Sitting of 21 July 1887

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS Swous—Arthur Frederick Jeffreys, esquire, for County of Hants (Northern or Basingstoke Division); Honble. George Godolphin Osborne, commonly called Marquess of Carmarthen, for Borough of Lambeth (Brixton Division); Henry Charles Stephens, esquire, for County of Middlesex (Hornsey Division).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Postponed Resolutions [July 19] agreed to.
Resolutions [July 20] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Irish Land Law [308]—R.P.; Incumbents' designation Act (1871) Amendment [323]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)*[331], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Report—Local Government (No. 9)* [296]; Local Government (Ireland) (Dublin, &c.)* [312].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WILLESDEN LOCAL BOARD BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    MR. HASTINGS: I have to move, in page 6, line 10, to leave out—
    "Have been examined as to such knowledge in such manner as the Local Board may from time to time direct," in order to insert "hold a Certificate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of the Institution of Civil Engineers, or of the Institution of Surveyors, or of such other body as the Local Government Board may from time to time approve, that he has been examined and is competent for such office."
    The object of the Amendment is to insure that the persons appointed by the Local Board under the Bill, and entrusted with the important duty of reporting whether sanitary requirements have been properly carried out, should be men fully competent to exercise the duties of the office. A Select Committee appointed by this House in 1882 in connection with the Sanitary Regulations Bill were strongly of opinion that the building surveyor ought to have a certificate of fitness from some Body competent to examine him and give such a certificate; and a provision was inserted in the Bill requiring him to undergo an examination, either before the Royal Institute of British Architects, or some other Public Body. The House of Lords, however, struck out that provision, and left it an open qualification, determinable by the Local Board. Now, I maintain that that is mischievous, and a principle which this House should endeavour to guard against. Certainly, as the Local Board have the patronage, something should be done to secure that the persons they appoint are fully competent to perform the duties of the office. My proposal is that the Inspectors appointed by the Local Board should obtain a certificate from one of the three chartered Bodies mentioned in my Amendment, which I now beg to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 10, to leave out "have been examined as to such knowledge in such manner as the Local Board may from time to time direct."—(Mr. Hastings.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment."
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the House will allow me to say one or two words in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I had the pleasure of sharing with him the labours of the Committee to which he has referred; and I can bear testimony to the extreme care with which every point was investigated. But no point received more care and attention than this. The question is one of the utmost importance. The Inspectors to be appointed under the Bill are intrusted with powers of an extraordinary character. They have much greater powers than are given to the Local Authorities in ordinary cases. They have power to examine buildings during successive stages of their construction; and if they are incompetent to discharge the duties of the office, very great hardship may be inflicted upon those who are engaged in building transactions, to the injury of the community at large if unwholesome buildings are sanctioned. What is wanted is a certificate from some Public Body that the persons employed are properly qualified for this important position. The Amendment of my hon. Friend is entirely in harmony with our general policy that those who occupy the position of Inspectors should undergo some test as to their abilities. There is no hard, cast-iron qualification laid down, but one of an extremely elastic character, because the Local Board, from time to time, will have power to alter and amend it in order to guard the interests of those who are engaged in building operations, and, on the other hand, to secure that the interests of the community are made equally safe. It is in order that there may be some such security that my hon. Friend and myself respectfully submit this Amendment to the House:
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed,
    To insert the words "hold a Certificate of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of the Institution of Civil Engineers, or of the
    1598
    Institution of Surveyors, or of such other body as the Local Government may from time to time approve, that he has been examined and is competent for such office."—(Mr. Hastings.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Lords' Amendments, as amended, agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  INCOME TAX RETURNS OF PERSONS EMPLOYED BY JOINT STOCK, &c., COMPANIES.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether persons in the employment of private firms or of individuals are permitted to make Returns of Income Tax based upon a three years' average as provided in 16 & 17 Vict. c. 34,. s. 48, but that persons employed by Joint Stock or other public Companies are not allowed a similar privilege; and. what is the cause that this difference is made between persons of similar position and occupation?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): So far as the individuals employed in private firms are concerned, they are entitled to make returns for assessment to Income Tax on the three years' average. But with respect to employés in Joint Stock and some other Companies, the practice of making their returns on the principle of the three years' average is confined to clerks, buyers, salesmen, travellers, agents, &c, the Board of Inland Revenue being advised that managing directors, secretaries, and other officers of that standing are chargeable on the income which they actually receive in the year.

  GENERAL REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH—ATTENDANCE OF CLERKS.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will be good enough to state in what document the conditions of service are set forth by which the clerks in the Office of the General Register of Sasines at Edinburgh may be expected to give additional attendance without extra remuneration; whether the "usual condition" on which the hours of said Department are fixed (referred to on page 11 of the Treasury Minute of 27th March, 1881)

  1599
  is the usual condition respecting additional attendance throughout the Civil Service; whether, in the other branches of the Service liable to periodic increases of work (such as the Post Office, &c.) extra remuneration is given for additional attendance; and, whether the clerks (including the Assistant Keeper) in the Sasines Office, who were required to give additional attendance to overtake the arrears of work caused by the extra pressure of the Whitsunday term, will be remunerated according to such usual conditions?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The conditions of service by which the clerks in the Office of the General Register of Sasines at Edinburgh might be expected to give additional attendance without extra remuneration are contained in the Treasury Minute of March 27, 1881, under the heading "Hours of Attendance." The salaries sanctioned by that Minute were fixed in view of the fact that the pressure of work varied during the year, and they were intended to cover the performance of all the work of the Department, although it should entail attendance in times of pressure beyond the usual office hours. The question of payment for extra duty is one that the Treasury is obliged to deal with on the merits of each, case; and even if such payments are made in the Post Office it does not follow that they must necessarily be made in every other Department whenever extra attendance is required.

  LONDON BROKERS' RELIEF ACT— A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. WATTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the operation of the London Brokers' Relief Act (33 & 34 Vict. c. 60), by which Act the Aldermen of the City of London were relieved of the duty of making inquiries as to the fitness of persons to act as stockbrokers in the City of London, and to take further evidence relating to the management of the Stock Exchange since the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission in 1878; and, whether the Government, if they cannot consent to the appointment of such Royal Commission, will bring in a measure to give effect to the suggestion of the Commis-
  1600
  sioners in their Report of 1878—namely, of investing the existing Association with a public character, in the shape of a Charter of Incorporation, as a protection to the public in Stock Exchange transactions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are of opinion that the evidence taken before the Royal Commission in 1878 as to the conduct of business on the Stock Exchange was adequate and complete; and as no material change in the conditions has occurred in the interval they see no necessity for the appointment of another Commission upon the subject. I am informed that the recommendations of the Royal Commission have, in the main, been adopted by the Stock Exchange, with the exception of that which suggested that they should be incorporated by Royal Charter, on which the Members of the Royal Commission were not unanimous. Successive Governments, between 1878 and 1887, have not thought it expedient to proceed further in the matter; but the present Government will consider, during the Recess, whether it would be consistent with sound policy that any further steps should be taken to invest the Association with a public character.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS ON THE BROOKE ESTATE, COOLGREANY—CAPTAIN HAMILTON.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette of 14th July—
  "Pat Grenell swore that he was concealed in his own house, when he heard a voice say three times 'put a match to it,' and, being then in fear of being burned alive, he cried 'Police,' and that police came in 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 matches on his log, then step upon some old timber, life the thatch, and insert something, then press the thatch down again, and that a few minutes afterwards fire burst out from the place. Matthew Cunan swore the same, and so did B. Kavanagh, and several witnesses heard a constable exclaim with an oath, 'Hamilton has set fire to the house!'"
  whether, in spite of this evidence, Captain Slacke, R.M., refused to issue a warrant against Captain Hamilton; and, whether the Government will insti-

  1601
  tute an independent inquiry into the conduct of the magistrate in this case?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, Patrick Grenell did swear that he was concealed in his house when he heard a voice say "Put a match to it," and he was then removed; but he did not cry out for the police, as alleged. Hart and Kavanagh swore that they saw Captain Hamilton "striking a match, or something similar;" that he put it to the eave of the house and set fire to the thatch; and that a policeman exclaimed—" By the Eternal, he is setting fire to the house!"Cunan did not swear the same. He swore only that he saw no smoke until he saw Captain Hamilton move away from the house. These informations were so directly opposed to the real facts of the case, and so contrary to the statements of other spectators who are prepared to give evidence in the case, that the two Resident Magistrates who were present, and the Divisional Magistrate, Captain Slacke, unhesitatingly refused to issue a warrant for Captain Hamilton's arrest. They, however, informed Grenell's solicitor that he could proceed by summons, which would cause a full investigation of the charge. This step has not up to the present been taken. The Government see no ground for instituting an inquiry.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) THE LISMACARAL (DERRY) SCHOOL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Board of Irish National Education have for more than 12 months placed the Lismacaral (County Derry) School outside the Board; if the attendance is as great as in places of a similar kind; if the present teacher has received nothing from the Board for the last 12 months; if the average attendance has been equal to that of the period when the school was under the Board; if the district is exclusively Protestant and Presbyterian; and, if the Government will agree to have the school placed under the Board once more?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the National Education Commissioners reported in May, 1885, that the
  1602
  Lismacaral School was struck off the roll of National schools because the average attendance had been below the required minimum. The school having been reopened under a competent teacher, and the average attendance having become sufficient, the Commissioners revived the grant.

  ADMIRALTY—USE OF PETROLEUM AS FUEL FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. COGHILLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the use of petroleum, as fuel for steamers, by the Russian Government; whether any experiments have been made by the Admiralty Department to ascertain if oil could be used in the ships of the Royal Navy for that purpose; and, whether he has any information to show that oil is cleaner in its use than coal, less expensive to work, and occupies half the space in stowage?
  THE FIEST LORD (Lord GEOEGE HAMILTON): The question of the use of petroleum as fuel for steamers is being closely watched by the Admiralty. Experiments have been carried out, from time to time, with various appliances to test the efficiency of the system, and it is the case that oil is cleaner in its use than coal and occupies less space. Hitherto, however, experiments show that, under present conditions, it is more costly than coal for a given power, and does not conform so well to the conditions necessary for the rapid generation of steam.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—INSANITARY CONDITION OF PORTARLINGTON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the pestilential condition of a portion of the town of Portarlington and the impossibility of adequately draining the town, owing to the fact that the bed of the River Barrow, which flows through it, is higher than the level of the drains; and, whether the Treasury will direct some works to be undertaken, in the present favourable season, to guard against a possible outbreak of disease in the town?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Royal Commission on Irish Public Works paid special attention to this point in connection with the general question of the drainage of the River Barrow; and the works recommended by them would, if carried out, have the effect of lowering the bed of the river at Portarlington, so as to afford a proper fall for the drainage of the town. But, even if it were practicable to begin these works this year without any legal powers, it would not be physically possible to produce any satisfactory result at Portarlington until the work lower down the river had been carried out.

  IRELAND—ARTTZANS' DWELLINGS, KINGSTOWN.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has arrived at any decision regarding the Kingstown Artizans Dwelling scheme, concerning which a deputation from the Township Commissioners recently waited upon him?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Irish Government were still in communication with the Local Government Board with reference to the proposed scheme.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—INSANITARY CONDITION OF MARGATE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he proposes to take any action in consequence of the official Report of Dr. Page to the Local Government Board, stating that—
  "The Town Council of Margate continues in default in not providing for the pressing (sanitary) requirements of their district,"
  and that—
  "The infant mortality in Margate has during the last five years been 170 per 1,000; whereas the infant mortality of the rest of England is 142 per 1,000;"
  and, whether it will be possible to provide for the periodical publication of Reports on the sanitary condition of other towns by independent Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Board have sent copies of the Report to the Town Council, and requested that they will at once give it their serious consideration, and inform the Board of the action which they propose to take with regard to the matters to which it refers. The Reports of the Board's Medical Inspectors on the sanitary condition of districts inspected by them are usually printed; and, when it is considered expedient, they are placed on sale. When a Report is in print, and not on sale, the Board are always willing to supply copies to persons interested,

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Memorial has been received from the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners praying that the fund known as the Royal Irish Constabulary Fund might now be wound up; what the intention of the Government is with respect to the Fund in question if the prayer of the Memorial be not acceded to at present; and, whether this Fund, established in 1836 and originally intended for the benefit of the widows and orphans of policemen, now amounts to £133,489?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Memorials praying for the winding-up of the Constabulary Force Fund have been received on behalf of some of the pensioners from the Royal Irish Constabulary; but the Government do not consider it advisable to comply with the prayer. This Fund, the scope of which was enlarged by the Constabulary Act of 1866, has been applied strictly to the purposes laid down by that Act —namely the reward of meritorious members of the Constabulary Force, and also for the relief of the widows and children of the members of that Force. The intention is to continue to apply the Fund strictly to those purposes till all the existing charges on the Fund shall have been paid off as they mature from, time to time. So far as can now be estimated these claims will absorb the greater portion of the accumulated fund, amounting to £133,489.

  METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE — INVENTION OF MR. B. A. COLLINS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Has he received any reply from the Meteorological Office regarding the invention of Mr. B. A. Collins; and, if the apparatus has been rejected, will he give the reason for such rejection?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORSTS): The Board of Trade have received a letter from the Meteorological Office on a proposal made by various persons, and recently renewed by Mr. B. A. Collins, for the mooring of buoys in the Atlantic and communicating by means of mechanical and electrical apparatus with the shore, so as to record the height of the barometer fixed on the buoy. The proposal to obtain telegraphic reports of weather and other phenomena in the open sea from buoys furnished with automatic instruments is not new, and has been before the Meteorological Authorities since 1872. Parliament has not, however, placed at the disposal of the State any funds either for making experiments in the matter, or for establishing such a system should experiments prove of value. As regards the particular form of apparatus proposed by Mr. Collins, the Board of Trade have received no opinion from the Meteorological Office. The Office have not rejected it, as they have no power and no funds to enable them to take steps to test it and so enable them to form any practical opinion on it.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—RESIGNATION OF MR. HENSMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What reason was assigned for the resignation of Mr. Hensman as Attorney General of Western Australia; was the Governor of the Colony censured for his conduct towards Mr. Hensman; and, will he lay upon the Table of the House the whole Correspondence relating to the question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Mr. Hensman resigned on the ground that he considered that the Governor had made grave and unjust charges against him and had reflected on his professional
  1606
  honour, and had charged him with discrediting and disgracing his office. The Governor has not been formally censured; but his conduct has been, in some respects, disapproved; and as to the matter referred to in his letter of resignation, Mr. Hensman was informed by my Predecessor that he appeared to have advised the Governor in perfect good faith, and that his conduct had not laid him open to any just imputations of professional misconduct. I may add that he has since been offered the Attorney Generalship of Barbadoes, which he was unable to accept. The Papers are very bulky, and in part confidential, and I cannot, I fear, undertake to present them. The matter is not one of public interest; and Mr. Hensman's character, as I have before pointed out, has been cleared from any charge of professional misconduct.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—"BILLING v. BROGDEN."
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether a case of "Billing v. Brogden" was heard before Mr. Justice North in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in March, 1880; whether judgment has yet been delivered; and, if he can state what is the cause of the 16 months' delay?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER), in reply, said, it was a fact that judgment had not yet been delivered in the case referred to. The learned Judge informed him that the delay had arisen from the great difficulty and the complicated nature of the case. The arguments had extended over 11 days; and there were in the case a great many matters of account which required the closest attention. Judgment would, however, be delivered in a few days.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. THOMAS HEWSON, B.L.
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Thomas Hewson, B.L., has applied for the position of Resident Magistrate; if his name is on the list of candidates; and, if there is any intention on the part of the Irish Government to appoint him to the position indicated?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, he understood that Mr. Thomas Hewson had applied to the Government for the appointment of Resident Magistrate, and his name had been, in the ordinary course, submitted as a candidate, without in any way entering into the merits of the case. The Government, in accordance with the general practice, declined to declare how they exercised the discretionary powers vested in them with regard to such, matters.
  MR. M. J. KENNYgave Notice that he would call attention to the proposed intention of the appointment of this man as a Resident Magistrate in Ireland on the Chief Secretary's Vote.

