatever has taken place. On the contrary, the information that I have been able to collect leads me, I regret to say, to the inevitable conclusion that this county of Clare possesses the bad distinction of being the worst part of all Ireland in respect of social order, and to the further conclusion that it is worse at present than it was at any time before. You know there is another and a greater evil which stares you in the face every day, and that is the evil of intimidation, open or unexpressed, that permeates the whole of this community. You need not be told that there is in existence a form of unseen terrorism that interferes at present with all relations of social life, penetrating every class and every relation, hampering and checking men in all their daily business pursuits, and utterly hostile and inconsistent with the necessary freedom and confidence of social life and civil life, which are the foundations of all prosperity and all happiness in the community; and—as so commonly happened in the past history of Ireland—criminal means and
  720
  criminal organizations, once in existence, are applied to other objects and other ends besides those that brought them into existence. It is not the relations connected with land that are affected by it, but every relation is affected by it more or less. Men cannot pursue their daily avocations, they cannot buy or sell, they cannot employ or dismiss their servants, they cannot regulate their own domestic or family relations without being subject to a species of tyranny so dire that, over and over again, it has become a common marvel."
  My Lords, that is powerful and felicitous language, and describes a terrible and appalling state of things. It cannot be put aside by any language calculated to make Judges disregard grave and serious facts brought before them in the ordinary discharge of their duties There is also a charge in the Queen's County of Baron Dowse, who used cautious but suggestive language. I will not quote it to your Lordships, but it points outgravely a significant increase of crime, and he was unable to congratulate the grand jury on the condition of the county. Then there was a trial before Mr. Justice Murphy at the Longford Summer Assizes. It was the trial of a man named Cunningham for homicide, which resulted in acquittal. Mr. Justice Murphy said that such a verdict was flying in the face of the strongest evidence. I do not read these sentences as indicating, any one of them, conclusively the state of facts which exists, but, taken together, I say they all go to make up a picture which, with the knowledge which I am entitled to assume every man in this country possesses through the public papers, must bring home to the mind and conscience of every man what is the state of affairs that we have either to deal with or deliberately to decide that we will not deal with. I have presented to your Lordships a state of facts which must either be dealt with or left alone, and the only way to deal with crime and intimidation is by a measure for the amendment of the Criminal Law. If you do not so deal with crime and intimidation you will prefer to let them go on intact, with impunity, and safe. The Bill which I have to present to your Lordships' notice is a Bill which I think very intelligible in its objects and in its purposes. It would be improper for me in a second reading speech to go in detail through the provisions of the measure, as I feel that I have already more than trespassed on the indulgence of your Lord-

  721
  ships. But this Bill may be divided into three main parts. One is contained in the second clause for increasing the summary jurisdiction. This subject is familiar to your Lordships. It was brought before the House by my noble and learned Friend and others this Session in the debate on the jury system in Ireland. It was also dealt with in a Committee of the House in which some noble Lords opposite took an active part. This Section 2 contains provisions which I regard as of the highest importance, and which I am satisfied will be found efficacious. The clause creates no new offence. It brings within the summary jurisdiction of this Act, in its first sub-section, any person who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy, now punishable by law, to compel or induce any person or persons either not to fulfill his or their legal obligations, or not to do what he or they have a legal right to do. The 2nd sub-section also brings within the area of summary jurisdiction any person who shall wrongfully and without legal authority use violence or intimidation to any person or persons with a view to cause him or them either to do any act which he or they has or have a legal right to abstain from doing, or to abstain from doing any act which such person or persons has or have a legal right to do. The 3rd subsection deals with people who take part in riots or unlawful assemblies, or wrongfully take or hold forcible possession of house or land, or unlawfully resist or obstruct Sheriffs, constables, or others. There is also another sub-section, which deals with persons who incite others to commit such offences. These offences are made triable, not before the ordinary magistrates, but, following other precedents, before paid magistrates, and are punishable with six months' imprisonment with hard labour. This clause is one which can only be applied in the main in proclaimed districts. I regard that provision as of the highest importance. I believe that this summary jurisdiction, if fairly, firmly, and steadily applied, will work out peace and quiet in many districts now disturbed by crime, outrage, and intimidation. It is necessary that for the class of offences mentioned in this section there should be a trial speedy and effective. The next branch of the Bill is that which enables either party to obtain a special jury and
  722
  the Attorney General to get a change of venue. These are clauses which are to be put into operation in proclaimed districts. The last part of the Bill, beginning with Section 6, deals with dangerous associations. Your Lordships will see that if the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied that any association is formed for the commission of crimes or for carrying on operations for or by the commission of crimes, or for encouraging or aiding persons to commit crimes or for interfering with the administration of the law or disturbing the maintenance of law and order, it may be declared by him a dangerous association. This power is subject to this great and most powerful check—no greater, or more powerful can be imagined—that the special Proclamation bringing this section into effect must be laid before Parliament and be subject to its judgment. Your Lordships will see that the power of Parliament is invoked, the control of Parliament maintained, and that every safeguard is given for a just and wise use of this power. There is also the first clause, which is, of course, of importance; and also there are other clauses of importance—machinery clauses; but I do not think it would be expedient to weary your Lordships by going through them in detail. There is one other matter which I must mention. No term is named for the termination of this Bill. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] I put that as one of the points on which we invite any criticism which may be offered. I mention it in order that it may be canvassed by anyone who feels disposed to question it. Anyone acquainted with this subject must know that legislation such as this loses much of its efficacy by having a fixed date of one, four, or five years, and that the putting in of such a date tends to the creeping paralysis of such legislation. Everyone knows that at a certain date such legislation may possibly be allowed to drop; there may be Dissolutions, there may be changes of Ministry; but, independent of these two contingencies, everyone knows that to fix a date to such legislation is to render it infirm and enfeebled and somewhat halting weeks before the legislation expires. But, though no date is mentioned in this Bill, the whole affair is before Parliament and can be dealt with according to the requirements of the case. I have always called this Bill