  LAND COURTS (IRELAND)—TENANTS OF MAJOR GALLWAY, DINGLE, CO. KEREY.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether tenants of Major Gall way, near Dingle, County Kerry, on the expiration of their leases served originating notices in the Land Courts last November; and, whether any Sub-Commission has since been held in Dingle, or elsewhere, to decide their cases, or any others now pending in the Dingle District; and, if not, when will such sittings be held?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Land Commission reported that eight tenants on the estate of Major Gallway, in the Union of Dingle, served originating notices last November. These notices were listed for hearing before the Sub-Commission sitting for the County of Kerry in April last; but the time at the disposal of the Sub-Commission did not permit of its having any of the cases listed for the Union of Dingle. It was not probable that there would be a Sub-Commission sitting for the County of Kerry before the end of the year.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that these tenants were liable for rent which was between three and four times the Government valuation pending the arrangement by the Sub-Commission?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he he had no information on the subject.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT — LABOURERS' COTTAGES—SOUTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the initial steps to have several labourers' cottages built in the Electoral Divisions of Clondalkin, Rathfarmham, and Tallaght, in the South Dublin Union, were taken so far back as December, 1885; whether a single one of those cottages has yet been built; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay; and, whether it is true that the Local Government Board has hitherto, by delays, thrown difficulties in the way of carrying out the schemes; and, if so, what he proposes to do with a view to quickening the action of the Local Government Board in the matter, and thus hastening the completion of a much needed public work?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the proposed scheme was not lodged with the Local Government Board till the 27th of August, 1886. Owing to amendments to the scheme being adopted by the Guardians, delay occurred, and their case was not ready for inquiry until the 17th of January this year. An inquiry took place in February, and the result was communicated to the Guardians in March. Further information was required by the Local Government Board before they could issue a Provisional Order. This information had not been supplied by the Guardians until the 29th of June. The Provisional Order was issued on the 7th of July. Any unnecessary delay that occurred was owing entirely to the Board of Guardians.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION— APPEALS—INSPECTION OF REPORTS BY LITIGANTS.
  MR. MAHONYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was the original practice of the Land Commission to have a Report as to the value of every holding, regarding which there was an appeal from the decision of a Sub-Commission, made by one or more Court valuers; whether it was the original practice to allow these Reports to be inspected by the litigants before the

  1609
  cases came on for hearing; and, if not, when this practice was first introduced, and whether there was an increase in the number of appeals for the three months following the commencement of this practice, compared with the previous three months; whether this practice of allowing litigants to inspect these Reports before the hearing of cases was abandoned or modified in December, 1884; and, if so, for what reason; whether there was any diminution or increase in the number of appeals lodged or withdrawn in the 12 months following such change compared with the previous 12 months; and, whether any further change or modification has been made in said practice since December, 1884; and, if so, if he would state to the House what change or modification, also when and for what purpose such change was made, and what is the existing practice?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The practice of having Court valuations in every case of appeals without expense to the parties began with the first sittings of the Appeal Court; and therefore there can be no comparison between the number of appeals before and after the establishment of the practice. The inspection of the Reports of valuers has never been, and is not now, allowed until after the hearing of the cases they refer to; but litigants have always been informed of the amounts of the valuations as soon as the valuations were made. In December, 1884, the system of Court valuation was changed by discontinuing the practice of free valuation, and by providing that any suitor might have a valuation made of a holding, the rent of which was in dispute, on the payment of a fee. The reasons of this change were —(1) that under the system of free valuation large numbers of appeals were brought, apparently with the object only of getting a valuation without expense to the appellant. Then, on the amount of the valuation being ascertained, the appellant withdrew or prosecuted his appeal, as suited him best. (2) The knowledge that a free valuation would be made in every appeal case, besides tending to increase vastly the number of appeals, induced suitors to take no trouble to produce evidence of value
  1610
  before the Sub-Commission or Civil Bill Court. They became inclined rather to disregard the lower Court and to reserve themselves for the Court of Appeal, which was thus in the way of becoming a Court of First Instance. (3) The great expense to the public of free valuations. The practice of granting a Court valuation on the payment of a fee began in December, 1884, and was continued till February 28, 1886. It was then abandoned, because it was found that the valuation obtained on the requisition and at the cost of one of the appellants was looked upon with suspicion by the opposite party, on the ground that it was likely to be partial and in favour of the party paying for it. The practice adopted in February, 1886, and still in force, is to grant valuations without cost to the parties in such cases only where it appears to the Commissioners themselves that such valuations will assist them in arriving at just decisions; and the Commissioners order valuations by Court valuers to be made after hearing cases as well as before if, at the hearing, such valuations seem desirable. With regard to the number of appeals lodged or withdrawn respectively in the 12 months before and the 12 months after December, 1884, when free valuations ceased and paid valuations commenced, they were as follows: —In the 12 months ending December 31, 1884, 5,290 were lodged, and 1,684 withdrawn; in the 12 months after that date, 1,683 were lodged, and 2,149 withdrawn; but these figures are, to a certain extent, misleading, for in the first 12 months named there was an average of 57 Assistant Commissioners at work, and in the second 12 months an average of 27. There was, therefore, a much larger number of cases heard by the lower Courts in 1884 than in 1885.
  In reply to Mr. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.),
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would lay this answer on the Table of the House.

  LAW AND POLICE—CONDITION OF CELLS AT POLICE STATIONS (METROPOLIS).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following

  1611
  description of the condition of the police cells at Molyneux Street Police Station, Edgware Road, and at Marylebone Police Court, in a book entitled Imprisoned in the House of Detention for Libel, written by Mr. John Dawson: —
  "No sooner had I stretched myself on my wooden pallet than a whole army of rascals in brown uniform began to attack me. They swarmed down the walls, up from the floor, and ran a race as if for dear life, to be the first to gorge themselves with my blood. Of course, I speedily arose, and, looking about, saw that the cell was literally swarming with the filthy creatures. Police cells, I am given to understand, are invariably in this dirty state, and it is impossible, it is said, to keep them clean;"
  and, whether, if this description be correct, he will issue immediate orders to have a reform made in the police cells of the Metropolis?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have not seen the statement quoted in the Question; but I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the cells at the Molyneux Street Police Station are kept as clean as possible; but it is not possible, even with daily washing and frequent fumigation, to keep the buildings quite free from vermin, in consequence of the condition of those who are daily lodged in them. There has been no previous complaint as to the state of the cells at the Marylebone Police Court; but I have ordered an immediate inquiry to take place as to their alleged condition. I may add that a large sum is annually spent on the improvement of the cells of the Metropolis, and last year improvements were made in six stations. I hope that by the substitution which is being made of iron and hard wood for the soft material of which the old Benches were composed the matters complained of may be remedied.

  MERSEY DOCK AND HARBOUR BOARD —FERRY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN BOOTLE AND NEW BRIGHTON.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that efforts have been repeatedly made by the Corporation of Bootle and the Wallasey Local Board, with the object of having ferry communication established between Bootle and New Brighton; whether he is aware that the distance in a direct line across the Mersey, between
  1612
  Bootle and New Brighton, which is a popular and largely frequented watering-place, is about one mile, and that, in order to reach there, the inhabitants of Bootle, Walton, Kirkdale, Seaforth, Everton, and the northern portions of the City of Liverpool have to travel distances varying from three to five miles to the Liverpool Landing Stage, and thence a distance of over three miles by water; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the exertions of the above-named Public Bodies and strongly expressed public feeling in the matter by the large population affected, the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board have persistently refused to allow any facilities for embarking or landing passengers; and, whether he will exercise his influence to induce the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board to afford the required accommodation?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I have communicated with the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. With every desire to meet the views of the Bootle Authorities, the Dock Board are unable to assent to the establishment of this new ferry, as it would seriously interfere with, and retard the working of, the dock traffic at the entrance of the Canada basin, and which it is essentially necessary should be conducted with the utmost regularity and despatch. The Board of Trade are not in a position to interfere with the discretion of the Dock Board in this respect.

  BURIALS (METROPOLIS)—BROMPTON CEMETERY.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, with regard to the great number of burials in the Brompton Cemetery, which is now surrounded by a dense and increasing population, he will direct a Return of the number of burials up to date, and of the daily and yearly averages; and, whether, in compliance with the Acts relating to intramural interments, he will direct that this cemetery, the property of Government, be closed?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): In answer to the first part of the Question of my hon. Friend, as I have already stated, the total number of burials at Brompton Cemetery up to February

  1613
  last was 135,617, and the average during the last three years has been in round numbers, 5,000. I shall always be glad to give information on this subject; but I do not think it is necessary to publish an annual Return. As to the second part of the question, under the Acts referred by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the authority who decides as to the closing of burial grounds; but special provision is made in those Acts for the keeping open of Brompton Cemetery, subject to special Rules and Regulations laid down by the Home Office. I cannot admit that any case has been made out for the closing of the cemetery.
  SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICKgave Notice that on an early occasion he would call attention to the subject.

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND)—LOANS CONTRACTED BY THE DISTRICT BOARDS OF LUNACY.
  MR. R. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the amounts of the loans contracted by the District Boards of Lunacy, and secured on the county rates, are set forth in the Local Taxation Returns (Scotland); and, if so, under what heading; and, whether these loans are included in Table 7, on page 5, which purports to give a summary of local indebtedness?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): In reply to the hon. Member's Question, loans raised by District Lunacy Boards are not included in the Local Taxation Returns— simply the amount of interest and repayment of principal by Commissioners of Supply. This arises partly from the fact that by the Local Taxation Returns Act, 1881, it is provided that where any annual Return is now by law required to be made to the Secretary of State (now Secretary for Scotland), or any Public Department, the Act shall not render necessary any other Return. The accounts of the Lunacy Boards have not, accordingly, as yet been brought under the operation of the Local Taxation Returns. It is right to point out, however, that power is given in the above Act to the Secretary for Scotland to cause these Returns, if he thought desirable, to be made under that Act; and although the subject is one, for
  1614
  various reasons, not without difficulty, the Secretary for Scotland will be glad to consider whether a change should not be effected in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

  FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT— MR. BAIRD.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the result of the proceedings against Mr. Baird under the Foreign Enlistment Act, to which allusion was made, affected "his character or repute," or indicated him to be "a person to whom a Government contract or permit should not be granted?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It does not seem to the Secretary of State that Mr. Baird's character is at all affected by the prosecution instituted against him for an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act. Mr. Justice Smith, who tried the case, stated several times that there was no evidence at all against Mr. Baird, and directed the jury to find him not guilty.

  ADMIRALTY—DOCKYARD APPRENTICES AT SHEERNESS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it has hitherto been the custom to allow certain Dockyard apprentices, at Sheerness, to retain, with their names written in them, school books which have been supplied to them by the Government; whether, recently, certain apprentices, having been given and taken home these books as usual, have been ordered to return them; whether, if this be true, and considered a necessary economy, he will direct that the books should not be given out at all, rather than given and then demanded back; and, whether he will re-consider the present decision, and direct a return to the usual practice, which has hitherto given great satisfaction to a numerous and deserving class?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. FORWOOD): Until recently the practice as regards the Dockyard apprentices and their school books was that indicated by my hon. Friend's Question. The new Regulation provides that such books shall only be allowed

  1615
  as a loan. In order, however, to encourage the students in their work, and to draw a distinction between those who work and those who shirk, the Regulation further provides—
  "That the more expensive Looks are to be awarded as prizes to those apprentices who are recommended in lieu of the often unsuitable books now given."
  It has, however, been decided that those apprentices who obtain at least 60 per cent of marks at their final examination shall be allowed to retain the text books as their personal property.

  SALE OF INDECENT BOOKS AND PICTURES.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement in The British Weekly regarding the sale of indecent books and pictures: —
  "One of the worst and most obtrusive evils of the present time is the sale of indecent books and pictures. Zola's novels, which are allowed in America only in expurgated editions, were sold in London till recently at a somewhat high price. They have now been reduced to 2s., and may be been in City book-shops side by side with Bibles. There are French novels still more corrupt, and these also are beginning to be translated. And as to indecent pictures, our attention has been called to a shop passed every day by thousands of City youth where the most flagrantly indecent French pictures are constantly on exhibition in the windows;"
  and, whether the Government will take steps to suppress the sale of such indecent publications?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member calls my attention. The Question is too general for me to express any opinion upon the propriety of suppressing the sale of the publications referred to. I have been in communication with the Police Authorities upon this question; and I may assure the hon. Member that no efforts have been, or will be, spared in dealing with the sale of literature and photographs of an indecent nature. But the action of the police must necessarily depend upon the particular circumstances of each case.

  INDIAN CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT— REPEAL.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Under Secretary of
  1616
  State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to procure the repeal of the Indian Contagious Diseases Act (Act XIV. of 1868); and, if not, whether they are now prepared to take any steps to procure its repeal?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India upon this subject; but their reply has not yet been received.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE IN THE EAST —THE SUEZ CANAL AND THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE ROUTE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there has ever been a conference or deliberations between the Naval and Military Authorities as to the relative desirability of sending troops or merchandize under convoy to the East through the Suez Canal or by way of the Cape; and, if so, what was the result of this conference or of these deliberations?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The question referred to has been carefully considered between the Naval and Military Departments, with the result that, under certain circumstances, the balance of advantage might incline to either route. It would not be for the public interest to detail those circumstances to the House.