  723
  by its proper name—a Bill to amend the Criminal Law in Ireland. This Bill has been called a Coercion Bill. It is an entire misuse of language. I do not think that the noble Earl opposite, the late Vicerory of Ireland (Earl Spencer), who has had ample experience of such legislation, would say that he was administering at any period of his life legislation which he did not feel was necessary for the protection of the honest subjects of the Queen and for safeguarding the liberty of the subject. And yet I have read that this is not only a Coercion Bill, but a special form of Coercion Bill. I do not want to make any personal charges; but I will say that the only speciality I can find in this Bill is this—that certainly for the first time for many a long year the Government have come forward with a Bill for the strengthening of their hands in the enforcement of law and order, and for the protection of personal liberty in Ireland, not with the loyal co-operation, but with the resolute hostility of the Opposition. No matter what Government might be in power, no matter what form of government might be in existence in Ireland, this legislation would be absolutely necessary unless you wanted to make Ireland a place where crime and intimidation are committed with absolute impunity. I am entitled to say this, that Mr. Gladstone described his own Bill of 1882 as a Bill that in its administration was ''public, judicial, and responsible." Mr. Gladstone is a master of phrases with regard to his own handiwork; but the Bill he so described had clauses far stronger and far more open to criticism than the Bill which I have so imperfectly explained. I ask what portion of the administration of this Bill is not public, is not, before any person can be deprived of his liberty, subject to judicial sanction, is not responsible? How can any man be sent to prison without the intervention of judicial action, or be jeopardized by a single clause without its being known that every circumstance would be made public? In some cases, the absolute notice of Parliament is essential, A Bill of this kind, to be adequate, must be sufficient. A Bill of this kind should grapple with crime, should prevent crime, it should punish crime. A halting Bill called a Crimes Prevention Bill that would not prevent crime would be
  724
  ridiculous. A weak Bill would be worthless. A real Bill must be a Bill that is strong enough to be always sufficient. I put this one test of the Bill before the House—would that Bill, would a single one of its clauses, jeopardize a single innocent man? That is a fair test of the Bill—would any man not guilty of an offence be imperilled by a single one of its provisions? The Bill itself I do not say is sufficient to promote, to cause the happiness and the peace of Ireland, but it takes an important and essential part in that direction. A Bill for the amendment of the Criminal Law is necessary for the maintenance of law and order, which it is necessary to re-establish where it has been imperilled, and for restoring, where it has been taken away, that liberty which is essential for everyone. The Bill, taken in conjunction with other Bills, will tend, I believe in my heart, to the settlement of the peace of Ireland; it will be, I hope, a terror to evildoers; it will, I know, be a terror to nobody else. Its introduction has had an effect for good in Ireland. That everybody knows. Its enactment must have a more powerful effect in the same direction. The knowledge that such an Act is law, that such an Act is capable for effective use, must in itself be a vast and powerful factor in bringing about that respect for law and liberty which is at present so urgently needed in many parts of Ireland. I believe that this Bill, fairly and firmly, justly and steadily administered, will be a great encouragement to all law - abiding citizens; will powerfully assist the reign of order, tranquillity, and liberty in Ireland; and, animated by that belief, I earnestly hope that your Lordships will accord the Bill a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Ashbourns.)
  EARL GEANVILLE: I should much have preferred following a layman in this debate, and certainly not one who stands so high as a lawyer, and who has undoubtedly so much knowledge of Ireland that we may well assume that he has stated at least all that can be said for the Bill the second reading of which he has moved. But it may be convenient to your Lordships that I should take an early opportunity of stating the course which my late Colleagues and I propose to take with regard to this Bill.

  725
  I shall endeavour to avoid all unnecessarily contentious matter; but I cannot blind myself to the fact that what I have to say will be contrary to the views of the great majority of the House. I feel, however, that this very circumstance will induce you to bear patiently with me while I trespass upon your attention for a short time. I refrain from making any remarks or passing any judgment on the action of various Parties during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. It would not be becoming for me to do so in this place. I will confine myself to the position in which we find ourselves. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne), in his vigorous perorations, said that this Bill, in conjunction with others, will have a good effect. How do we stand with regard to those Bills? At the beginning of the Session, Her Majesty's Government promised one Bill of repression and two of a remedial character. The smaller of the two remedial measures was brought into this House, and has left it with the uncontradicted and undeniable assertion that nobody liked it. I have already ventured to prophecy that it will come back to your Lordships in a different form, and for once I feel pretty sure that my prophecy will be fulfilled. The other remedial measure has never appeared, and has probably never been prepared. But to make up for its absence, we are promised that the Government will present to us immediately a second repressive measure, containing provisions which it is true have been before granted, but which have never been used. The result is that, instead of having one measure of repression and two of a remedial character, we have one of a more or less, remedial character and two of a decidedly repressive kind. I will now proceed succinctly to state, on behalf of my late Colleagues and at their request, the principal objections, for I do not propose to go into any details, to the Bill which comes recommended by such large numbers from the House of Commons. It has been said that no politician should make any admission; but I freely admit that any Government coming to Parliament and declaring their inability to maintain law and order are entitled to demand from their political opponents a full and fair consideration of their proposals. And the appeal does not
  726
  come with less force from a Government which is substantially the same as that which in the most formal manner announced that the cardinal principle of their Irish policy was the absence of exceptional legislation. This is especially the case if we refrain, as I shall always wish to do, from any inquiry as to the possible motives which may have contributed to the change. But, on the other hand, this House is likely to agree that the Opposition have a correlative duty from which they cannot shrink—namely, when a proposal is made to restrict in an exceptional way the rights of the subject, it is their business to consider whether there are sufficient grounds for such exceptional restrictions, and whether the latter are such as ought to be applied. Now, we assert that no such grounds have been laid before Parliament for such a measure. We do not know, and have not been informed by the Government, of any exceptional state of Irish crime which justifies exceptional legislation at this time. The noble and learned Lord throws some little contempt upon the statistics of crime, and says that no statesman would rely upon, statistics to frame the course he would pursue—
  LORD ASHBOURNE: To rely alone upon them.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble and learned Lord afterwards went into statistics, and it is remarkable that while for four months complaints have been made in the House of Commons that the case is not made out, your Lordships should now be treated to an entirely new view of the case which has not been presented before. The noble and learned Lord took two periods of 20 months; but he did not make the slightest reference to matters which have something to do with a comparison of the two periods. He did not say whether the state of the country was the same in both periods, whether in the early period and the late period there was the same amount of distress, or whether the same number of evictions were carried out in both; and all these things are surely elements of consideration in making a comparison of this kind. But there is another comparison which has been already made; I do not think an answer has been given to it; and it is possible an answer may be given now. The comparison is between the first five months of this year and the

  727
  last five months of 1885; and the number of crimes had fallen from 474 to 387; so that there were nearly one-fourth more in 1885 than in the present year. It does strike me that if Her Majesty's Government declared, during these five months of greater crime, that there was no ground for exceptional legislation, it is strange they should think there has been such ground during the five months they have been pressing forward this Bill, when the amount of crime has been decidedly less. If in the former period the amount of crime was not sufficient to justify exceptional legislation, why does an improved state of things call for it now? I have no idea what answer can be given. I feel sure that in this House the extraordinary attempt at an answer will not be made—that the Government now about to pass the Bill were not aware, when they introduced it, that there was about to be so few offences. We are told that we are not to look at statistics of crime alone. We want to know, if we are not to look at crime, but to the state of Ireland, in what particulars, whether as regards Boycotting, acquittals of criminals, or any other such symptoms, that country is worse than at the end of 1885, when the Government declared it was not justifiable to apply exceptional measures, whatever causes of regret may exist in both cases. We believe that we are entitled to precise information on this point. The Bill is partly directed against crime, but largely also against the associations which are complained of, and against others which may arise. I am somewhat fearful of entering upon a difficult and complicated question upon which one who is unlearned may easily make a slip. But I believe the state of the case as to combination to be this. The Common Law, as interpreted by Judges—in fact, Judge-made law—bore heavily upon combinations for purposes which were not unlawful when followed by one person. By Clause 2 you submit to officials—some of whom are without legal training and who are dependent upon the Executive Government—the application of these most difficult legal doctrines. You enable the Lord Lieutenant, on his own judgment, or advised by his Executive or his lawyers, to declare what combinations, in his opinion, are dangerous, and so to make them illegal, going in direct oppo-
  728
  sition to the decision of Parliament in 1882, when Clause 38 in the Prevention of Crimes Act was passed in order to prevent such a danger. You take away from the tribunals in these cases all discretion as to the legality or illegality of the combination. They can only ask the question—"Who says that this combination is illegal?" The answer, "The Lord Lieutenant," closes their mouths, and behind it the Courts cannot go. The tribunal, whatever it may be, is debarred from inquiring into the legality or illegality of the combination. Indeed, the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7 assume that the associations thus made illegal are not unlawful at Common Law. If they are so they are already made the subject of summary conviction under Clause 2, and these clauses would be unnecessary. The Law of Conspiracy in Great Britain has been described by Mr. Justice Stephen and others as being of a singularly elastic, and, therefore, dangerous character, depending not only upon the acts themselves, but upon the motives with which they were taken. These authorities have pointed out that the only safeguard against its becoming a perilous tyranny has lain in the fact that the accused has always had the protection of a jury of his fellow-citizens. This Bill, not content with opposing intimidation and crime, allows the work of conspiracy to be so carried on as not only to impose on the breach of a civil obligation the penalties attached to a criminal offence, but to render criminal the exercise of a man's undoubted right to deal with whom he pleases. It is true that the Irish tenant has been liable to such a risk. But, while you leave him open to a criminal liability, condemned in principle by the Act of 1875, you take from him the only safeguard he has hitherto had in the presence of a jury. I must ask your Lordships' permission to guard myself from being misunderstood. Do not think that I am of opinion that all these combinations are defensible, or that many of them are not to be condemned and deplored. What I wish to insist on is this—that in your desire to prevent what I much doubt is to be prevented you ought not to be tempted to tamper with so important a principle as the separation from criminal penalties of the breach of civil obligations. By this Bill you give to the Executive, and

  729
  not to Parliament, the power to enact what is and what is not law. Lord. Hartington, with his usual frankness, stated that this Bill technically created a new offence. It gives to the Lord Lieutenant the power to do so. Every Irishman for the future will live under laws which may from time to time be changed by the Executive. I have tried to show why we believe that there are no sufficient grounds for this measure, and why we object altogether to the machinery and procedure which you create by this Bill. We equally object to another unprecedented innovation—the giving a permanent character to an exceptional measure. As a medicine mercury may do good for a short time to a temporarily diseased liver, but it is fatal as a permanent application. Coercion may possibly deal a useful blow to temporary disorder. But as a permanent instrument of government it is worse than useless; it is dangerous. And yet, when once adopted, it is a reed on which rulers soon teach themselves to rely. The noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) declared not long ago his confidence that 20 years of repression, or what he called firm and resolute government, might be sufficient; but he has now deviated into eternity. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has denied the permanency of the measure, saying that all that had been done was to omit fixing the date for its coming to an end. There might be some consolation in such an assurance when we consider the late practice of the Government about Egypt. Following the example of their Predecessors, who, for obvious reasons, refused to fix a date for evacuation, they absolutely refused to do so; but immediately afterwards, without any apparent advantage, they agreed to an exact date. But, unfortunately, Acts of Parliament are construed by their words and not by any gloss put upon them; and there is no measure on the Statute Book which is more permanent on the face of it than the present Bill. It is impossible for us to believe that to apply permanent disabilities to Ireland from which Great Britain is free, and against the wishes of five-sixths of the Irish people, can either theoretically or practically conduce to harmony of feeling or to a real political and social union of the two islands.
  730
  But it may be, and probably will be, said these may be good arguments in the mouths of those who always held them to be sound, but they are without weight from public men who, when in a position of responsibility, did exactly the same thing as that which they now attack. I take the liberty of altogether repudiating this tu quoque argument, a class of argument which may be some-times effective in debate, but even when just, is of little use in determining the merits or demerits of a question. But I deny that the tu quoque applies that we have ever done the same thing, or I that the same thing has ever been done by any other Government, even by the most ultra-Conservative, when dealing with unreformed Parliaments. There were strong powers given in the Act of 1881, but not such as are contained in the present permanent Bill. Were I to admit that we were bound never to object to the renewal of any legislation which we had once promoted, I should, at least, have the right to claim that the obligation should be confined to that which we had most recently done, and not to that which experience had taught us to discard. I defy anyone to say that the provisions of this Bill are justified by those in the Act of 1882; and it is well known that in 1885 we only thought of renewing a very few of the provisions of the Bill of 1882, which was much milder than that of 1881, which, again, did not contain some of the most prominent provisions of the present Bill. But I go much further, and I say that if as late as 1885 we had proposed, this very Bill, it might diminish the weight of our advice, but not in the least diminish our duty to oppose that which in the present circumstances we sincerely believe to be not only not beneficial, but of a singularly harmful character. Many of your Lordships must remember the time when duelling was generally acknowledged to be a necessary evil. I, as a very young man, advised a contemporary to send a challenge, an action which, while it exposed my own safety to no danger, was calculated to lead a dear friend to risk his own life and that of a fellow creature in a manner which would be universally condemned now. I was, however, sincerely convinced at the time that I was doing right, and I know that I was thought to be so by all who were cognizant of the circum-

  731
  stances. Now, ought this action to have debarred me from offering exactly the opposite counsel a few years later when full and ripe opinion had condemned these appeals to force established by an old and barbarous custom. One lesson I learn from the present state of things and difference of opinion. It is to avoid all bitterness and acrimony of attack upon those who differ from me and my Friends; they differ from us; they wish to stand upon the old ways, and adhere to those methods of routine which have been so often tried and have so often failed. We wish that they should agree with us in thinking that recent events have made a very great change in the circumstances which ought to govern us in this matter. We look to the extension of the franchise in Ireland; we look to the expression of the opinion of the enormous majority of the Irish people to be allowed their Constitutional liberty; we look to the concurrence of the clergy; we look to the opinion of men such as the representatives of Ulster tenant-farmers whom you placed upon your Royal Commission, and we look to the sympathy of millions of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, who are united in believing that this act of the Government is one not only not beneficial, not only not advantageous, but as one that is of a most injurious, ineffectual, and dangerous character. But, though we may regret we have no right to complain that others do not agree with us, yet this respect for the conscientious opinions of others cannot prevent me, on behalf of my late Colleagues, and authorized by them, to protest as strongly as we can, consistently with no unnecessary violence, against the Bill which is about to be passed. We fully acknowledge that we are absolutely without the power of rejecting or amending this Bill, and for that reason, and for others connected with the deep interest we feel in this great Assembly, we do not intend to offer an opposition—which could only be impotent and absolutely futile—either at this stage or at any further stages of the Bill; we prefer leaving upon Her Majesty's Government the responsibility of the Irish policy which they have thought it their duty to propose.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I have listened with great interest to the manner in which the noble Earl (Earl Gran-
  732
  ville) has summed up the objections to be urged against this Bill. Some of those objections doubtless have great weight with those who disapprove the Bill; but I cannot concur in them, especially as to the alleged severity of the measure. As regards the objection to the permanency of the Bill, so far from viewing that feature of the measure as harmful, I believe it to be a great advantage; and again with respect to the objection that the Bill is directed against combinations, I cannot but feel that the noble Earl is under some misapprehension on that point, when I find that there are clauses in the Bill—the sixth and seventh—which explicitly exclude from the operation of the Act any agreement or combination under the Trade Union Acts of 1871, 1876, and 1879, and which practically protects the Irish tenants from the danger which the noble Earl apprehended. Now, it has been said that the state of things now is not worse or better than that in 1885, and that consequently this Bill becomes unnecessary. I should like to say a few words on that point. When we entered Office in 1885, and I assumed the Vice-royalty of Ireland, I must frankly tell the House that there was no alternative to the course we then pursued. The Cabinet to which I belonged decided that it was impossible to ask Parliament for a renewal of the Peace Preservation Act. I and those who acted with me accepted the facts of the case as we found them, and I endeavoured to make the best of them. I was a party to the course adopted, and I thoroughly agreed with it, and anyone who will review the circumstances will see the peculiar position we were in. We were in a minority in the House of Commons, we could obtain no definite promise of support if we asked for a renewal of the Peace Preservation Act, there were only a few weeks of the Session remaining, and the Cabinet, under the circumstances, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to ask for a renewal of the Act. That experiment was worth making, and I agree with the noble Lord that good has come from that experiment. My main objections were that repressive legislation such as the Peace Preservation Bill which was in question at the time was open to these two objections—that it was temporary and that it was excep-