  INDIA—PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT —A MOSQUE AT BIJAPUR.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that the Public Works Department has capped with a corrugated iron roof, painted and boarded up, and turned into a post office, a mosque at Bijapur, which "is perfect in structure and beautiful in decoration?"
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State knows nothing of the act of vandalism alleged by the hon. Member; but inquiries shall be made. I may

  1617
  add that when this mosque was turned into a post office, the greatest care was taken to preserve its architectural features.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— ATTACK ON THE CHILDREN OF THE WESTPORT PROTESTANT SUN DAY SCHOOL, CO. MAYO.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The Sheffield Daily Telegraph, of 18th July:—
  "News reached Dublin on Saturday afternoon of an attack made on the children of the Westport Protestant Sunday Schools in County Mayo. When returning from a picnic, the roads were lined with people, who threw large stones as the excursionists drove past. One girl was injured in the spine, and a magistrate's daughter had her cheek cut open, and was knocked senseless. She now lies in a precarious state. The children cowered down in the brakes, and most of them escaped injury. Two carters, who had charge of the provisions for the excursionists, were severely beaten, and all the things they had destroyed;"
  and, whether there is any foundation for it; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken in relation to it?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Before the Question is answered, I should like to ask whether this is taken simply from an anonymous letter in The Daily Express, and transferred by The Daily Express correspondent to The Daily Express editor, who is the correspondent of The Times, and sent by him to The Times, and rests simply upon anonymity?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I cannot possibly tell whether the article in a Sheffield paper, which I have not seen, has been taken from The Daily Express or any other paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not the question. I want to know whether this does not rest on the anonymous statement of an anonymous correspondent?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not taken my information from any newspaper. In consequence of my hon. Friend's Question, I caused inquiries to be made, and the official Report says that an organized attack was made on these school children. One young lady who was with the party was struck by a stone in the face, and so badly that the
  1618
  doctor does not pronounce her out of danger. Others were hit, including little children; but no one else was dangerously wounded. Three persons were arrested and remanded to next Petty Sessions, and the names of eight others were taken to be made amenable by summonses.
  MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any further information as to the causes of the attack?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Perhaps I had better read the Report of the Resident Magistrate, which is to the following effect: —
  "Yesterday Miss Kelly, who lives near here, gave an excursion to the Westport Sunday School children. About 90 or 100 in all proceeded to the strand at Oldhead, near Louis-burgh—the children, some ladies, and a few gentlemen—in several vehicles. Some of the children carried small flags to mark the course for footraces they intended having. Several people gathered in a threatening manner at Oldhead; but though they used very brutal language, they were prevented from doing violence by the interference of Mr. Wilbraham, J.P., of Oldhead, and the Rev. W. Joyce, parish priest of Louisburgh. Stones had been built on the road in readiness for the return of the party; but owing to the influence of Mr. Garney, of Merrisk, they were removed. On the return of the party they were attacked with stones, clods, and other missiles, at Lecanvy, and along the road as far as Merrisk, where the attack became hottest, and a young lady, Miss L. Powell, daughter of the agent to the Marquess of Sligo, was badly hit in the face—so badly that Dr. Allman does not pronounce her out of danger. Others were hit, even little children; but no one else was dangerously wounded. From what was told me to-day, the escape of the party from many serious wounds is marvellous. Two young men and a boy were brought before me to-day charged with stone-throwing, and I remanded them to Westport Petty Sessions on Thursday next on a formal information. The only motive suggested for this attack is that this Sunday School children excursion was an 'Orange walk,' and that the flags mentioned were party flags."
  MR. MACNEILLasked the name of the Resident Magistrate?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Resident Magistrate was Mr. Home, and the Chief Inspector Mr. Milling.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL— VALUATION OF MUNICIPAL WATERWORKS.
  MR. J. C. BOLTONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether in consenting to refer the question of the valuation of municipal waterworks to a Select

  1619
  Committee, he has taken into account the fact, that a Bill in reference to the rating of machinery is now before a Select Committee of this House, and that any modification of the system of rating one description of property must necessarily affect all other property subject to the same rating authority?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): In consenting to a Select Committee on the Valuation of Water Works, Her Majesty's Government had in view the fact that a cognate question relating to valuation of machinery was before another Select Committee. There can be no doubt that any modification of the system of rating one class of property will affect other property. The Secretary for Scotland will be glad to consider any practical suggestion my hon. Friend may make as to the scope of the remit of the Select Committee.

  ALASKA (NORTH AMERICA)—SEIZURE OF A BRITISH SHIP.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any further information as to the reported seizure of the British steam schooner Annie Beck in Alaskan waters, especially as to the specific charge against the schooner, and the precise locality of the offence and of the capture?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): No official information has yet reached Her Majesty's Government of the reported seizure of the vessel in question. We are in correspondence with Her Majesty's Minister at Washington in regard to the seizure in Alaskan waters last autumn of three British schooners, while engaged in seal fishing, by an American Revenue cruiser, and Sir L. West has been directed to ask for copies of the judicial records in those cases.

  POST OFFICE—NEW BUILDINGS (COLDBATH FIELDS PRISON).
  CAPTAIN PENTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has yet selected the site for the new buildings, in connection with the Post Office, which it is proposed to erect on part of the present site of the disused
  1620
  Coldbath Fields Prison; and, how much of the ground will be required for the purpose?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am not yet in a position to furnish the information asked for, as the whole question is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his Question in a week.

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—SUPPLY OF CHAIRS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, To whom the fees for chairs in the parks go to; whether anything is paid for the privilege of letting these chairs; whether he is aware that many persons, not knowing that there is a fee to occupy them, sit upon them, and are then pounced upon for a fee; and, whether he will consider if it would not be desirable to provide chairs, and to allow the public to occupy them without fees?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): The fees for the chairs in the Parks go to the owners of the chairs. Nothing is paid for the privilege of letting the chairs. We do supply a certain number of additional seats in the Parks every year, for which money is voted; but to provide chairs gratuitously to the extent now done by private enterprise in the Parks would cost several thousand pounds, and that would involve Treasury sanction, which I do not think I should obtain?

  ADMIRALTY —THE JUBILEE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD— COLLISION OF THE "AJAX" AND "DEVASTATION."
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can inform the House the cause of the collision between the Ajax and Devastation, and the extent of damage to each vessel; if it was necessary, and in accordance with the Rules of Navigation, as reported by the Press, that the latter should cross the bows of the Ajax for the purpose of taking up her position as leader of the second line; whether the doors of the bulkheads and anchor gear of both vessels were examined before starting, and if the ships comprising the Squadron were proceeding

  1621
  in grand divisions; if so, at what distance apart; and, if the Fleet at the forthcoming Naval Review are to be manœuvred; if so, in what formation, and the distance at which ramming ships are to steam apart from ships in their front?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Black Prince struck the Agincourt on Wednesday, but no damage was done. The collision between the Ajax and the Devastation was more serious. It occurred owing to the Devastation fouling the Ajax when taking up her position at the head of the line. The Report of the inquiry into the cause of the collision between the Ajax and Devastation, or the extent of their damage, has not yet been received. There is no necessity for a ship, when performing way manœuvre, to place herself within colliding distance of another. Safety to the ship is the governing principle in the performance of all evolutions. The doors of bulkheads are kept ready for closing at all times, night or day, at sea or in harbour, and the anchor gear is examined and reported upon at regular established intervals. The Squadron was in two divisions, and at the regulated distance apart, which is governed by the number of ships in the line. There is no intention of manœuvring the Fleet at the forthcoming Naval Review.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—PILOTS' CERTIFICATES TO ALIENS —"THE QUEEN" v. TRINITY HOUSE CORPORATION."
  MR. KINGasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the decision in the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of "The Queen v. The Trinity House Corporation;" and, whether, by the terms of that decision, the Licensing Boards may refuse to grant pilots' certificates to aliens?
  THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Board of Trade have not yet received a copy of the judgment referred to; but they understand that the Court refused a mandamus, on the ground that the Pilotage Authorities had a discretion under the Act; and, further, that there was under the Act an appeal to the Board of Trade from the decision of those Authorities.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN —THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD— ALLOTMENT OF TICKETS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the whole of the tickets for the Crocodile have been allotted to Members of Parliament and their wives; and, whether a certain number of tickets given for that ship, which might have been allotted to the officers of the House according to the usual custom, were recalled by the Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The whole of the tickets for the Crocodile, 700 in number, were sent to the Speaker for distribution. No Crocodile tickets were recalled by the Admiralty. On the contrary, on their learning that the distribution of the 700 tickets still left some of the officers of the House unprovided for, 30 additional tickets for the Assistance, which ship would have the same facilities as the Crocodile, were sent for their use. It might be stated that whereas, in 1867, 500 tickets were provided for the House of Commons, they had on this occasion been provided with 730.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD— NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS.
  MR. BAUMANN(for Mr. J. W. LOWTHER) (Cumberland, Penrith) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Admiralty has prohibited newspaper correspondents from accompanying the Fleet during its evolutions after its departure from Spithead at the conclusion of the Naval Review; if so, whether, considering the great and growing interest taken by the public in matters affecting the efficiency of the Navy, the Admiralty will re-consider a decision which will practically deprive the public of all information respecting the evolutions; and, whether it will be possible to permit newspaper corespondents to accompany the Fleet, on the condition that all their reports should be submitted to censorship before being despatched?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The

  1623
  main object of the operations is to endeavour to represent, under the conditions which would be observed in time of war, such operations in connection with the attack of our coasts, commercial ports and commerce, as may be anticipated, and to provide as effectually as possible for their protection. It must be clear that if any really valuable experience is to be gained, every effort must be made to prevent the enemy from being able to ascertain the movements of the protecting force, and also the protecting force from knowing the plans of attack of the enemy. If newspaper correspondents were to be permitted to be on board the vessels of the enemy's ships as well as those of the protecting squadrons secrecy would be impossible, and the object of the operations entirely frustrated. The Board, therefore, regret that the decision arrived at not to permit newspaper correspondents to be on board the vessels engaged in these operations cannot be re-considered The nature of the operations which are to be carried out subsequent to the Review have already been sent to the Press and published; but it is, of course, impossible to enter into these details.

  EGYPT—SIR HENRY DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When Her Majesty's Government intend to present to the House Papers giving the later history of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's Mission, and the negotiations regarding the Egyptian Convention, from 31st May down to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's departure from Constantinople on 15th July?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I hope to lay these Papers on the Table on some day in next week. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff will probably reach this country on Sunday.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— MR. SAUNDERS, POLICE MAGISTRATE.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in yesterday's Daily News:—
  1624
  "A respectably-dressed man applied to Mr. Saunders for a summons against Constable 293 K for assaulting him by striking him on the nose.—Applicant on Sunday night wanted to give a man into custody. The officer would not take the man; and then Constable 293 came up and struck him on the bridge of the nose. —Mr. Saunders: Why did he do it?— Applicant:—I don't know, sir.—Mr. Saunders; Oh, nonsense. I don't believe a constable would do such a thing without provocation, Go away;"
  and, whether he will communicate with Mr. Saunders, with a view to ascertain whether the facts are correctly stated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have communicated with Mr. Saunders, who informs me that, in the exercise of his discretion, he refused to grant a summons to this applicant, because, in his opinion, the answers which the applicant gave to the questions put to him were so unsatisfactory that he did not consider the application a genuine one.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS) — MARYLEBONE POLICE COURT—CASE OF MR. WILLIAMS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Middlesex Magistrates on Saturday, quashing the conviction of Mr. Williams, who, along with six other defendants, was sentenced by Mr. De Rutzen, on the 27th April, at the Marylebone Police Court, to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, on a charge of assaulting the police in the execution of their duty; whether Mr. De Rutzen then stated that the sentence was—
  "Wholly inadequate in the case of Williams, whom he designated as the leader, and the person most to blame;"
  whether Mr. Williams on Saturday called witnesses who "described the police as having been very rough indeed;" whether he is aware that the other defendants, or several of them, were prevented from appealing by their poverty and inability to obtain bail, which Mr. De Rutzen refused to reduce; and, whether, in all the circumstances of the case, he will at once order the release of all the defendants who are now in prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): There was no joint charge proceeded with

  1625
  before Mr. De Rutzen; but only separate charges against the several defendants for assaulting different police constables in the execution of their duty. This course was taken on the responsibility of the prosecuting counsel; and it gave the defendants the advantage of being admissible witnesses in all the cases except the one in which each was charged with what he himself had done. The Middlesex Quarter Sessions quashed the conviction of Williams on the production of fresh evidence which had not been produced before Mr. De Rutzen, and which raised doubt in their minds as to the fact of the assault by him. This decision does not, so far as I know, throw any doubt upon the propriety of, Mr. De Rutzen's decision in the case of the other defendants, nor, indeed, in the case of Williams, upon the evidence as it stood in the Police Court. The usual rules were followed in the matter of bail as to the other defendants who did not appeal. I cannot, therefore, follow the course suggested by the hon. Member of at once ordering their release; but I have applied to the Middlesex Chairman for a copy of the evidence before him, with a view to seeing whether it in any way affects the case of defendants other than Williams.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been specially drawn to the fact that, in passing sentence, Mr. De Rutzen stated that Williams was the leader and person most to blame; and whether the meaning of the quashing of the sentence against Williams was that the Middlesex Magistrates did not believe the testimony of the police, and yet the six other defendants were convicted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the police?
  MR. MATTHEWSbelieved that Mr. De Rutzen did use the expression quoted, or words to that effect; but, according to the Report he had received, the Middlesex Quarter Sessions received fresh evidence, which induced them to doubt the accuracy of the evidence on which Mr. De Rutzen founded his decision.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether, seeing that the disturbances with which the prisoners were said to have been connected had long ceased, and the sentences were un-
  1626
  doubtedly severe, the case might not be one for the mercy of the Crown?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That matter is well worthy of consideration.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)— RESCUE FROM DROWNING—POLICE CONSTABLE 483 J.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a case heard on Tuesday last at Worship Street Police Court, in the course of which Mr. Bushby highly commended Police Constable 483 J for his successful efforts to rescue a woman from drowning; and, whether he will take care that the gallantry of this constable shall be suitably acknowledged?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This is one of many similar cases. The police constable has already been recommended for a reward, which will be granted by the Commissioners in the usual way. His case will also be brought before the Humane Society, and the matter published in Police Orders.