  733
  tional. Now, as regards this present Bill the objection that it is temporary cannot lie. It is a permanent measure, and I will frankly say that that permanence is in my eyes a merit. I know nothing more distracting, more disquieting, more irritating, than an Act which is to expire within a few years. It is impossible with such an Act to have consistent and steady government. And if there has been one great error of policy which runs through the whole course of Irish history, it has been this incessant vacillation and oscillation in legislation. I have said that a main objection to repressive legislation was that it was exceptional. Now, to a certain extent, this Bill is exceptional, but only to a certain extent. I wish to argue the question of exceptional legislation with perfect fairness. In itself exceptional legislation I believe to be a great evil. It is a course to be adopted only as the lesser of two evils. It irritates, it is bad for the Government, it is doubtful as regards the governed, and it is only effective as long as it lasts. Some of your Lordships may remember Sir Robert Peel's speeches in 1844 on the question of coercion. I am bound to say that those speeches made a great impression upon my mind. Sir Robert Peel was no weak Minister, and he acknowledged very frankly the evils of this system; but, after all, this must be set down to the other side of the account, that legislation of this kind offers both direct and indirect powers. It offers direct powers in all those clauses to which allusion has been made to-night, but it also offers that which is almost as useful—namely, an indirect power in the apprehension which it engenders in the minds of individuals. In the Peace Preservation Act there were powers, as the noble Earl opposite will remember, which were never or hardly ever used. I am bound to give the House my own experience in this matter. When I wont to Ireland and the Peace Preservation Act was on the point of expiring I felt the enormous disadvantage under which the Executive Government laboured from the approaching expiry of those powers. I felt and I knew that a very large part of the turbulent and disaffected population of Ireland were conscious that when those powers expired an authority and an influence on the part of the Crown had expired with them. But I have a
  734
  third answer to the argument which was used to-night. It has been said that the condition of Ireland is no worse now than it was in 1885. Now, my contention is that the condition of Ireland is, as compared with 1885, both new and worse. I will not judge this matter exclusively by figures and tabulated Returns, but I will refer to unquestionable facts. During the last few months we have seen the Plan of Campaign brought into operation. I will only say of that Plan of Campaign that it goes to the very root of all contracts between man and man, and, more than that, it is tainted with this great immorality—an immorality which I for one cannot understand how any section of the Catholic clergy can overlook—that it constitutes every man a judge of his case. Secondly, during these last few months, we have also seen the expedition to Canada of Mr. O'Brien, a leader among the Nationalists—an expedition conceived and undertaken under much of the highest influence and authority of his Party, an expedition almost without parallel in the history of this country, an expedition to Her Majesty's Dominion across the sea for the purpose of levying war and stirring up sedition and insurrection and attacking the Representative of the Queen, both in his private and public character. Thirdly and lastly, I will say that during these last few months we have seen an open, avowed, and confessed strife between order and disorder. My Lords, I say that the first condition of all things in any country is obedience to the law. But when we come to a state of things such as I have described, almost any measure which restores respect for law and which enforces law is right and necessary. Therefore, I say that these facts which I have stated show that the condition of Ireland is a new condition and indicates altogether a new departure. I will go a step further. The condition of things is not merely new, but it is distinctly, in my opinion, worse. In these points at least the condition of things has become gravely aggravated. In 1885 there was great lawlessness in parts of Ireland; but there was not in the whole length and breadth of the country an open and avowed defiance of all law and of all Government as such. Then crime was contracted within a comparatively narrow sphere, whereas now it has assumed a

  735
  much larger area. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne) will remember that in one memorable Assize, when I was Viceroy in Ireland, there was not a failure, if I remember rightly, of one single State trial or prosecution. Now, from what my noble and learned Friend said to-night, your Lordships may judge how impotent the juries have become to discharge their duties under the terrorism, to which they are subjected. Again, there is now a much larger organization of lawlessness, and this is a state of things which is utterly inconsistent with peace, with order, and with security. My noble and learned Friend dwelt at considerable length on the system of Boycotting. But we could not put a stop to it, we had no power to put a stop to it, because that power had expired with the Peace Preservation Act. When I think of this system of Boycotting, which has been described by my noble and learned Friend to-night, I have been, lost in astonishment when I have heard it apologized for by one who has held the high position of Prime Minister, and who has thought it worthy in him to justify this monstrous system by the term of exclusive dealing. One other point, my Lords, in reference to my argument. It shows that the state of things is worse now than before. In 1885—I say it without fear of contradiction—as head of the Irish Government, I had the support in the maintenance of law and order of a considerable section of the Catholic body, whose power is undeniably great, and I regret to see how great the difference now is, and how very large a proportion of that clergy has been alienated. That the Catholic clergy are in a position of great difficulty I do not deny, and it is not surprising if in many instances they consent to swim with the tide. My Lords, those of you who will reflect upon the principles held by the Parnellite Party, and who will reflect as to what the full meaning of those principles is, must be conscious that they go to the very root of many of the things which many of the Catholic clergy of Ireland would hold most dear and most valuable; and I am confident that they must be alarmed at the prosecution of their designs. Now, my Lords, if all that I have said be true, and from the bottom of my heart I believe it to be true, then I am forced to this conclusion, that if property is in any sense to be pre-
  736
  served, if the people of Ireland are not to be demoralized, if the Government is to be a Government in anything more than in name, then it is absolutely necessary that this Bill should pass. But having expressed my full concurrence in this measure, allow me to add a few remarks. First, then, when this Bill has become law, I trust that the Government will use the powers conferred by it upon them firmly. Temperately, it may be, but firmly. I am bound to say that I think the provisions, on the whole, are moderate; but I am quite sure there can be no unkindness to a people so great as the uncertain or capricious exercise of those powers; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will, when this Bill has become law, make a determined effort for the material good and welfare of Ireland. My Lords, there are evils of the very highest kind to remedy. There is in Ireland a poverty that is almost shameful, there is a congestion of people on poor and barren soil, there is an absence of those communications even which in the Colonies you would have long since established, and the resources of the country are too often allowed to lie idle. Here and there, indeed, there are instances of individual benevolence, but, as a whole, I am bound to say the Government has done but little, and even of that little has done much unwisely. How can you expect to find content in a population so poor, so depressed, so weighted with difficulties of every kind unless the Government will adopt an almost paternal attitude towards them? It would, as has been said, be vain to prophecy, and I shall not do so; but I do entertain the hope that when this Bill has passed there will come a time, it may be short, it may be long, which, if Her Majesty's Government will use it wisely, for the material improvement of the country, may be turned to very good account. I must, however, say this first of all. The Government must not be afraid of spending money. They must not, as many Governments have done before them, haggle over the few pounds which may be necessary. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) has already very seriously proposed to devote£50,000 to objects which, I believe, to be of the very first class importance in Ireland. My Lords, I vote for this Bill, but I vote for it regretfully,

  737
  and in a certain sense unwillingly. I look upon it as a melancholy necessity. I believe that this Bill will restore order, but it cannot of itself cure many of the evils under which Ireland labours. Do not let us blind ourselves to the past history of Ireland. I do not look upon the condition of affairs as desperate, nor will I say that the population of Ireland is a disloyal population, though I believe that there is great disaffection. I believe that there is a deep-rooted ignorance, which is played upon by the demagogues; but, at the same time, I believe that there are sounder elements below the surface, which the skilful touch of wise statesmanship may once more call into being. Parliament is giving Her Majesty's Government great power, full power, the power that they claim and pronounce to be necessary, and I have every trust and confidence that they will use those powers as discerning and patriotic statesmen.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I earnestly hope your Lordships' House will give a second reading to this Bill. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Ashbourne) who presented the case for the Government has, in my opinion, done so with great perspicuity and great moderation of tone. The speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville), though characterized, as his speeches ever are, by great ability and moderation combined with great dexterity, nevertheless seemed to me a speech intended to smother debate and prevent the full discussion of all that is involved in this measure. My Lords, I hope it will be understood in the country that your Lordships are unwilling, as a rule, to sanction exceptional legislation and to take away the liberties of the subject. "We do not pass these Bills for nothing—we do not pass them without a strong opinion that there is a great and sufficient justification for our action. There are two great recommendations, in my eyes, in favour of this Bill. It does, or attempts to do, two great things, First, it endeavours to restore to the people of Ireland those personal liberties of which they have been deprived by the most odious conspiracy that has ever sprung up in any civilized nation. Secondly, my Lords, it tends to redeem the public men of this country, and to save the public men of this country, from the terrible, and, I may say, insupportable, temptation to play fast and loose
  738
  with the liberties of the people of Ireland solely with reference to the Party necessities and interests of the day. On this second point I am disposed to hope that we shall never again in this House witness such a scene as that enacted in June, 1885, when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) took Office, with a knowledge that a measure prepared by the previous Government with reference to Ireland would not be supported by them in Opposition. The information that the noble Marquess had taken Office without the power to carry the legislation that might be necessary for the liberties of the people of Ireland filled the Conservative Party with blank despair and dismay. The noble Marquess was compelled to take Office under the peculiar circumstances of the case, though he knew that the very measure which had been prepared by the late Liberal Government would not be supported by its authors, and that if he brought it forward he could not carry it. I hope that we shall never again look upon so discreditable a scene; and I confess that I consider one of the most valuable parts of the Bill to be that which gives it a definite term. We ought to do nothing with regard to Ireland which would limit the liberty of the subject; but when we pass a measure in order to secure that liberty against secret conspiracy, we ought to make it as permanent as possible. Let us take a little broader view of the position in which we are placed. Why does my noble Friend who leads the Opposition wish to limit the discussion on this measure? I do not expect to hear from anyone here that passionate declamation that we have read of elsewhere. I am not speaking of the House of Commons; I speak of platforms, of dinners, of garden parties; I speak of luncheons, and of railway stations; I speak of every place and every occasion on which the public mind can be moved and public opinion can be formed by passionate eloquence. I will tell your Lordships why my noble Friend did not go into a wide discussion of this measure. He had no alternative. No man can deny the state of things in Ireland, whether or not he may choose to call it terrorism. Terrorism has been rendered so perfect that crime has ceased to be necessary. Is there any remedy for this state of things? I listened carefully to the speech of my noble Friend the

  739
  Leader of the Opposition, as I thought lie might say what they say out-of-doors—"We have got a remedy in our pockets which will do everything." He did not say that he had a measure which would render this Bill unnecessary; but I wish to press this point upon your Lordships' attention—that on the part of the Leader of the Opposition there is no alternative scheme for the redemption of the people from the thraldom of the system under which they are now suffering. It is most important that the public should understand that there was a scheme—that two Bills were produced, the production of which ended in the complete defeat of the Government in Parliament. The very first thing they did afterwards was to announce that both those Bills were gone. I say that they are not entitled to claim that they have an alternative scheme. They have vague and empty phrases—ambiguous phrases which no human being can understand. But it is most important the public should understand there is no rival scheme before the country to put an end to the crime in Ireland. We had two most remarkable speeches last week—one by Mr. Gladstone and the other by Mr. John Morley, the two great apostles and prophets of the Parnellite Party in this country. Both clearly show that the great principles on which the scheme of Mr. Gladstone was based have been abandoned. We do not know—can any human being tell us?—whether there is any scheme before us. But, on the other hand, we do know that the Irish Members will be retained in this Parliament. That is at the root of the whole question. Most people will think that Mr. Gladstone was originally quite right—that if there was to be a separate Parliament in Ireland we ought not to have the Irish Members here to dictate to us. But Mr. Gladstone has now made an announcement on the subject, though in very ambiguous terms. Poor Mr. John Morley undertook to explain the other day what Mr. Gladstone said at Swansea, and the upshot of his explanation was that Mr. Gladstone's proposal was now the converse of that made by Mr. Whitbread. That is all we know of that part of the scheme which lies at the root of the whole business. But they resort a great deal to general phrases. A favourite stock phrase is "the management by the Irish people
  740
  of exclusively Irish affairs." There are a great many people who open their eyes wide and believe that they have got something better than the east wind when they have swallowed that phrase. They offer no definition of Irish affairs, and we do not know what they mean by it. Is it purely an Irish affair that Irishmen should hold the property to which they are entitled? Is it purely an Irish affair that under the Imperial Government of the Queen every Irishman should be free to dispose of his property and his liberty as he pleases, and not as a secret conspiracy pleases? Then we ask you to explain what is an exclusively Irish subject. When the Land Bill was before the House of Commons, it was pointed out in a powerful speech by Sir Henry James that under Mr. Gladstone's scheme every part of the Land Act of 1881 might be called in question. I understand Mr. Gladstone to say that that was a mistake, and was not so intended. I believe the truth was that there was to be a clause prohibiting the Irish Parliament from dealing with the landlords. Surely these things ought to be made known. I should like to know if it is a purely Irish question whether men who hold land under charters dating from the 12th and 13th centuries are to be deprived of their property? I certainly should regard that question as one of Imperial and not of merely Irish interest. We have a state of things in Ireland that is terrible, and the Leaders of the Opposition do not pretend that they have a scheme that will put an end to that state of things. It has been asked—"Why do not the Government adopt the plan of the Cowper Commission, and propose a periodical revision of rents?" I say that the Cowper Commission never suggested such a plan; they never recommended a periodical revision of rents, but that they should be fixed according to the average of prices extending over five years. I do not think that the proposal of the Cowper Commission was in itself unreasonable; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the Land Court in Ireland has only disposed of 200,000 cases out of 500,000 cases which have been brought before it, and if we were to have a periodical revision of rents, it would be hopeless to expect that that Court could get through its work for years to come, as it will pro-