  WAR OFFICE—ELECTION FOR THE BASINGSTOKE DIVISION OF HANTS —PASSES.
  MR. T. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether leave was given on Monday last to a number of men entitled to vote at Aldershot, in the election for the Basingstoke Division of Hants; and, if so, will he grant a Return of the passes so granted; will he state where the men were stationed; will he state in what manner, and at whose instance, applications were made, and by whose authority they were granted; and, whether they are granted to all who apply for them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The usual instruction was sent to the General commanding requiring him to keep in camp during the election all soldiers not requiring to go out for the purpose of voting, and I have no doubt the instruction was duly acted on. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which facilities for voting were with held I shall be happy to have it inquired into,

  HARES PRESERVATION BILL—A "CLOSE TIME."
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the anxiety of all classes, especially of tenant farmers, for the establishment of a "close time" for hares, and the fact, as proved by Petitions from all parts of the country, that there is an almost unanimous assent to the measure which has been introduced this Session, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to assist in forwarding a similar measure next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am aware of the favour shown by many Members who represent agricultural constituencies towards the Close Time for Hares Bill; but I am afraid it is impossible for the Government to give any pledges as regards the Bill and next Session.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: Will the Government establish a close time for the Irish tenants?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LEGAL PROCEEDINGS REPORTS BILL.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will give facilities to bring forward the Legal Proceedings Reports Bill; and, whether they will introduce legislation of their own to deal with the evil of publishing demoralising details of divorce cases?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The highest legal authorities see no objection to the Legal Proceedings Reports Bill; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity of passing the Bill into law in the course of the present Session?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  MR. JACOBYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in consideration of the late period of the Session, and the unsatisfactory progress made in the negotiations upstairs, he can now name a day for proceeding with the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill?
  MR. J. E. ELLISalso asked, Whether the right
  1628
  hon. Gentleman can now definitely fix a day for the further consideration of the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): After further progress has been made in Supply and the Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill has been finished, I hope to be in a position to fix a day for proceeding with the Coal Mines Regulation, &c. Bill, and to go on until it is concluded. It will not be taken next week.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER—THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY.
  MR. BROOKFIELDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could inform the House how soon the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy (Lord John Manners) was likely to be able to resume his place in the House, and to transact the business of his Department?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am happy to say that my noble Friend is recovering from his severe illness. I am sure this news will be gratifying to the House. My noble Friend hopes to be in his place in the course of a week or 10 days.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—PARDON OF OFFENDERS—THE ROYAL NAVY.
  MR. CONYBEARE(for Mr. CUNNINGHAMS GRAHAM) (Lanark, N.W.) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Royal pardon to be granted in celebration of the Jubilee to deserters from the Army will be extended to deserters from the Royal Navy?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is not usual for questions to be addressed to Ministers with reference to the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. I think that is a rule which the House generally will think it well to observe. I am unable, with reference to the question now put, to hold out any hope that the request will be granted.
  MR. CONYBEAREpointed out that the object of the question was to ascertain whether the same clemency was to be extended to deserters from the Navy as had been accorded to deserters from the Army.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is hardly fair to say that the same clemency has not been extended to the Navy as to the Army. Several privileges have been granted to the Navy, but deserters from it have not received the Royal pardon.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does not Her Majesty in all these matters act upon the advice of Her Ministers?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.

  CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—ADDRESS OF THE GRAND COUNCIL OF THE PRIMROSE LEAGUE.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to furnish a precedent for the recent reception of an Address from the Grand Council of the Primrose League?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): If the hon. Gentleman will refer to The Gazette of the 16th of May, 1884, he will find mention of a very large number of addresses from Liberal Associations, presented to Her Majesty, expressing sorrow for the loss of the Duke of Albany. And there have been other cases of a similar character.

  AFRICA (CENTRAL)—EXPEDITION FOR THE RELIEF OF EMIN PASHA—REPORTED DEATH OF MR. STANLEY.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any information with regard to the reported death of Mr. Stanley?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): No, Sir, I have not received any intelligence.

  THE IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he adheres to the intention, announced to the House the other day in reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), of making a statement to-night regarding the changes which the Government propose in the Irish Land Law Bill when he makes the Motion for going into Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Motion to go into Committee will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but such changes as they are are changes entirely within the principles of the Bill. It will save the time of the House if we proceed to consider the Bill in Committee and upon the clauses to deal with the Amendments as they arise.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: A statement has been made out of doors as to the proposed changes; and are we to understand that no announcement is to be made to the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend will deal with that question in the course of the debate, and on the Motion that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, if it appears necessary to the House; but I am not aware that a private meeting of the Members of a Party renders it necessary that a grave and serious statement should be made to the House of Commons. It is not, I believe, usual for the Members of the Opposition, or even for the Leader of the Opposition, to make such a statement himself as to the course of policy which the Opposition may think it right to pursue with regard to a Bill.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion of the introduction of the Home Rule Bill in 1886 there was a meeting out of doors, and that a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), moved the adjournment of the House as a protest?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is quite possible that he may have done so. I should be exceedingly sorry if any delay hindered our progress. The course which the Government desired to take is one intended to meet the convenience of the House as far as possible, and to save the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman takes exception to that course; but on the Motion that you, Sir, leave the Chair we shall give such explanations as are necessary.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: It would have been more convenient, and more in accordance with custom, if the Government had placed their Amendments on the Paper, so that they might be considered.

  SPAIN—ALLEGED MURDER OF A SEAMAN AT BILBAO BY A SPANISH SENTRY.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, Whether he had seen the report in the newspapers stating that a merchant seaman had been deliberately shot dead by a Spanish sentry on the quay at the Port of Bilbao; and, whether he would inquire into the matter and demand satisfaction for the outrage and compensation for the poor man's family?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON), in reply, said, undoubtedly such an occurrence would receive inquiry. A Report would be obtained. Of course, it would be quite premature to say what would be done until the result of the inquiry was made known.

  IRISH LAND LAW BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, why the Amendments put down to this Bill had not been numbered on the Notice Paper, as was done in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND) (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that so far the Amendments did not equal in number those put down in the case of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill.

PRIVILEGE.
  PARLIAMENT-PRIVILEGE—COMPLAINT (DR. TANNER).—RESOLUTION.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read for the Attendance of Dr. Tanner, and Dr. Tanner being in his place:—
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th July],
    "That in consequence of the disgraceful and insulting words addressed in the Lobby of the House on Friday evening last, by Dr. Tanner. Member for the Mid Division of the County of Cork, to an honourable Member of this House, Dr. Tanner be suspended from the Service of the House, and excluded from its precincts for a Month."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    DR. TANNER: Sir, in the first place, in rising to make my explanation of the unfortunate occurrence which took place on last Friday evening, I must express my deep regret that this House has been put to such inconvenience in connection with this matter. I also still further express my regret that a highly estimable officer of this House has been put to the inconvenience at this season of the year of undertaking along journey of about 1,000 miles to let me know the wish of this House that I present myself here this afternoon. I can assure you, Sir, and the House that directly I became aware of the fact that notice was to be taken of the incident on Friday, and that it was to be brought before the House, I then and there determined without any delay to present myself before the House and to acquaint them with my version of what occurred. Now, Sir, I understand that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Long) in making his complaint in connection with this incident said that he committed his recollection of it to writing, and with the permission of the House, as I have done the same, I will read what I have written as my recollection of the occurrence. On Friday evening, Sir, in connection with the second vote for the Motion for the closure, after I had complained that my vote was not recorded, I considered that I was jeered at from the opposite side of the House, and at the adjournment which then took place I was addressed on the subject of the mistake that I had made while walking down the floor of the House by a Member of the Conservative Party under circumstances which annoyed me considerably. I had never spoken to the Gentleman in my life and I did not know his name. When, therefore, I reached the Lobby, I was again accosted at the Post Office by another hon. Gentleman, whom I also did not know, in a tone and manner which I considered— however it may have been intended— was an attempt to throw ridicule on me on the part of Members acting, as I had supposed, in concert. I heard before this Gentleman accosted me the tittering going on behind me, and then this Gentleman, the hon. Member for Devizes, advanced and said to me "That was a nice sell you got." I said "Who are you? I have not addressed you. Are you a Tory?" He gave a sneering laugh

    1633
    and said "Certainly." I rejoined "I wish you to know that I do not want to be addressed by any of your d—d lot." I deny, Sir, having used any of the further expletives on the occasion in question which have been attributed to me by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for West Donegal was present at the time, and can also state what occurred. It is true that I spoke in haste, and the incident would never have arisen but that I considered that I had been twice importuned on a subject with regard to which I was smarting from annoyance at the moment by hostile Members whom I do not know, and who I considered ought to have abstained from addressing in private Members of a Party whom they constantly denounce in public. Sir, I regret very much what has occurred for my own sake as well as on account of the House; and I can only gay that, but for the fact that I regarded the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Long) and his Friends as aggressors, I should not have used the expression complained of. Finally, it remains for me to withdraw that portion of my language which was indecorous and improper, and also to express to the House my regret for having used it.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will withdraw.
    Dr. TANNERwithdrew accordingly.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG): I am aware, Sir, that I can only now address the House by the indulgence of the House, as I have already spoken in the debate. But I trust I shall be allowed to say a few words in answer to the explanation just made by the hon. Member—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member; but I submit to you, Sir, that the hon. Member for Mid Cork ought in fairness to be allowed to be present to hear any reiteration of the charge made against him by the hon. Member for Devizes; otherwise he will be placed at a great disadvantage.
    MR. SPEAKER: If it be the general wish of the House, I see no objection to the hon. Member for Mid Cork being present.
    Dr. TANNERwas, with the assent of the House, recalled, and resumed his seat.
    MR. LONG: I am very glad that the hon. and learned Member for Longford suggested that the hon. Member for Mid Cork should be in attendance. I have but very few words to add to those which I spoke in this House the other day. I have to deny absolutely that I used the word "sell," or any other words than those which I stated to the House when I addressed it on Monday. With reference to the hon. Member for Mid Cork's statement that the incident concluded with the first remark, I have only to repeat—
    DR. TANNER: I did not say that.
    MR. LONG: I understood the hon. Member to say that—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He said he used no further expletives.
    MR. LONG: I adhere to the statement that I made to the House last Monday, which I believe now, as I said then, to be absolutely and literally correct. I deny the statement that I used the word "sell," or that by word or manner I gave the hon. Member for Mid Cork cause for offence; and although I regret that it has been necessary in this House or anywhere else to call upon anybody to pledge for my statement, I am compelled to ask those hon. Gentlemen who were present at the time, two of whom heard everything that passed from the beginning to the end, my hon. Friend the Member for the Brentford Division of Middlesex (Mr. Bigwood), the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Bond), and the hon. Member for the Tyne-side Division (Mr. W. B. Beaumont). I will ask them to say to the House whether or no my account of what took place is accurate. I have nothing beyond that to add to what I have already addressed to the House.
    MR. BIGWOOD: As my name has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Devizes Division, I think it well to explain to the House what occurred on the occasion in question so far as I am aware. I passed, immediately after the Division, into the Lobby, and was standing near the Post Office, when the hon. Member for Devizes came up, passed me, and spoke to the hon. Member for Mid Cork. I had, therefore, an opportunity of hearing all that was said, and I certainly do not remember the use of the word "sell" in connection with the conversation.

    1635
    The conversation as reported to the House seems to be particularly accurate, and why I know it is accurate is that the language affected me at the time so much that I proceeded to write down the words myself.
    R. LABOUCHERE: Why did you write it down?
    An hon. MEMBER: It is a plot.
    MR. BIGWOOD: When the hon. Member for Devizes read the words to me I looked at what I had taken down, and I found that they corresponded exactly. The hon. Member for Devizes has been particularly accurate in the statement given to the House; but he has not made, perhaps, so much as he might have made of it. He has not alluded to the very offensive manner in which the words were spoken. I may inform the House that the impression I had when the conversation commenced was that the hon. Member for Devizes was officially inquiring into the mistake; for it will be in the recollection of those who were in the House that the hon. Member for Mid Cork particularly asked the question what was to be done; and it occurred to me—not recognizing for the instant the hon. Member for Devizes—that he was making an official inquiry. That must remove from the minds of hon. Members the idea that there was any conversation of a bantering description or of a light character. The conversation was almost word for word such as has been stated, and I must say that I do not recollect the use of any such word as "sell" during the conversation. [An hon, MEMBER: Read.] I have nothing to read. Perhaps, as a proof of the assertion I make, I may say that in a copy of The Birmingham, Daily Mail there appears a statement very much of the same character as that I make—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Supplied by you.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman refers to what appears in The Birmingham Daily Mail. May I ask him whether he is not himself the correspondent who supplied it?
    MR. BIGWOOD: Certainly not. I was not under the impression that those words would be seen in print. I certainly conveyed to a gentleman in the outer Lobby the fact that I was extremely indignant at what I had heard, and that I thought it was the duty of some per-
    1636
    son to bring forward such conduct to the notice of the House of Commons.
    MR. O'HANLON: Will the hon. Member read his notes?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
    MR. BIGWOOD: I thought for the honour of this House that language of that sort ought to be brought forward, because, being spoken in the presence of strangers, I deemed it to be a very grave offence against the dignity of the House.
    MR. PARNELL: As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that he took a note of the conversation, I think the hon. Member should be asked to read it.
    MR. BIGWOOD: I have not those notes with me.
    MR. BOND: Having been in company with the hon. Member for Devizes on the occasion referred to, I most distinctly say—and I left the House with him and was in his company during the whole incident—that the words imputed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork to the hon. Member for Devizes were not used. I must say, further, that the manner of the hon. Member for Devizes was such as could not have caused the slightest irritation to the hon. Member for Mid Cork. His manner was most courteous, and I may also say that the hon. Member for Mid Cork was at the time, I think, reading a letter, and upon being addressed by the hon. Member for Devizes he looked up with a smiling countenance. When he asked the hon. Member for Devizes whether he was a Tory, I thought it was done in joke. I must say that the hon. Member for Devizes has given a fair and impartial statement of the case, and all I can add is that I most heartily endorse every word he said.
    MR. O'HEA: I, Sir, am under the disadvantage of not having on the spot committed to writing what took place, and must, therefore, trust to my memory. I was in the House at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork asked the Chairman of Committees with regard to his vote—"What was to be done?" He and I walked out of that door together. Behind us I distinctly heard tittering and jeering, as if hon. Members were making fun for themselves at the expense of my hon. Friend. In the centre of the Lobby an hon. Gentleman, I think—for my vision is rather imperfect—the Member for Devizes, said—"What is this nice

    1637
    sell you have got into, Dr. Tanner? At this time my hon. Friend was considerably chagrined with regard to his vote, and the conversation he had with me was as to how the mistake he had fallen into could be remedied. I considered that he was unnecessarily worrying himself in the matter; but it was evident to any person that he had taken it very seriously to heart. In the centre of the Lobby the words I have quoted were used, and my hon. Friend turned round and said—"I have not addressed you; I do not know who you are. Are you a Tory?—perhaps you are a Tory," or something like that. There was a laughing reply given in the affirmative. Of the words my hon. Friend used my recollection is quite as distinct as that of any hon. Member who has spoken. The words he used were—"I wish you to know that I do not desire to address or to be addressed by you, or by any of your d—d lot," or d—d something, or words to that effect. When he went away, I remonstrated with my hon. Friend on the heat he had displayed, and he said—" Why on earth do not they mind their own business?" That is what I can bear testimony to, and, though not having committed the matter to writing, that is the evidence I should give if I were placed in the witness-box.
    MR. W. B. BEAUMONT: I have been appealed to to say a few words. In the first place, I cannot help expressing my regret, which I think must be shared in generally, that my hon. Relative (Mr. Long) did not adhere to the determination he expressed to me at the termination of this unfortunate incident, and that was to let the matter drop. But, Sir, be that as it may, having been appealed to, I am bound to speak, and I will tell, to the best of my recollection, exactly what occurred. I was posting a letter, and I heard a considerable noise, the hon. Member for Mid Cork using language which he has himself described. I turned to my hon. Relative, and I said, "What is this?" And he said, "There is chaff going on." I will not be certain that he used the words "going on;" but I am perfectly certain that he used the word "chaff," and that word appeared to convey something beyond that which has been mentioned in the House. Having said that, I do not think that I
    1638
    am able to throw any more light on the subject.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I think it is time the House should ask itself whether this matter ought not now to close? The hon. Member for Mid Cork has, I think, apologized to the hon. Member for Devizes for the language which he used, and we all know that he is of an excitable nature.
    MR. SPEAKER: I was under the impression that the hon. Baronet was about to give some evidence on the actual facts. I only intervene because I think it proper that the hon. Member for Mid Cork should now withdraw.
    Dr. TANNERwithdrew accordingly.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: It is our experience that men in the excitement of the moment use language they afterwards regret. Over and over again it has been ruled that language used outside the House ought not to be discussed in this House, it being resolved by some hon. Members, as I was told just now, to give as good as they got, as the homely phrase is, rather than to trouble the House. I think I have a right to speak, as I have been addressed by the hon. Member for Mid Cork in language which I considered most unsuitable. Knowing something of the excitable character of the hon. Member, I thought it would be useless and unnecessary to trouble the House with the matter. Now. Sir, I would suggest to the hon. Member for Devizes opposite, whom everyone knows to be of a kindly and courteous disposition, that in the interests of the House he should drop this subject, and that the House should go to the next Business. This would be far better than to occupy more valuable time in discussing an incident which every hon. Member in the House must deplore. I think the House will agree with me that the use of strong language does not add to the force of one's observations, for it shows lack of temper and judgment. In the little controversy I had with the hon. Member I did not use any strong language at all, and yet I think I got the best of it. I think it would be well if hon. Members remembered the excitable temper of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and came to the conclusion that it is not worth while to bring the hon. Member's language in the Lobbies

    1639
    to the notice of the House. I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will now allow the matter to drop.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I know, Sir, it is only by the indulgence of the House, as I have already spoken, that I can be allowed to speak again; but I regret that I am not able to take the view which the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) takes upon the conditions which should exist in the Lobby. I understand him to take the view that strong language—as he calls it—may be used in the Lobby, and that hon. Gentlemen should take no notice of it. Well, I am afraid that if that view were sanctioned by the House we should be exposed to incidents that would throw great discredit on this House. It is obviously impossible that this House should refuse to extend its jurisdiction to language spoken and acts done within the precincts of the House, though not in the House itself. If so, hon. Gentlemen who considered themselves insulted might take the remedy into their own hands, and we might have very disgraceful scenes within the precincts of the House. Unless the House is prepared to recognize a principle which it has never yet sanctioned, the House must insure that order and decency are maintained in the Lobby as well as in the House. I have listened with care to the statement of the hon. Member for Mid Cork. He has called in question the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Long), although that statement is sustained and corroborated by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Bigwood) and the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Bond). The attributing of falsehood to the hon. Member for Devizes, thus corroborated, is an aggravation of the original offence.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish, as a point of Order, to ask you, Sir, whether, with regard to the statement of the hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea), who corroborated the statement of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, it is in Order to speak of that as an imputation of falsehood? The statement—
    MR. SPEAKER: No point of Order has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman is only drawing an inference.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it will be more convenient if the hon. and learned Member waits until I have concluded, and then corrects any statement I may make. I consider that an imputation of falsehood has been cast upon my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, and that is an aggravation of the offence. But there is one other point to which I am anxious to draw the attention of the House. No explanation whatever has been given by the hon. Member for Mid Cork of the failure to attend in his place on Monday. He received the letter giving notice that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Devizes to call the attention of the House to his conduct on Friday afternoon. He returned the letter to the hon. Gentleman opened, showing that he had received and read it. He left this House and went away from the precincts of this House altogether, and conveyed to the House no explanation of any kind, and the House received no explanation, except that which was tendered by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) on his own motion, without instructions as to the cause of the absence of the hon. Member for Mid Cork. I think the House must mark its view of the conduct of the hon. Member, who failed to regard the rules and customs of this House, and set at nought regulations which are laid down for the good order of this House. I say so without regard to the question as to where any hon. Member sits in this House. But circumstances within the knowledge of this House—I will not repeat what has been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid)—but I say circumstances within the knowledge of this House render it in my judgment necessary and expedient that the House should, as regards any Member, assert its authority, and make it distinctly clear that it intends that decency and order shall be maintained not only in debate, but in the House itself after debate, and within the precincts of the House. If the House does not assert that authority, and make it clear that a severe censure and punishment shall follow upon any breach of that order, then I apprehend that some of those disorders which we unfortunately have seen during the present Session may be repeated with very serious consequences to the dignity of the House, I must,

    1641
    therefore, persist with the Motion I have made, though—so far as I am concerned—if the House is of opinion that one month is an unduly long period of suspension, I am willing to amend the Motion in that particular and shorten it.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In justice to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), I should say it was at my suggestion he omitted any reference in his statement as to the letter. He consulted me about it; he had it in his explanation; and I blame myself for his taking it out. It was an error of judgment—but it was mine; and the reason I advised him to omit it was because I considered it to be a subsidiary incident to what I supposed to be the gravamen of the charge. My hon. Friend's explanation was this—and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes (Mr. Long) I do not wish for a moment to convey any additional circumstances of aggravation to the other side. The explanation of my hon. Friend was this—that he considered the sending of this letter to be a portion of the offence which, in his opinion—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and interruptions]—well, now, hon. Gentlemen surely know that there are two sides to every question, and my hon. Friend considered he was not the aggressor. He said the hon. Gentleman opposite was the aggressor, and his explanation of the sending back of the letter was that it was a further attempt to keep up what has been termed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tyneside Division of Northumberland (Mr. W. B. Beaumont) as this "chaff "—this "offensive chaff." That was the explanation which my hon. Friend gave to me, and I said, after all, that was not the grievance of which the House complained—the grievance of which the House complained was that these offensive words should be used in the Lobby, and it is that I said with which your statement must deal and nothing else. When my hon. Friend consulted me, he consulted, perhaps, a bad adviser. If he has made a mistake I am entirely to blame for it, and there is no reason whatever why the blame should be shared by the hon. Gentleman. I considered it was controversial, and would add fuel to the fire, by saying he considered the letter addressed to him was an additional cir-
    1642
    cumstance of aggravation, and so I advised that that portion of his explanation should be omitted. And now, having said that much, may I be allowed to say one or two words on the general merits of the question? Is it to be said that because a statement made by an hon. Gentleman opposite, and corroborated by two of his Friends, and where on this side a counter and rebutting statement is made, corroborated by one of our Friends, and certainly not uncorroborated by the relative of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is it to be said that this House, which has important affairs of the Empire to attend to, and just now has the grievances of 500,000 Irish tenants to give its attention to, is going to continue to occupy its time with this trumpery and miserable case? There is only one precedent for words spoken in the Lobby having been noticed by the House—that of Dr. Kenealy and the late Mr. A. M. Sullivan, and that was a case in which Mr. Sullivan brought under the notice of the House words which had been used towards him by Dr. Kenealy, who called him, I think, "a d—d liar." Now, these words had arisen in reference to a debate in this House, and for that the explanation and apology of Dr. Kenealy were accepted, he being an English Member; and now are you going to say that in a matter on which doubt has been cast that this Housoisgoingtotake— [Cries of"No!"] I do not say doubt in an offensive sense, and I do not think there is the least imputation on the hon. Gentleman opposite. But in a Court of Justice do not witnesses take different views of a case? And that is what has occurred in this instance. My hon. Friend admits the use of the expression "d—d." The hon. Gentleman opposite thinks it was used more than once, and I put it to the House, is it a desirable thing that the House should engage in such a frivolous case in a species of investigation, when doubt has been east upon the matter, when we are not unanimous, and when we are all anxious to suppress disorder in all parts of the House? [Cries of "No, no !"] I challenge the hon. Gentleman opposite to say, whatever my action in this House has been, that I have ever given the least offence outside it, or have ever addressed any hon. Gentleman whom I did not know. We Irish Members occupy admittedly a

    1643
    peculiar position. We have been denounced outside the House, and some of us in it; and I say if there is this attempt to circumscribe us, and distinguish between the Irish and English Members, I say it is an unfortunate thing. I will put it no further—that this conversation should have been initiated, I will not say by the aggressor, but, at any rate, by the complainant in the case. I think the hon. Gentleman himself will be the first to admit that. I have an Amendment down, which I do not desire to move, so as to prolong the discussion; but I will move it formally. I do not do so with any desire to prolong this controversy; but we know very well that while it is absolutely necessary to repress disorder outside the House—we know very well that Mr. Speaker is a fair arbiter, and my Amendment comes to this—that any hon. Gentleman having addressed himself to Mr. Speaker with regard to offensive words which might have been used towards him, and the hon. Member so offending having made an ample apology then and there, the House will be prepared to take immediate and stringent action. That is an Amendment which the Government might accept as being a fitting close to this deplorable incident. We do not desire for one moment to at all labour this point. We desire that this matter should be brought to a close, and I have not the slightest doubt that what has taken place will be a lesson to all Parties, both English and Irish, Liberal and Tory, and will cause them to keep, I will not say the demeanour that has been maintained in the House, but to avoid all causes of offence. I can only say this—our position in this House, and in this country, is peculiar enough and unfortunate enough without adding any additional circumstance of aggravation to it; and I think, after the explanation entered into on both sides of the House, it would be an unfair thing, and that the English public will regard it as an unfair thing, that this House should, against an Irish Member, take punitive and unusual steps absolutely unprecedented and never once taken before. I have referred to precedent in this Amendment, and we know that Mr. Speaker has accommodated differences between private Members where allegations were made involving a complaint of language being used of an equally offensive cha-
    1644
    racter as that complained of. I rest myself upon that precedent. We all feel in these delicate matters that we can appeal fully and fairly to Mr. Speaker; and certainly, if I may be allowed to say so, whenever we have had occasion in private to appeal to him, he has always mot us in the spirit which anyone occupying his great and eminent position should do. We recognize that, and my Amendment recognizes it; and I trust, in asking leave to move it, I am not adding any element to the controversy. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to be made to the Question,
    To leave out all the words after the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that, as the words complained of by Mr. W. Long were not spoken within the House, and resulted from a conversation initiated by him, the better course for the honourable Gentleman aggrieved would have been to have first claimed the good offices of Mr. Speaker, in accordance with precedent; but that this House is prepared, should the private intervention of Mr. Speaker prove ineffectual, to repress all disorders in the Lobbies as in the House itself,"—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY: I do not desire to prolong this controversy, but I must protest against the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) that there is any doubt about the present question. No doubt exists that the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) used language which was an insult to an hon. Member in the Lobby of this House. If the language he used had been used in this House, you, Mr. Speaker, would have intervened to restore order, and the hon. Member for Mid Cork would probably have apologized in his place. The hon. Member for Mid Cork was informed that the matter, having occurred outside the House, would be brought before the House the next time it met, on Monday. The hon. Member has given no explanation why he did not attend on that day. Indeed, we learn it was by the advice of the hon. Member for North Longford that that explanation was not given.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) stated on Monday that the reason why the hon. Member for Mid Cork had to absent himself was that he was one of the signatories to a notice calling a convention for the county of Cork, and that he was obliged to attend.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: The hon. Member for Mid Cork did not repeat that statement himself, nor did he send any written answer to the letter of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Long). If the hon. Member for Mid Cork had asked the hon. Member for Devizes to postpone the matter until he could attend there might have been grounds for appealing to the generosity and indulgence of the House; but the hon. Member for Mid Cork did nothing of the kind. He left my hon. Friend to bring the matter before the House, and so force the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to submit a Motion on the subject. This House cannot afford to pass over the matter. We should have been glad to do it if the hon. Member had told us he would take the first opportunity of offering a full and frank apology for the language used.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He has done that.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: Both for the language used and for his demeanour towards the hon. Member. When a matter of this kind is brought before the House, as this has been, the House must have regard to its own dignity. It is not in the power of the Speaker to maintain the dignity of our proceedings unless the House shows itself jealous of its own dignity and maintains its own character. I think the House would be to blame if it passed over this matter; and, therefore, I hope the House will support the Motion of its Leader, and show in some signal way its sense of the misconduct of the hon. Member for Mid Cork.
    MR. HOWELL: I shall detain the House only for a moment. I wish to add a word to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). I think that the Amendment which has been moved will meet all the circumstances of the case, and that in the circumstances the apology of the hon. Member for Mid Cork might be accepted.
    1646
    I feel, Sir, when you remember the peculiar circumstances connected with myself, that I may make an appeal that may have some weight with the House and the Government if I ask that the Motion may not be pressed.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I wish to say one word as to the words which were imputed to me by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford on Friday last. On the last occasion—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is impossible to go back to March last, and to a case which has no relevance whatever to the present subject.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray) appears to think that a punishment ought to be inflicted upon the hon. Member for Mid Cork, not on account of the principal offence, for which he has apologized, but on account of the conduct of the hon. Member after the first offence to the hon. Member for Devizes. [Cries of "No !" and "Yes!"] That is, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he proposes that the hon. Member for Mid Cork should be punished, not for the original offence, but on account of his conduct in the matter of the letter which the hon. Member for Devizes had addressed to him. That, at all events, is my construction of what the right hon. Gentleman says.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I wish to explain. I do not know what construction the right hon. Gentleman may put upon my words; but that is not the meaning which I intended to convey. I said the hon. Member for North Longford had stated that there had been a mistake and a misunderstanding. I said there was no mistake and no misunderstanding. There is no mistake about the insulting language, the use of which in the Lobby has been admitted to-night by the hon. Member for Mid Cork himself. But the letter is only an incident in the transaction. If the hon. Member for Mid Cork had appeared in his place on Monday, and had then apologized promptly for the language he used on Friday, the House might have passed it over; but the gravamen of the complaint is the language used on Friday in the Lobby to the hon. Member for Devizes.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The construction I put on the language of the right hon. Gentleman is the construction I thought most favourable to his understanding and his judgment. But that construction he now repudiates. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that that portion of the proceedings which relates to the letter and to the non-appearance of the hon. Member in the House of Commons constitute the grounds on which we ought to censure the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman cannot but be aware that the hon. Member for Mid Cork has apologized. He has used language expressing his regret. [Cries of "No, no!"] Is there the smallest doubt as to that fact? If not, I should desire that the hon. Member for Mid Cork should be recalled and requested again to read that portion of his statement in which he, as I understood, unequivocally and unconditionally expressed his regret for the improper language which he had used, and the grave offence which he had committed. And the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford said if he had apologized on Monday the apology might have been then accepted; but he did not appear on Monday; he has apologized on Thursday, and, therefore, his apology is not to be accepted. This raises an important question which I wish to state and to argue without prejudice. What I put to the House is this—that the offence, if there was one, was, it appears to me, very difficult to represent as an offence against the House. Am I to be told that if any hon. Gentleman gives me notice that he will bring my conduct at a certain date under the notice of the House I commit a punishable offence against the House if I take no notice of it? I may commit an error in many ways; I may commit an error in policy; I may commit an error in judgment; I may commit an error in courtesy. I should have said the hon. Member for Mid Cork did certainly commit an error in all these points of view if I had not to take into consideration two matters that have come before us. One is that the hon. Member for Mid Cork appears to have considered that he had a grave public duty to discharge elsewhere, which would prevent his attendance in this House; and, secondly, he had a strong belief, which must be considered an important factor in his view
    1648
    of the case, that he was originally the aggrieved and wronged party. He conceived that the proceeding of the hon. Member for Devizes was a distinct wrong—he has not used the word insult —upon himself. The hon. Member for Devizes called witnesses into court, and one of those witnesses has told us that the hon. Member for Devizes himself said there was "chaff going on." In that chaff there cannot be the smallest doubt who was the Gentleman to begin; there is no doubt about that. I do not hesitate for one moment to believe that the hon. Gentleman meant nothing discourteous in his chaff; but he himself described it as chaff, and surely he must feel that to address a Member who was excited and annoyed on account of an occurrence which had taken place in a tone which he himself has described as chaff was not a prudent or discreet proceeding. It seems to have created in the mind of the hon. Member for Mid Cork an untrue impression that the hon. Gentleman intended—and he was backed by others in the opinion—to do something offensive to hint. It appears to me that the sending back of the letter of the hon. Gentleman was a matter of courtesy between the two Gentlemen; but I cannot understand how that is to be treated as an offence punishable by this House. Although I admit that in prudence and policy and courtesy the hon. Member should attend to a notice of that kind, yet I must say that if he does not attend I cannot understand how his non-attendance in reply to the notice of a private Member on a method which the House has never entertained, and on which it has laid down no distinct and positive rule, is to be constituted an offence punishable by the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) introduced, I must say, a most unfortunate and ill-advised element into this case. The right hon. Gentleman said that by the contradiction given to the hon. Member for Devizes there was an imputation cast upon that hon. Gentleman's word.
    MR. SEXTON: Of falsehood.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: An imputation of falsehood. Is that statement of the right hon. Gentleman one-sided or two-sided? Does the hon. Member for Devizes, by his assertion and re-assertion of every