  741
  bably take it another five years to dispose of the cases already before it. The suggestion of the Cowper Commission, therefore, supplies no remedy for the difficulties with which we have to deal. I have, I think, good ground for complaining of the course that has been taken by the noble Lords who are responsible for the Act of 1881. They know that I never approved that Act, but I have never said anything against it which can compare with what they have said against their own Act within the last three or four months. Moreover, they continue to use the old cant and slang about the Land Question in Ireland which they used before that Act was passed. It is quite true that you cannot expect to settle the Irish Land Question for ever by an Act. I quite agree on the principle that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; that you will never legislate satisfactorily on the subject of the Irish land by attempting to tinker up the Act of 188l, because that Act was founded upon false and dangerous principles. Everyone has now discovered that for himself. If the arguments of noble Lords who oppose this Bill are right, there ought to be a revision of rents in Ireland every year. It was the reductio ad absurdum to suppose that the State could legislate to regulate differences in prices which took place from time to time, or to regulate the seasons. The noble Earl near me has said that crime in Ireland is only agrarian. That is another of the stock phrases of the noble Earl. What does the noble Earl mean by that phrase? Does he mean that crime in Ireland only exists in connection with the relations between landlord and tenant, and that it does not exist as between tenant and tenant and between tenant and labourer?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is all agrarian crime.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Does the noble Earl appreciate the full meaning of that; does he not know that Ireland is not a commercial or a manufacturing country, and that nine-tenths of the relations which exist in that country are agrarian? What the noble Earl and those who think with him really mean by agrarian crime is that crime which occurs in connection with the relations between landlord and tenant. We have heard a great deal about the cruel evic-
  742
  tions that have occurred lately in Ireland Noble Lords do not adopt the same Ian guage with regard to these evictions in this House which is familiar in "an other place." We are too well acquainted with the facts in this House to be misled upon the matter. We know that during the last quarter the proportion of evictions in Ireland compared with the total number of tenants hat been 0·3 per cent, and that for the four quarters of the year it has only amounted to l·4 per cent. There are more evictions in the year within two miles of this House than occur in 10 years in the whole of Ireland. Do noble Lords really mean that Irish tenants are to be kept in possession of their holdings for ever, whether they pay their rent or not? With regard to the attitude which the Liberal Party has assumed towards Lord Lansdowne, I must say that it is opposed to all their best traditions, and that they have left it to the people of Canada to do that justice to the noble Lord which ought to have been done by his noble Friends. They have not done that justice to him because it did not suit the book of the Leaders of the Liberal Party at the present moment. Liberalism does not consist in holding political power, but in maintaining truth. As far as we know, the so-called evictions in Ireland have of late been got up by the Parnellites and by the National League inciting the tenants not to accept any compromise which might be offered them by their landlords. I will give your Lordships some cases in illustration of the state of things I have described. But first I wish to notice a speech made by Mr. Morley the other day at Cambridge. Mr. Morley was very angry because educated men at Cambridge had presented an address to Lord Hartington, and he said there was the greatest ignorance on the part of the educated classes. I dare say there is. But will Mr. Morley say there is less ignorance among the masses he is in the habit of addressing? I thought Mr. Morley was going to show that the Irish had proved themselves capable of self-government in every case in which they had been tried, in Poor Law management and so on. But what was my astonishment when I found that Mr. Morley said that Englishmen do not know what gross, "scandalous maladministration" went on in Ireland. Here is a case. I be-

  743
  lieve, under Mr. Morley's direction, about two years ago an Act was passed giving enlarged powers to certain Unions. In the course of six years five Unions spent on 156,000 persons £317,000, a total composed partly of Government advances at low interest, partly of benefactions at no interest at all, and partly of ruinous rates levied on property, of which those who levied the rates paid nothing themselves. That meant final, complete, absolute ruin. And now a Bill is before Parliament to take the management of these Unions out of the hands of men whom, if Englishmen knew more about them, they would, according to Mr. Morley, be willing to trust with absolute power. He says these Unions are insolvent, "over-populated, wretchedly poor," and, what is more, that the population is increasing, although all means of subsistence are diminishing. Then he goes on to say, this is "typical of the problem we have to face" in Ireland. But how does he propose to face it? He proposes to hand it over to others, to fly, to resign. He says, in effect—"We have no remedy; let us hand it over to an Irish Parliament to exercise their ingenuity upon." That is the whole policy of Her Majesty's Liberal Opposition. I was in conversation with an Irish gentleman a few weeks ago, and he told me some stories which are very horrible. I will give your Lordships two or three cases which I can place before Parliament. I cannot give your Lordships all the verifications which I asked for myself; you must take them upon my word. The first case occurred on the property of a man who has some land in Ireland, but is not dependent on the land, and he is a warm Irishman. Case A was this. A farmer came to him and said—"I wish to sell my holding." The landlord said—''You are quite free to do it; you need not ask my leave; the law gives you leave." The whole transaction was settled. The holding was duly put up to auction, another Irishman bought it, and the new tenant entered into possession. This poor man was in possession for a few months when a third Irishman or Irish-American, of whom nothing was known except that he had come from America, appeared, and he said—"Mr. Gladstone says that the Irish tenant is to sell his land for the best price he can get." All the Irish are resolved to get
  744
  the highest price they can. The Irish-American went to the man who had the farm, and said—"You must get out of that farm. I am willing to give the man who sold it to you a higher price for it." The other replied—"I have bought the farm and am in possession, and I will not go out." What was the consequence? A Moonlight agency was set to work, the poor man who bought the farm had his house invaded, the Moonlighters put a gun to his head and said—"Unless you sign a revocation we will blow your brains out;" and the poor man, from fear for his life or the lives of his family, gave up the farm, and the Irish-American stepped into possession. That is what you call liberty in Ireland. The whole transaction was no secret. The landlord could do nothing, and he was advised to accept the man as a tenant. I was told by my friend of a precisely similar case on a neighbouring estate. A tenant had made his bargain, bought a farm, and paid the price; but another Irishman came, and, with the support of the National League, offered £30 more, and the poor man who had bought the farm was obliged to give it up. These are operations which tell upon the poor man and not upon the rich. It is the tenant class who are tyrannized over by the National League. Is this the teaching of political truth; is it teaching worthy of a great political Party? You talk of this Bill interfering with the liberties of Ireland. Precious liberties! My Lords, I am reminded that in Scotland liberties meant monopolies in ancient times—privileges of monopoly enjoyed by certain burghs. But, at least, these privileges were legal; they were known to the law. But what you call "liberties" in Ireland are the privileges of ruffians sitting in secret council calling before them poor people and depriving them of their rights. A friend of mine, well and honourably known by both Parties in this House, and living in a part of Ireland where crime in the ordinary sense of the word is hardly ever heard of, told me of a case on his own property where the tenant came to him and said—"Here is my brother; he is as good a man as I am, and will take the farm off my hands and pay the price." The landlord said—"By all means. I shall be delighted to see your brother in the farm." The brother paid the price

  745
  with the assent of all parties and to the satisfaction of the landlord. He entered into possession. The National League called this poor man before them, and ordered him to surrender the farm. That farm is now vacant and uncultivated. These are mere specimens of cases that have occurred. "But," says the noble Earl (Earl Granville), "I do not find these cases in the papers." No; because he only fumbles over the police reports. You go to your Parliamentary Returns and police reports and say that you do not find this and that percentage of crime. That is the stock argument of my noble Friends who are opposed to this Bill. But these cases, specimens of which I have given, do not appear in police courts at all. A poor man who has any complaint dare not make it known in a police court, and for every case of the kind that is brought before a police magistrate there are 100 that never get there at all. We must depend upon the common sense of Parliament in dealing with this question. This should be remembered—that when the authority of law is suspended in any country, it is the universal fact that those who rise to the top and exercise despotic authority are the very lowest and the most disreputable. Private motives and envy and covetousness dictate the actions of these men, and the whole country is kept under a sense of villainy triumphant. It has been stated that this Bill will fail in its purpose. My noble Friend has predicted this. It may fail, as so many others have failed, although I think it has a better chance from circumstances connected with it; but if it does not fail, its failure will be largely due to my noble Friend and those with whom they act. It is sometimes said that society rests always ultimately upon force. I think this is a great mistake. Society does not rest upon force. The ultimate, the lowest, and the firmest foundation on which it rests is not force, but accepted and acknowledged authority. When you assail the accepted doctrines on which society rests you may even paralyze it, and these are now assailed by passionate declamation. In their phrases, in their legal arguments, plausible, but, in my opinion, altogether erroneous, my noble Friends have displaced the primary duties which are owing between man and man, and by
  746
  their false analogies they confuse that sense of right on which society ultimately rests. My right hon. Friend who leads the Opposition in the other House (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has been busy lately in confounding the case of trade unions with combinations in Ireland for agrarian purposes. Now, can there be a more transparent fallacy than this? The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "To give to the Irish tenants and cottar population the same protection in respect of their land strikes that you give to the English artisan in respect to his labour strikes."
  Certainly the trade unionist has a right to combine in defence of the price of his own property. There is not a man in the other House, or a demagogue on any platform, who would assert more clearly than I do the right of workmen to combine in defence of the price of their property. Their labour is their property, the most sacred of all property, and they have a perfect right to combine in defence of it. There may be economic difficulties; but there is nothing dishonest, nothing illegal, nothing unjust, in combinations of that character. Compare with that the case of the Irish tenants. The essence of the case of the Irish tenant is that he holds the property of another, and Mr. Gladstone's position is that the tenant is to have the same liberty of dealing with the land as the English labourer with his own property. No Minister has ever laid down such a doctrine as this before. The two cases are absolutely different. You talk about evictions on account of such proceedings happening in no other country in the world. I had some conversation the other day with a very distinguished American, who is at the head of a large commercial concern holding large estates of chiefly forest land, and employing a large number of men who live in houses on the estates. I put the question to him—"What would you do if your men struck and refused to go out of your houses, and adopted Mr. Gladstone's principle that they have a right to deal with your houses precisely on the principle that they have a right to deal with their own labour?" My friend replied—"I should write a letter to the Governor of my State, and within 24 hours five companies of Militia would arrive and turn them out." In no country in j the world does the law and the public sentiment protect the rights