    1649
    word—which he is quite entitled, in my opinion, to do, in obedience to his own recollection and conscience—cast any imputation of falsehood upon the hon. Member for Mid Cork? Is the imputation of falsehood on the hon. Member for Mid Cork to be treated as on a footing with the imputation of falsehood on an English Member? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House appears to think that the imputation of falsehood upon a particular Irish Member is one thing, and an imputation of falsehood on an English Member another thing. I must say that a more unfortunate element could not have been introduced into a case of this kind. How do I deal with this question of imputation of falsehood? In the plainest and most unequivocal manner. There is no imputation of falsehood one way or the other. When contradictory statements are made by hon. Members in this House in their places in the House—unless it sees grave cause for formal inquiry under circumstances of a peculiar nature—I hold that our duty is to explain the whole contradiction by the involuntary method of comparison between the two sides, and for imputations of falsehood there is no place whatever. Anyone who introduces that element into the discussion commits a grave and serious indiscretion. How does the case stand? I stated myself that, presuming the facts remained unexplained, the question of the letter being returned and the offence not being purged would be an aggravation of the offence. I cannot conceive that the question, as it has been placed before us, constitutes an important portion of the subject-matter before the House, which is, whether a punishable offence has been committed against the House, and not whether sound judgment, or even right feeling, has been consulted in the personal relations and personal proceedings of one Member towards another Member. On the imputation of falsehood, in my opinion, there is no question to be entertained at all; and I ask the House to support me in that view. If, indeed, there be such things as imputation of falsehood to be recognized as facts, then, in my opinion, there should be a thorough sifting of the matter. The only other course is to decline to recognize such imputations. I say I believe absolutely in the perfect good faith of the hon.
    1650
    Member for Devizes, and in the perfect good faith of other statements made by different Members in various quarters of the House. How does this case stand? A point has been raised about the Lobby of the House. Well, Sir, I myself think that you in your wisdom will some day consider whether this question of the Lobby and the conduct of hon. Members of this House there requires any further examination or consideration; and I am quite sure that any decision you come to on the subject will be accepted with perfect confidence and satisfaction by the House. There is one precedent, that of a gentleman now, I believe, dead, who had, undoubtedly, committed a very gross offence. But that offence was purged by an apology. The hon. Member for Mid Cork has apologized. [Cries of "No, no!"] Sir, is there the smallest doubt of that fact? If there is, I beg to ask that the hon. Member for Mid Cork be recalled. Sir, there is no doubt of the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork apologized for his offence. [Cries of "No, no!"] As these hon. Gentlemen call no, I ask that the hon. Member for Mid Cork be asked to again read that portion of his speech containing his apology.
    MR. SPEAKER: If it will in any way tend to finish this very painful controversy, I should be very glad, if necessary, that the hon. Member for Mid Cork should return to state the actual terms of the apology he made.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The words are here. The hon. Member has left his papers behind him. The words are these—
    "Sir, I regret very much what has occurred, for my own sake as well as that of the House; and I can only say that, but for the fact that I regarded Mr. Long and his Friends as aggressors, I should not have used the expression complained of. Finally, it now remains for me to withdraw that portion of the language which was indecorous and improper, and also to express my regret to the House for having used it."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That fact stands beyond dispute. Sir, I feel with you and with a large portion of the House a great desire that this matter should draw to a close. When an hon. Member has withdrawn offensive words complained of, and has expressed his regret and made his apology to the House for having used them, it is the

    1651
    principle and the practice of the House to consider that the hon. Member, I will not say ipso facto is absolved, but is entitled in prudence and policy to the indulgence of the House, and to pass from the matter without further consideration. I look upon that principle and practice as one of the utmost value; and I hope it will never be departed from. If it is departed from, I would rather it were departed from in the case of any other Member than in the case of any hon. Member who sits on that Bench. I would entreat the House to reflect upon setting a precedent for the first time. [Mr. DE LISLE: No! and cries of "Name him!"]
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) has been guilty of disorderly interruption. I do ask you, Sir, to direct the hon. Member not to stand in the Gangway, but to take his seat.
    MR. SPEAKER: If I notice disorderly interruptions from any hon. Member it shall certainly be repressed to the utmost of my power. I hope it will not be resumed.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry that such an interruption should have occurred for a moment, because of the extreme gravity of the matter with which we are endeavouring to deal. I trust the House will not overset one of its most wise, salutary, and necessary Rules, and establish an unfortunate precedent that after such an expression of regret for such language, and after such submission to the House by apology for the offence, the offence is still to be regarded as unpurged and punishment is to be inflicted by the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Not one word shall fall from me which will, I hope, affect the minds of hon. Gentlemen who think that a lenient view should be taken of this matter. But, at the same time, I think it is impossible to allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to pass without observing that it is directly contrary to the speech which he addressed to the House on Tuesday. I made a statement to the House on that occasion, which the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour to say was a moderate state-
    1652
    ment of facts; and he used language which I distinctly recollect, and which I have since verified, to the effect that if there was not a sufficient and proper explanation of the fact that the hon. Member for Mid Cork had not attended or sent any communication either to his Friends—
    MR. SEXTON: I beg pardon for one moment. I wish to remind the House that as soon as the hon. Member for Mid Cork learnt of Monday's proceedings he sent me a telegram, which I read at the close of that day's Sitting.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member for West Belfast was not following what I said. I am stating that prior to Monday—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian pointed out—the hon. Member for Mid Cork had sent no communication either to his Friends or by letter, or even by telegraph, requesting that the matter might be postponed. On Monday the hon. Member for West Belfast, making the best defence that he could for the hon. Member for Mid Cork, threw doubt upon the possibility of the letter having reached that hon. Member.
    MR. SEXTON: No.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member for West Belfast asked the hon. Member for Devizes how the letter was addressed, and how it was delivered, and the hon. Member for Devizes stated at the Table that he had handed it to a messenger, who had come back to him after giving it to the hon. Member for Mid Cork. I hope the House will understand how this matter stands. On the corner of the envelope sent by the hon. Member for Devizes were the words, "W. H. Long," indicating that the communication, addressed to "C. K. Tanner, Esq.," came from a gentleman whose name was Long. Instead of the letter being sent back unopened, it is opened, and opened, as we know, by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, and is then returned, in the open envelope, to the hon. Member for Devizes by the same messenger. Now, I do appeal to the House that when the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian says or suggests that this matter had been properly explained—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never said so. I said distinctly it was not properly explained, but pointed out that

    1653
    it was a question between Members, and not one that it was possible to make the subject of a punishable offence.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I must again remind the House that on Tuesday last the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian used these words—
    "I must say that unless the circumstances stated by the Attorney General can be met by some adequate explanation, they form a very serious aggravation of the offence."
    Now, what does the statement of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) amount to? It was not that there was any explanation or even excuse given to the House for not replying to a perfectly civil letter, stating that the hon. Member's conduct would be brought before the House, but rather that the sending of the letter was in the nature of an insult, or as something which the hon. Member for Mid Cork was entitled to look upon as an act of aggravation of which the hon. Member for Devizes ought not to have been guilty.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I said it was looked upon as a continuation of the chaff.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: That does not come from the paper of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, because the word "chaff" had not been mentioned when the hon. Member read the paper to the House. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt with the question of falsehood in a way which the House cannot regard as satisfactory. We heard the categorical statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, and heard the explanation of the hon. Member for Mid Cork. A great part of the offensive language has not been dealt with by the hon. Member for Mid Cork at all. There has been no denial by the hon. Member, and no withdrawal of one part of the language.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am in the recollection of the House. This particular part—[An hon. MEMBER: Which part?] I will read it. What the hon. Member for Devizes said passed was this—
    "I said—'Did not something go wrong with you in the Division, Dr. Tanner; what was it?' His answer was—' You are one of the Tories, ain't you?' My reply was, 'Yes, certainly.' To that he replied, 'Then, I wish to God you would not speak to me. I have told
    1654
    you d—d Tories before not to speak to me. You have your own d—d lot, talk to them.' To which I replied, 'I beg your pardon, I wag not aware that you did not wish to be spoken to;' to which he replied, 'Well, I wish you would keep your d—d tongue in your lips, and not make a d—d fool of yourself.'"
    I say that ought to be denied categorically. It is not sufficient to take one sentence and say with regard to it—"I did use the expression, and so far as that offensive expression is concerned I withdraw it."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: He did not say that.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The House cannot get rid of this charge of falsehood, or, rather, suggestion of falsehood. If the hon. Member for Mid Cork wishes to make any further explanation, no doubt the House will hear him; but as the case now stands we are in the unfortunate position that three hon. Members of this House have heard this grossly offensive language, and there is not, even from the hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea), a contradiction or denial of it.
    MR. O'HEA: I entirely deny that the hon. Member used such an expression as that "I wish to God you d—d Tories would not speak to me." It would have been impossible for him to have used those words without my having heard them.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the House will reconcile as best it can the statement of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, the partial admission he has made, and the statement of the hon. Member for West Donegal. I have but one word more to say. I hope the House will not recognize that there is any distinction between the Lobby and the House in this matter. The only distinction is this—in the House Mr. Speaker at once takes notice of a thing of this kind, whilst when it occurs in the Lobby it has to be brought to his notice. When within a few feet of this House language is used which one Gentleman would not use to another, I hope the House will take notice of it, and deal with it properly. I must say that it is not possible to deal with this matter as a light or trivial incident. I do not think that apologies are sufficient with regard to conduct of this kind, because, if such conduct is to be purged by apology, there is not much reason why serious notice should be taken of it. I

    1655
    fear the House must regard the matter as having been aggravated by the neglect to send an answer to my hon. Friend's notice; and I think the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, on Monday last, was entitled to more weight than the judgment he has now given us. At any rate, the House must look at the whole facts, and will have to judge whether the explanation given by the hon. Member is satisfactory and sufficient, and to the judgment of the House I leave the whole case.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I desire to say only one or two words in this very painful controversy. It is greatly to be regretted that it seems to be impossible we should come to an unanimous or even a nearly unanimous decision; but as it is likely the question will come to something approaching a Party Division, I think it is due that I should say one or two words in explanation of the course which I propose myself to take. I am fully aware that in the opinion of a very large number of hon. Members of the House the offence against the order and decency of the House and its precincts was so grave that it was a moot or doubtful point whether it would be possible that the offence could be purged by any apology, however ample or complete. I must admit that there is a good deal to be said in support of that view. It is not a question between Member and Member. It is a question of the order and decency of the House—in which we have to transact our business—and its precincts. If the offence, which is to a great extent admitted, had been committed by any stranger, those who are entrusted with the guardianship of the precincts of the House would have known how to deal with it, and certainly it is not one that would have been condoned by an apology, however ample. And it does seem to me somewhat doubtful whether the House ought to be more lax in the way in which it deals with offences against its order committed by hon. Members themselves than the guardians of the precincts would be in the case of a stranger; but it is a very doubtful question whether, if this offence had been apologized for amply and frankly, the House would have thought it necessary to act. I am bound, however to say—after listening carefully to
    1656
    what has taken place—that it does not appear to me that the statement given by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) does amount to that full and frank and satisfactory explanation, withdrawal, and apology which the House has a right to expect. That statement appeared to me to be in part a denial, in part a justification, and in part a very partial withdrawal of a portion of the language. And in the way in which that explanation struck me, it appears to me it is not one which can be considered as satisfactory to the House, or which the House ought to accept. Unfortunately, we have had lately a good deal of experience in these matters. It has frequently been necessary for the Speaker to call attention to breaches of Order in the House itself. We have heard over and over again a Member rise in his place and, in obedience to your order, Sir, withdraw the expression which has been taken notice of. He has done it sometimes with, sometimes without, an expression of regret, and the offence has been committed again almost immediately. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) says we ought not to act so as to create a new precedent. I am afraid the state of order and discipline in this House is such that it is quite possible there may be an absolute, necessity that a new precedent—some more stringent condition than has hitherto been adopted—should be adopted by the House in order to mark its sense of the injury which is being from time to time inflicted on the order of the House by these incidents. I cannot altogether reconcile the view which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition takes to-night as to the incident of returning the letter with the view which he took the other night. It appears to me that if an hon. Member has received formal notice from another hon. Member that his conduct is going to be made the subject, of discussion in the House, it is due, not to that hon. Member as a personal matter, but to the House, that either he should attend in person or write an explanation to the Speaker, or commission one of his friends to explain the circumstances. It is evident that the manner in which the letter of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devizes was received was either a studied indignity to the House, or else