  747
  of property more absolutely than in America, and the people know that the welfare of the poor is as much defended by the law as the property of the rich. And now as to the general position. I am not now talking of mere changes of opinion, which must happen from time to time. There has been a complete forgetfulness of everything, a complete repudiation of those things which go down deep to the very foundation of society. We have seen during the last 18 months four or five gentlemen sitting round a green table at Westminster and drawing up a new edition of the British Constitution. No such a thing has ever been adopted before, go back as far in our history as you please. There have been no span new inventions, no brand new Constitutions, given to the foundations of society; and it was, therefore, unprecedented, unjustifiable, immeasurable presumption. The greatest of Mr. Gladstone's constructions was the famous Budget of 1853. I do not deny that the measure disestablishing the Irish Church showed immense constructive power; but in that case he had to deal with a Christian Church, and all he had to do was to divide the spoil. In this case he has attempted to re-constitute a whole Constitution, to make a brand new system of Government for the Three Kingdoms. Not even he was adequate to these things. I shall vote for this Bill, because I wish to secure for every individual of the Irish people the liberties which have come down to them under the Imperial system. I wish that every peasant in Donegal and every peasant in Kerry shall be free under an Imperial system to dispose of his property and of his labour as he thinks fit.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, it was a strange anomaly that this Bill should be opposed by an ex-Prime Minister and some of his most trusted coadjutors, when its sole object was to cause the majesty of the law to be respected. It was no more a Coercion Bill than was the Decalogue. It would only be brought into action by special Proclamation in disturbed districts, and it would become inoperative as soon as crime and disturbance ceased. A second anomaly was that the Bill was applicable only to a country which, in its normal state, was peculiarly free from crime, and at this moment, with some terrible exceptions, was very orderly and well-
  748
  behaved. These terrible exceptions, however, which existed in a few black spots where the law was rendered nugatory and set at defiance were the cause of this exceptional legislation. This lawlessness originated in the schemes and machinations of the enemies of the British Crown, who had imposed upon the ignorance and simplicity of the Irish peasantry, and by dwelling solely on their grievances, many of which were happily records of the past, had roused their passions to a degree which rendered them well-nigh indomitable. Attempts had been made to give a religious character to this movement, and to fasten a stigma on the loyalty of Catholics, as such, because the lawlessness was most observable in Catholic districts. It was his object to deny this false conclusion, and to account for the facts on which it was founded—namely, that Catholics, apparently supported by their clergy, had been openly acting in opposition to the teaching of their Church as laid down by the Roman Pontiff in his Encyclical of November, 1886. His Holiness said—
  "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Indeed, to contemn lawful authority, in whomsoever invested, is as unlawful as to resist the Divine Will, and whomsoever resists that rushes willfully to destruction. 'He that resisteth the Power resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.' Wherefore, to cast aside obedience and by popular violence to incite the country to sedition is treason, not only against man, but against God,"
  He (the Earl of Denbigh) asserted unhesitatingly that this movement had no religious motive. It was purely economical, and to understand it one must cast a glance back on Irish history. If he had often in the course of his argument to use the words Catholic and Protestant in antagonism to each other, he did so with no desire of emphasizing or accentuating religious differences, which no one could deplore more than he did. He was sanguine enough to hope that the time might not be far off when if we could not all worship, as once was the case, at the same altar, we might yet, with a more perfect knowledge of each other, cease to judge harshly of those who conscientiously differ from us and contend only who shall outdo the other in charity, and best set an example of loyalty to our Sovereign and devotion to the best interests of our country. The

  749
  past history of Ireland for three centuries afforded melancholy pictures of cupidity, cruelty, and intolerance. The Irish Catholic population was dispossessed of its land and persecuted for its faith in form and to a degree that one shuddered now to read of. Driven out of their possessions by aliens both in race and in creed, they were mercilessly shot down or martyred as traitors for their faith alone. The favoured Protestants divided their fairest lands among themselves, and drove the dispossessed ones into the wilds to starve and perish. In short, the Catholics got all the kicks, and the Protestants the halfpence. What wonder, then, that there should have grown up a bitter hereditary hatred among the Catholic Irish for their English oppressors. They clung with passionate love to their clergy, who were mostly of the same class and suffered the same wrongs as themselves. But, it may be argued, all this was hundreds of years ago, and for the last 50 years we have done our best to make amends; may not this be taken into account as a counter-weight? Wrongs that have been inflicted for a series of years cannot be forgotten in a day. Wrongs beget wrongs, and like curses and chickens come home to roost. Wrongs never remain unpunished by Him who has said—"Vengeance is mine, I will repay." We had sown the wind; and he believed we were reaping the whirlwind. Moreover, it could not be denied that the tenant farmer in Ireland had not had the same advantages as in England. With some notable exceptions, he was generally considered as a rent-paying machine; and but little consideration did he get if he failed to pay his generally exorbitant rent. There was no sympathy between him and his landlord. The Catholic districts being the poorest, generally speaking, had ever been the focus of discontent. Emissaries from America, many of them descendants of those who had in time past emigrated from the Irish shores with bitterness and hatred in their hearts, came over and traded on the lowest passions of the poor and ignorant Irish. They assured them that if they would band, together to repudiate their debts they would impoverish and drive out the landlords, and would thus enter again into the estate of which their forefathers had been dispossessed. What
  750
  wonder, then, if they jumped at this and fell into the specious snares of these schemers, whose chief object was to embarrass and impoverish the England they had been brought up to hate. Combination when innocent was lawful; but when it was used to violate the laws of God and of the land it must be put down as immoral. He need not tell them the horrors of Boycotting, which was a distinct violation of the Divine law of charity. The Plan of Campaign was organized plunder, and as the leading Irish Judges had declared that juries could not be depended upon to convict, there remained nothing but the summary jurisdiction of trained magistrates. The anomaly was increased by the fact of these Catholics being apparently headed and supported by their clergy in these un-Christian actions and violations of the law; but, from inquiries he had personally made recently in Ireland, he was convinced that a large number of the Bishops and superior clergy lamented these excesses, and would willingly receive assistance from without to help them to control the unruly and deplorable actions of the National League. This National League, by its intolerable tyranny, kept in subjection both clergy and laity, with some notable exceptions; and, as a Bishop expressed it to him, it required a hero or a saint to brave its displeasure and penalties. He was told of one case that was so remarkable in proving what moral courage was capable of doing that he felt disposed to mention it. A certain parish priest named Doyle, since, unfortunately, deceased, had been in the habit of condemning openly and forcibly the acts of the Land League. Two of his own parishioners were sent to him to threaten him that, unless he promised to cease from these condemnations, he would find that when the day came for collecting his dues they would be wanting. He sharply rebuked them for their cruel threat, but added—"I have been put here by God to do my duty, and I shall fulfil it at whatever cost. He will take care of me." When the day came to collect his dues, which was the following Sunday, these two same emissaries were the men that held the plates for the collection, and the dues, instead of being withheld, were doubled. Such is the force of courage in a good man. It was astonishing to think how men,