    1657
    it showed that the hon. Member for Mid Cork thought the incident of no importance whatever, and not worth his while to take any notice of it or make any explanation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it did constitute a serious aggravation of the offence, and that it should not have been thought necessary by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, or his adviser the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), to tender an explanation of that incident on the present occasion seems to me to show that neither of them appreciate even now the real gravity of the offence which has been committed against this House. For these reasons, though I regret extremely that it should be necessary on the part of the House to do anything in the nature of a penal character against the hon. Member, for whatever constituency in the country he may sit, I cannot forbear, if this question is pressed to a Division, voting for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think anyone on this side of the House will dispute what has been said by the Attorney General or my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale as to the gravity of the offence. Neither do I for a moment draw any distinction between action in this House and action in the Lobby. It is perfectly clear that hon. Gentlemen ought to treat one another with that courtesy and propriety in the Lobby which they should observe in the House. But the question is, this offence having been admitted to be a grave one, how ought the House to deal with it? How has it dealt with such matters in past times? I think everyone will agree that it would be a very serious mistake that we should demand in this particular instance to deal with the matter in a different manner from that in which it has been dealt with in respect of English Members in past times. My noble Friend has, for the first time, said that this is to be a Party Division. That explains a good deal, I think.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I said that I was afraid it appeared likely to become a Party Division.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is very likely to become a Party Division, especially after the speech of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for the Devizes Division told his hon. Relative that the
    1658
    whole thing was a piece of chaff, and another hon. Gentleman wrote down what occurred and communicated it at once to the Press.
    MR. BIGWOOD: It is not the case that I communicated this matter to the Press. I met a gentleman in the outer Lobby. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Sitting of the House was at an end; and I simply told this gentleman the occurrence, but not with the view of publication.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member must be a person of little experience if he meets a gentleman in the outer Lobby and communicates to him incidents of this character, and does not discover that he is the reporter of The Birmingham Daily Mail. In the innocence of his heart, and the hon. Member for Devizes not intending to appeal to the House or to the Speaker, this communication was made to The Birmingham Daily Mail, and hence the whole affair. The Attorney General has pointed out that there are two things which, in our own minds, we ought to keep distinct—the original offence, and what is called the gravity of the offence. As to the original offence, no one will palliate it. The language was perfectly indefensible. The Attorney General has endeavoured to draw a distinction between what the hon. Member for Mid Cork said and what he has denied; and he says that the hon. Member has not apologized for the whole, but only for a part. But the hon. and learned Gentleman overlooks the fact that a man cannot apologize for that which he says he never spoke. The hon. Member for Mid Cork denies that he said more than he had apologized for; and to say that that is an imputation of falsehood on the hon. Member for Devizes or the other hon. Gentleman is a monstrous assertion. Who has ever known a quarrel between two persons, each person giving the same account of the incident which occurred? It may well be that the two hon. Gentlemen have different recollections of what occurred; but I understood the hon. Member for Mid Cork had expressed his deep regret and had apologized for all he said. The question now is—"Will the Government—for they are the prosecutors in this affair—accept that apology?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir John Mowbray) has said

    1659
    that if the hon. Member for Mid Cork had come forward and made his apology on Monday, he thought the House might have dealt with him generously. But let us come to what is called the aggravation of the offence. The aggravation consisted in returning the letter of the hon. Member for Devizes without an answer. The explanation of that circumstance is given by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, who says that he believed that that was a continuation of the chaff. You have not given an opportunity to the hon. Member for Mid Cork himself to give a reason why he returned the letter, and the hon. and learned Member for Longford did not read what he would have said; but the fact remains that the hon. Member considered it to be a continuation of the chaff which he understood had begun.
    MR. LONG: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have not felt justified hitherto in taking notice of the statement of my hon. Friend and relative opposite; but as the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is based on the assumption that this word "chaff" was used, and as I have a distinct recollection of what took place, I beg to say that the word "chaff" was never used by me.
    MR. W. B. BEAUMONT: With your permission, Sir, and with the permission of the House, I repeat that I distinctly recollect hearing my hon. Friend and Relative use the word "chaff."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Which accuses the other of falsehood now! [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Oh, yes, against an Irish Member it is falsehood; but against an English Member (the remainder of the sentence was lost in the loud interruptions from the Ministerial side). Will the First Lord of the Treasury charge the hon. Member for Mid Cork with having brought a charge of falsehood against the hon. Member for Devizes? Will he say the same of the hon. Member for Tyneside? Let us test the spirit of justice and impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman. Who does not know and believe that the hon. Member for Devizes and the hon. Member for Tyneside are both of them speaking conscientiously as to what they believe took place? Of course they are. Then why should another Member sitting below the Gangway be treated differently? It is unfair, it is unjust, it is improper, and does not
    1660
    comport with the dignity of the House in the treatment of such a question. The hon. Member for Devizes has said that he does not recollect using the word "sell." The hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea) states the contrary; but no imputation of falsehood is laid upon him at all. Everyone knows that when heated discussions of this kind take place men do not recollect exactly what they have said; and all I can say is that I understand the hon. Member for Mid Cork to have said that "as far as I recollect the improper language which I used I withdraw it and apologize." Let us see how the House has previously treated matters of this description. The case has been mentioned of Dr. Kenealy. What happened on that occasion? Dr. Kenealy in the Lobby called Mr. Sullivan a liar. Mr. Sullivan brought the matter before the House. Dr. Kenealy did not apologize, did not withdraw; he justified the use of the word on the ground of the provocation he had received. He said—
    "I now place myself in the hands of the House, and if the House thinks I have done wrong I will apologize to it; but, at the same time, I appeal to the hon. Members of this House, who are men of honour, to consider this matter without reference to the prejudice which the hon. Member sought to raise against me in a speech …. unprovoked by me; and I appeal to them whether, under the circumstances, I was not justified in using the expression?"—(3 Hansard, [233] 953.)
    What was the course taken then? Did the Government of that day come forward and say, "Suspend Dr. Kenealy?" Not at all. Mr. W. E. Forster made a Motion in the nature of an Instruction to the Speaker—
    "That the honourable Member for Stoke be ordered to withdraw the offensive expression addressed by him, in the Lobby, to the honourable Member for Louth, and to apologize to the House for having used it."—[Ibid. 956.)
    The Motion was agreed to. Why did you not make that Motion on Monday? Why are you to deal with the hon. Member for Mid Cork differently from the way in which the Government of the day dealt with Dr. Kenealy? That Resolution was moved, and then Dr. Kenealy came forward, and said he withdrew the expression that he had used in the Lobby and apologized to the House for using it. That is what the hon. Member for Mid Cork has done. What is the meaning of this Party and vindictive Motion? It is not to vindicate the dignity of the

    1661
    House. ["Yes!"] Well, but I have shown you how the House vindicated its dignity in the case of Dr. Kenealy. Why have you departed from the course which your Predecessors in this House have taken, and why have you done it at this moment? Throughout the length and breadth of the land the question will be asked why, when you have a precedent to guide you, you have deliberately departed from it? In that case the House considered it sufficient to call upon a man to withdraw the offensive expression and apologize for it; but you say no apology and no withdrawal shall satisfy us. It seems to me that the position now taken by the Government is very difficult to justify. The Attorney General referred to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian said on Monday. My right hon. Friend, when he spoke on Monday about the aggravation of the letter, had never heard what was said by the hon. Member for Devizes. I do not impute anything to the hon. Member for Devizes, I respect him too much to do anything of the kind. It might have been, had the hon. Member consulted the Speaker, that the Speaker would have told him, as I believe he has told others, that it is not for the dignity of the House to bring these matters on. It might have been prevented and avoided had the hon. Member for Devizes followed his first instinct and not brought it on. I do not wish to excuse the conduct of the hon. Member for Mid Cork; I think that with reference to the letter it was most unwise, most improper, most discourteous. But the question is whether you are not to follow the rule that a full apology—["Oh!"] You are determined to accept no apology. The hon. Member who cried "Oh!" knows that if the hon. Member for Mid Cork came on his knees you would give exactly the same vote; and you are determined that under all circumstances this Motion shall be pressed to its fullest extent. All I can say is that I think it is a most unfortunate proceeding. It will be taken against every precedent of the House of Commons. There is no instance in which when a man has made an apology, after he has been ordered by the House to make an apology, the matter has been pressed so as to drive him out of the House. We must guess for ourselves why the precedents are to
    1662
    be thrown over, and why this particular moment is selected for repudiating the practice of the House of Commons. I can only say that I deeply regret it. I shall give my vote certainly not as a Party vote. I shall give it as a vote in support of the old traditions of the House of Commons, and against the revolutionary and vindictive spirit which has prompted this Motion.
    MR. WHITBREAD: If the House will allow me, I should like to make an effort to put an end to this discussion. No hon. Member who has sat so long as I have done in this House would suppose that I should stand up for a moment in support of disorderly language used either in the House or in the Lobby. I am strongly of opinion that such language ought to be repressed, and repressed it must be. But what I want to ask the House is this— Has not this incident gone far enough? Has not the House marked its sense of this language sufficiently? If this incident had occurred in the House the ruling of the Speaker as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the apology made would have been absolute and final. This matter occurred within a very few feet of the House, and what I desire to do, if I may be permitted, is, with great respect for the Chair, to ask you, Sir, whether in your opinion, after the apology, the affair has not gone far enough; and whether the offence, treated as it must be as an offence against the House, has not already been sufficiently marked, and whether the apology—the full apology—made by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, has not been sufficient for the occasion? I very much deprecate the idea that after an apology has once been made it is not to be accepted. I wish also to call the attention of the House to the very dangerous precedent which may be established. I do not mean that of not accepting an apology; but what strikes me as the very much graver danger of not seeking—earnestly seeking—the advice and decision of the Chair in a matter of this sort, instead of treating it as a question to be debated in the House. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware that sometimes language—I hope not of a gross character, but still of a violent character—is used outside of the House. Often the aggrieved party has sought the intervention of the Chair,

    1663
    and that intervention has been found sufficient. The time of the House ought not to be taken up by matters of this kind if it can be avoided; and if they are to be debated at length I am afraid that we shall have more than one painful incident of this description. With these few words I should like to ask you. Sir, whether you feel justified in advising the House in this very difficult matter, as to whether, after the apology, the case, in your opinion, has not gone far enough for the dignity of the House, and whether the expression of the sense of the House as to the language used has not been sufficient?
    MR. SPEAKER: The appeal of the hon. Member places me in a somewhat difficult position, lest I should seem to venture to intervene between the House and the decision which would have otherwise been come to by its vote. The hon. Gentleman has stated that this matter might have been settled in the ordinary way. Now, I shall be perfectly frank with the House, and tell the House precisely what passed so far as I am concerned. The hon. Member for Devizes came to me late on Friday night and represented that an insult had been offered to him in the Lobby. He stated that there were two or three other Gentlemen who heard what passed, and could bear witness to it, adding that he was greatly hurt by what had occurred, and that he placed himself entirely in my hands. There have been repeated complaints made to me by Members of this House in the course of the Session of language used in the Lobbies which I have thought to be derogatory to the dignity and character of the House. The hon. Gentleman was deeply pained, and I told him that I thought that he was justified in bringing the matter before the House; that I thought it was not for me, in a case of that sort, to intervene; and that the House should decide for itself if he thought proper to bring the matter before the House. That is the history of the matter as far as I am concerned. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) has asked me whether I think that a sufficient apology has been tendered to the House. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me, in these circumstances, without prejudicing its proceedings, to state my view. ["Hear, hear!"] It seems
    1664
    to be desired by a large portion of the House that I should do so. [Cheers.] I frankly own that if an appeal of that kind had been made to me some time ago I should have expressed the opinion that the incident should terminate. I consider that the incident may terminate without the least imputation resting on the honour of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Long), or on the honour of the hon. Member for West Donegal (Mr. O'Hea), or on the honour of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), so far as regards what they have said here to-night as to what passed during the transaction in the Lobby. There can be no doubt as to their honour and conscientiousness in stating whatever they have stated to the House to-night on this painful matter. But unquestionably the House, as it seems to me, is unanimous on one thing, and that is in the opinion that offensive and un-Parliamentary language has been used—that un-Parliamentary and offensive language used I in the Lobby is an offence against this House—as much an offence, I might almost say, as if it were actually used in the House itself. But, on the other I hand, I consider that the hon. Member for Mid Cork has made an apology which covers all the offensive and un-Parliamentary expressions which have been used. He says that he regrets them; he says that he apologizes to the House for having used them. I know very well that there are many offences committed against this House which the House may justly deem not to be sufficiently met and atoned for by an apology. But, on the other hand, I must, with all respect to the House, point out that the incidents of this evening have been of a very marked and a very solemn character. The House has distinctly stigmatized the use of such expressions in the House or out of the House; the whole transaction is before the country in the most public and formal manner; and with the record of this evening's proceedings before the House and before the country, it is not likely that any offence of the same nature will be lightly committed. I hardly know whether I have transgressed the bounds of my duty to the House in what I have said; but I would respectfully urge the House, after the formal, distinct, and unreserved apology, as I regard it, that that apology

    1665
    should be accepted by the House, and that the House should no longer pursue this question.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I may be allowed now to say, after the very complete expression of the views which you hold, Mr. Speaker, as to the incident which has been under the discussion of the House, there is only one course to pursue, and that is to ask permission to withdraw the Motion. I hope the House will understand that in taking the course which I have taken, and which appeared to me to be incumbent upon me to take, I felt that that course was necessary to maintain, as far as possible, the decorum of the proceedings of this House and maintain order within its precincts. I had no other view and no other object. The course which I adopted on Monday, Sir, was with your advice, and under the circumstances, I am glad now to accept the advice you have tendered to the House; and I hope, Sir, that the very strong language with which you have characterized the offensive words used will have the effect of preventing the use of such language, or the repetition of such disorderly conduct, in any part of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Member for Longford withdraw his Amendment?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, Sir.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. HALDANE, in rising to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the reduction of family charges on Irish land,"
    said, he made the Motion from no hostile or Party point of view, or in any controversial spirit. At the same time, he did not profess to have any sympathy with the general policy of the Government with regard to Ireland. He was one of those who, last year, in that
    1666
    House, without hesitation, came to the conclusion that the difficulties with which the Government had to cope could only be met by a very large measure of Home Rule, to be followed by a large measure of land legislation; and nothing he had heard since then had, in the slightest degree, modified that opinion he then formed. He made the appeal to the Government simply on the ground that it was required, injustice to a large section of the Irish landlords, who found themselves in an extremely difficult position. No doubt, there were a great many Irish landlords who were deserving of no sympathy: but there were others who were honestly striving to do their duty under circumstances of the utmost difficulty, and who, owing to the fall in prices and the legislation which had been found to be necessary, were in the position of being ground between the upper and nether millstones. It was on behalf of these men that he spoke—men who, from no fault of their own, were prevented from doing justice to themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking the other day, adverted to the difficulties attending this subject, and he asked the question—"Are you prepared to extend this kind of relief to England and Scotland?" He (Mr. Haldane) would answer that question frankly and distinctly in the affirmative. He thought it was absolutely necessary that the House should before very long take up the question of how family charges or encumbrances in Scotland and England were to be dealt with, where those family charges wore becoming oppressive, and the position which landlords occupied owing to the fall in the prices of produce. But there were special circumstances in the case of Ireland. The Chief Secretary, in his speech a few days before on the second reading of the Bill, had adverted to the history of the present Irish Land question, finding its beginning in 1881. He (Mr. Haldane) would go back further than that, beginning at 1848, when the Encumbered Estates Act was passed. That Act invited the landlords to sell the tenants' improvements. Then came the Act of I860, and put on the footing of pure contract what never before had been on that footing. The relation of landlord and tenant in England and Scotland was more nearly that of partnership than of contract, and a