  751
  who probably would be capable of giving their lives for their faith, as did their forefathers, were yet so terrified of incurring unpopularity at the hands of their neighbours, that they would abstain from openly condemning what they knew must be wrong. They were like the Comtesse de Cruise in The Ingoldsby Legends, who "did not mind death, but could not stand pinching." It was, however, difficult to judge of others until we have passed ourselves through a like ordeal. Some priests had purposely joined the councils of the National League in their own parishes in order to control their actions and minimize the evil; but many, instead of exercising control themselves, had been carried away and compromised by the movement. It was chiefly the younger and more ardent curates that had figured most in the Nationalist ranks. The parish priest, as a rule, kept quiet, or stood aloof altogether. He had touched on the past unjust behaviour of England towards her Catholic subjects in order that he might have the satisfaction of bearing witness to her present fairness and consideration for them. He was encouraged the more in this by the testimony of the reigning Pontiff, Leo XIII., who, in an audience which he granted him four years ago, expressed himself to the following effect:—
  " I am so sensible of the justice of England towards her Catholic subjects and of the liberty which they enjoy under her rule—a liberty greater than in any other part of the world—that I wish to mark my gratitude by aiding England to maintain order, peace, loyalty, and good government as far as my influence can extend throughout the world. I can help her, not only in Ireland, but in India and in her Colonies. To do this, however, I must know what she wants, and must have accurate and official information as to the state of things."
  The Pope never interfered in Party politics, such as Home Rule, which were outside his scope. He confined his attention only to the observance of morality and religion; and lest anyone should imagine that he would attempt to exercise any undue influence over the consciences of non-Catholics, he would again refer to the Encyclical already quoted—
  " The Church diligently takes care that no one shall be compelled against his will to embrace the Catholic faith, or, as St. Augustine wisely saith, 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.'"
  752
  It was his conviction that it would not be enough to repress disorder unless we added an antidote to the causes. We were about to give facilities for the transfer and acquisition of land. Give also facilities to those who wish for a good Catholic education, especially in the higher branches. Hitherto we had barred the subject of theology in all State-supported Colleges. Remove that bar, and permit Catholics to have as free an education as Protestants in their religion. We had never succeeded in converting them to Protestantism. Let them learn to be good Catholics. We should then find them as loyal and peaceable as the English Catholics. He drew great distinction between an Irish Catholic and a Catholic Irishman. The first would square his religion to his politics; it was an accident of his birth. The other made his religion his guide and the motive of all his actions, and his politics must not transgress it. Whatever their legislation was let it be firm and unwavering, but, above all, let it be just. If he might venture to address Her Majesty's Ministers, he would do so in the words put in the mouth of Wolsey by our greatest dramatist—
  " Be just, and fear not;
  Let all the ends thou aim'st at be thy country's,
  Thy God's, and truth's; then, if thou fall'st,
  Thou fall'st a blessed martyr."
  There was no people on the face of the earth that more appreciated a strong Government than the Irish if it were just. Let them adopt the old French motto—"Fais ce que dois advienne que pourra." The Irish nature, where not excited by drink or politics, was a generous, kind, and sympathetic one. While we held aloft the sword of justice in the one hand, let us extend the olive branch in the other. We might win those hearts to us that were now so bitterly hostile to us, and blessed would be the day, if it came, as he prayed it might, when that green isle, peopled with god-fearing, law-abiding, and loyal subjects, might become, not, as it is now, the weakness, but one of the best bulwarks of our glorious British Empire.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I consider with my noble Friend (the Duke of Argyll)—who has delivered such a powerful speech—that this is a Bill which should be discussed in a serious and not in a merely perfunctory manner, and that the opposition to the Bill should

  753
  not have been left to my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Earl Granville), when in "another place" it was recommended that it should be fought line by line and word by word. I had intended to make some observations which I think material to the Bill in the presence of those noble Lords who usually sit on the Front Opposition Bench, and I did not think that they would have thrown the whole and sole burden of maintaining the debate and the opposition to the Bill, which in "another House" was fought clause by clause and line by line, upon my noble Friend (Viscount Oxenbridge), who is now the sole occupant of that Bench. There will, however, be a later stage of this Bill, from which I suppose my noble Friends will hardly be able to entirely absent themselves, and I shall then have an opportunity of saying in their presence that which I think ought not to be said when they are absent. I regret their absence for two reasons—first, because I think some rather pertinent questions have been put by the noble Duke as to the alternative which they would propose for the establishment of law and order in Ireland. But I also hoped they would have remained for another reason, and that is that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) touched on some intelligible, if well-founded, objections to this Bill, and I should have liked to state my reasons for thinking that these objections, though they may sound plausible, are not well founded in point of law or of fact. I repeat that I hope I shall have an opportunity of saying what I desire to say in my noble Friends' presence at a later stage of the Bill, and I take this opportunity of giving notice that I have something to say which I desire to say in their presence.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the discussion was left to the Liberal Unionists, who had been charged and taunted with having deserted the Liberal creed. He, however, contended that they had not changed their opinions; and he maintained that they were the only Liberals who adhered to the language which they used two or three years ago. His noble Friends who usually sat on the Front Opposition Bench had adopted principles which had separated them from the Liberal Party. He had hoped that they would have had
  754
  an opportunity that night of hearing from the noble Lords who occupied the Front Opposition Bench what were the reasons that, having led their supporters on previous occasions to vote for measures of this sort, they had now entirely changed their opinions. He had hoped that they were on that occasion to hear answers to certain objections to the Bill which were brought forward in the other House—answers to legal points, because his noble and learned Friend sitting below him (the Earl of Selborne) certainly could deal with those points as no other person in Parliament could deal with them. And when they were told that fresh crimes were created under the Bill, they were anxious to hear what those new crimes were, and then to hear the answer of his noble and learned Friend below him on that point also. Now, what was the condition of the House? He could not deny that usually the House was comparatively empty at that hour; but nobody was now present to conduct the debate on that side of the House. What a position for the House to be placed in! (At this time there were about 15 Peers on the Conservative side of the House, and five on the Opposition side, but only one (Viscount Oxenbridge) on the Front Opposition Bench, and the Benches immediately behind it.) Would the noble Lords who had left return to the House that evening? Would any noble Lord say that the noble Lords had gone away with the intention of returning an hour hence, or that they had any intention of returning at all? He should like to have asked them a number of questions had they been present. Although it was the dinner hour, no one believed for a moment that it was the intention of the Opposition to return later on.
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: Yes, it is; I say so.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Would his noble Friend keep the debate going?
  VISCOUNT OXENBRIDGE: Yes, I have done the best I can to keep it going.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: His noble Friend said that he had done his best to keep a House, and he would accept the statement. At all events, he hoped that on the third reading they would have a debate which was worthy of the subject. Then, he trusted, reasons

  755
  would be given to them which had not been given to-night, and that a statement would be made with regard to the objections to the Bill. The only statement they had had was a statement of a most meagre description by the noble Earl who led on that side of the House, which was perfectly inadequate to the enormous importance of this Bill. Those who, like himself, claimed to have adhered to their principles, and to have maintained the Liberal creed, had a right to hear something more from noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench than they had heard to-night. He hoped, also, that they would have more courtesy shown them, and that they would be more fortunate in their attendance on the third reading of the Bill than they had been to-night in regard to the Front Opposition Bench.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.