    1667
    similar customary relationship would have been fully recognized in Ireland but for the system of absenteeism. In 1860, the refusal to look this fact in the face culminated. It was only in 1860, in the iniquitous Bill passed in that year, that the present power of eviction was conferred on the Irish landlord—a power possessed in no other country at Common Law. The Acts of 1870 and 1881 had swept the bulk of this away, and the situation of the Irish landlord had become a very difficult one. On the one side he was hemmed in by this new legislation. On the other side he had the charges and mortgages created on the footing of the continuance of the old bad state of things. To remedy this, as regards charges, and, indeed, as far as they could, the legislature must interfere. And they would be justified in making any interference which was called for by the existing state of things, on the ground that, in doing so, they should not be interfering with contracts or bargains, but should simply be carrying out what was the intention of those who created these charges or encumbrances. The position of the Irish landlord was wholly different to the English or Scottish landlord. He (Mr. Haldane) represented a county in Scotland in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a large landowner; and no one knew better than the right hon. Gentlemen, and no one had more fully recognized the fact that landlords could not deal with their tenants in that country as though it was their duty and their right to exact their full pound of flesh. No one had more fully recognized the fact that the position of the landlord and the tenant was more the position of a partnership; that the rent was an economic rent; and was paid according to the fertility of the soil, and the special circumstance under which the crop was produced. But the case of Ireland was different. There was land in Ireland which was absolutely incapable of paying any economic rent, and the result of that state of things was, that rent had been paid not out of produce, not as economic rent, but as a ransome rent. He expressed a wish that hon. Members would give their attention to the land Acts of 1870 and 1881, when—
    COLONEL WARING: I rise to Order. I entirely concur with
    1668
    the Motion of the hon. Member; but he is talking upon other subjects, and attacking the Irish landlords on a side issue.
    MR. SPEAKER: The subject of Irish land is the subject before the House, and the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be speaking relevantly to it.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, he was proposing to show that the position of the Irish landlord under the legislation of 1870 and 1881 was an altogether anomalous and exceptional position as contrasted with the position of the landlord in this country. In Ireland there were encumbrances and charges existing to a much larger extent than was the case in this country. He was acquainted with a case in which there were two jointures and three sets of charges beside other encumbrances, and owing to the fall in prices the gentleman to whom the estate belonged had no interest in it; he might very well say, in the words of the old street song—
    "I care for nobody, no, not I,
    And nobody cares for me."
    He had no interest whatever in his tenants; and yet he occupied the position of an Irish landlord; proceedings were taken in his name, receivers acted in his name, and harsh measures were adopted in his name, all the interests of charges and mortgagees. It was with cases of that kind that he wished to deal. A mortgagee had a double set of rights; there was a debt, and there was also the security; and if you dealt with the mortgage, you must deal, not merely with the security, but also with the personal debt, or else your legislation would be penal as against those who took security. The intention of the Instruction he was moving was to carry out the recommendation of Lord Cowper's Commission as far as possible. He did not touch the question of mortgages in his clauses; for mortgages involved a personal debt, and if so, he did not know how they were to deal with them and not deal with tradesmen's or other ordinary debts. They would only be punishing the persons who lent money on mortgages for their prudence in taking a security. But he did deal with family charges. He quite recognized that a man might give a jointure to his widow with the intention that it should remain intact, even though the heir in possession of the laud might have his rents reduced;

    1669
    and the only way in which the difficulty could be met was by giving a discretionary power to a tribunal, which he proposed should be the Land Court, giving them power to reduce a jointure or lump sum charge to an extent not exceeding half the proportion of what, in the opinion of the Court, had been the fall in the annual value of the land. The situation was exceedingly difficult, and he thought the best way of meeting it was to give such a discretionary power. He would provide that, in exercising the power, the Court should have no regard to any fall in value due to negligent or improper management. He would further provide that the discretion was not to apply to bonâ fide charges for valuable consideration. He made these propositions in no sense of hostility to the Bill; but in order to do justice and to get rid of impossible relations between landlords and tenants. He had drafted clauses to carry out the Instruction, and he moved it in such a way that it could be accepted by the Government without the slightest disturbance to the Bill or to any future scheme of purchase. He would conclude by moving the Instruction of which he had given Notice.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY, in seconding the Motion, said, that landowners were the only persons who, so far as law went, had been made to suffer from the depreciation in the value of land, for recent legislation had thrown all the burdens arising from agricultural depression upon that class. Owing to the fall in prices and rents, many landowners received less than those who had charges on their property. It was not equitable that those who had family charges should get the whole of their charges, while the unfortunate landlord was deprived of a portion of even the judicial rent, reducing that rent to an amount perhaps even less than the total of the family charges. He hoped that the question would be considered without reference to Party politics.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the reduction of family charges on Irish Land."—(Mr. Haldane.)
    MR. PARNELL: It appears to me that of all the classes who are interested in land in Ireland the class
    1670
    against whose interests this Instruction is directed is not one of the least meritorious. I do not understand how the holders of these family charges can be compared to the owners of the land themselves, when it is considered that after these charges were originally put on, if the value of the land had risen, the value of these charges would not have also increased; but that the increased rent would have gone into the landlords' pockets. Therefore, the owners of land would be in an entirely different position. If the value of land had never increased, rents would still come to the landlords; but increased amounts would not come to their sisters and younger brothers, who were in the enjoyment of these family charges. Therefore, I think the case of sisters and younger brothers, and others who are similarly interested in land, is entirely different from the case of the landlords. The landowners have, it is true, been hit by the fall in prices; but if prices had risen, they would have benefited proportionately. Then, in nine cases out of ten, these family charges are very small, mere pittances, in fact, which, would not bear reduction, and I think it would be a great cruelty to reduce them. I cannot see how, on any ground of justice or expediency, it can be argued that the depreciation in rents owing to the fall in prices should be borne out of the pockets of sisters and younger brothers, when, on the other hand, they would obtain no benefit from a rise in prices. Such a proceeding would be most unjust, and I hope the House will not sanction it.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that as he understood the argument of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), if acted on, it came to this—you ought never, under any circumstances, to reduce the family charges on land, because the payments to the younger children would not be increased if the value of the land increased. But, if that argument was worth anything, would it not affect the case of leases, with which the hon. Member proposed to deal? The case of a landlord who had given a lease was exactly parallel to the cases which the Motion had in view. The landlord who gave a long lease did not, if the land rose in value, get any increase of rent; if, there-

    1671
    fore, the argument of the hon. Member held good, he ought not to get a less rent if the land decreased in value. He entirely accepted the statement of the hon. and learned Member who moved the Instruction (Mr. Haldane), that he moved it in no hostile spirit. He would go further, and say that the case laid before the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman was one deserving very serious consideration from everyone concerned with Irish land legislation. Perhaps the speech he made in introducing the Bill gave the hon. and learned Gentleman some encouragement to bring forward this Instruction; because he pointed out how hard the case of the Irish landlord was. Since the debts owing to him were reduced, the debts which he himself owed to others were enacted to the last farthing. He was sorry that the Government, however much they sympathized with the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, could not accept his Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his Amendment, carefully abstained from touching the question of mortgages, being perfectly aware on what delicate ground he was treading. But the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument against touching mortgages was rather of a theoretic than of a substantial kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that mortgages had a double legal security, and that therefore there would be a double injustice in attacking them. That was an objection which appealed more to the legal than the lay mind. For his own part, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would confess that he should regard with the utmost misgiving anything said by any responsible Member of the House which should encourage the idea that that House was prepared to tamper with mortgages, not because they were technically secured in a double manner, but because it was impossible to do a greater injury, not to those who lent money, but to those who borrowed, than to throw question on the character of the security; because, once the security was challenged, the lenders would see that their best course was to require that the money they lent should be instantly repaid. If a notion of that kind got abroad a greater disaster would fall upon the Irish landlords than any they had yet suffered, or upon those who had lent the money. But the distinc-
    1672
    tion between mortgages and family charges was sometimes of a character difficult to make clear. For example, take the case of two children to whom the father desired to give the same portion—say, £1,000. In the one case the portion was left a charge on the estate; in the other, the money was borrowed upon mortgage. It was simply by accident that two different kinds of machinery were employed; and yet, under the hon. Member's proposed clause, the portion of one child would be cut down, while that of the other would be left intact. Take, again, the case of a younger son whose £1,000 was left as a charge upon the estate, and who went to some outside person and said—"What will you give me for the rent-charge upon my father's estate?" He might get the full value of the rent-charge, and, having been disposed of for a valuable consideration, it would not be touched by the Instruction. But if the younger son decided that he would leave his portion as a family charge, then he would find himself mulcted, according to the Instruction, if by the action of the Land Commission the rent had been cut down. But that was not all. If the clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to move in Committee were carried, all settlements on the estate, of whatever kind, would stand on the same legal footing. If the grandfather left the property subject to a certain set of charges, and his successor left it subject to a second set of charges, the children of the first and of the second generation would stand on the same footing, though the former had at present, and ought to retain, a priority of charge.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, it would be seen that the clause gave the Court discretionary power to reduce, having regard to the whole circumstances.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he must point out that, notwithstanding that, the intention of the person who made the settlement would not come in. At all events the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that his solution was fraught with difficulty, and that it threw on the Land Court the responsibility of a species of discrimination which had probably never been thrown upon any Court before. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman's clause was about a page and a half in extent, it dealt with an

    1673
    extremely difficult and complicated question, and might excite great alarm in the most timid of all classes—the capitalists who lent money. Above all, it could not possibly be passed without a very large expenditure of public time which could ill be spared. For those reasons the Government did not find themselves in a position to accept the Instruction. They fully admitted the hardship of the case; and if, without causing greater injury to the persons intended to be relieved, any means of relieving them could be suggested at a future time, the Government would be happy to give it their favourable consideration. At that period of the Session, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not press his Motion to a Division.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had the happiness for once, which he did not often enjoy, of entirely agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said on the present occasion. In the first place, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that nothing could be more destructive to the landlords than to meddle with mortgages; for that would mean that nobody would ever trust them with money again. Who ever heard of mortgages being reduced after a great war, when times were hard, because they had been made under different conditions? Mortgages and family charges stood upon exactly the same footing. People imagined that a family charge was a voluntary settlement. It was nothing of the kind. Family charges arose out of marriage settlements, and any lawyer would say that marriage was a valuable consideration. If you tampered with mortgages, no one would lend money to an Irish landlord; if you tampered with settlements no one would marry him. He defied any lawyer to distinguish in principle between a family settlement and a valuable consideration for money.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he deeply regretted that the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, did not see their way to accept the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Haldane); because unless something was done in the direction suggested he feared that the Irish landlords would be very cruelly treated indeed. The reduction of rent
    1674
    given recently by the Land Court amounted to about 35 per cent; and, in all probability, by the time that this Bill issued from the House of Commons a principle would be laid down leading to a reduction all round of at least 35 or 40 per cent on the old scale of rents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) said the other day, that if the whole of the land of Ireland were put up for sale, there would not be sufficient to pay the mortgages on it. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, prepared himself for the total bankruptcy of the entire landlord class in Ireland. He (Mr. S. Smith) was not among those who thought very highly of Irish landlords. By their extravagance and foolishness in the past, many of them had got into their present lamentable position; but he did not think they were all equally culpable. Many of them had suffered from the faults of their forefathers; and it was rather hard that the entire class should be ruined by legislation initiated in that House, which took no account of the painful position in which they were left by the acts of their predecessors. Hon. Members, who had studied the evidence of the Royal Commission, would know that the reason why many cruel evictions had been carried out in Ireland was because the mortgagee had been pressing for his pound of flesh. The unhappy landlord, under the circumstances, had been compelled to evict. In nine cases out of ten, it was the money-lender who evicted, while the landlord had to bear all the odium of the situation. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, that the landlord would be the greatest loser by any legislation that tampered with mortgages. What the landlord wanted was an immediate settlement of these claims, and if the House should consider it just to apportion those claims in some degree to the present rent, the landlord would be a gainer and not a loser. He (Mr. S. Smith) quite saw the difficulty raised by the Chief Secretary; but what he said was that with regard to the case of Ireland, everything was exceptional. They were turning everything upside down in that country, and they could not help themselves. They must protect the tenant by means of judicial rents; but, at the same time, they

    1675
    should protect the landlord against those heavy and unjust claims which were now made upon him.
    MR. GEDGEsaid, that he would have supported the Amendment in an earlier period of the Session, say, if it were the month of May, instead of being as it was nearly the end of July; but if they attempted to deal with the subject now in connection with this Bill, they would be kept there until the middle of October. It seemed to him that there was perfect justice in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Haldane), and he hoped that the Government would give some intimation of their intention—if not to bring in a Bill next Session to carry it out—to give it, at any rate, their earnest consideration. There was a wide distinction between settlements and jointures, even including settlements made on marriage, and mortgages; and as they had interfered with the rights of the owners of the land and the returns upon the land of those owners, they ought to deal, not with one particular person who happened to be the nominal owner, but also with those who were practically the joint owners, and give them their fair shares in proportion. By thus distributing the results of the injustice done to landowners by the Land Act of 1882, among all those who were interested in the land, they would diminish the injustice, and, so far as was possible, do justice. He could not agree with the right hon. Member for Derby that marriage settlements stood on a different footing from voluntary settlements made by will or otherwise. That was the view not of a statesman, but of a lawyer, carried away by the legal fiction that marriage was a valuable consideration. Mortgages were altogether different, for, although it might be fair as regards the mortgages to make them bear part of the loss, yet, in the long run, experience showed, as in the case of the usury laws, that interference with the rights of the lender did not benefit the borrower. The Land Act of 1882 had made it most difficult to borrow money on a mortgage of land in Ireland, and to include mortgages in the proposed arrangement would make it impossible to do so. But if a landowner could not borrow, away would go all hope of his spending money on the improvement of his estate. He hoped
    1676
    that Her Majesty's Government would take the principle of the Amendment into consideration, with a view of throwing on others, as well as on the landlords, the loss that had arisen owing to the fall in the value of Irish land.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the arguments of the Chief Secretary and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had by no means convinced him. But he would admit that it was a very important matter, requiring the consideration of the Government; and, after what had taken place, he supposed his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Haldane) would withdraw his Amendment. He felt, however, that the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject of time was conclusive. There was no doubt as to the complication of the matter, or as to the enormous interest concerned in the Amendment; and no dealing with the question could be permitted which was not the subject of the fullest consideration both by the House and by the Government. There appeared to him to be a clear distinction between the case of mortgages and family settlements, although in a country like Ireland, where Parliament had already interfered so much, there could be no very grave objection—indeed, it might be very possible that they might be compelled—to interfere a little more. For instance, one had been accustomed to look on rent settled by a Court as a prior and secured claim; yet they were going by this Bill to interpose an equitable jurisdiction before the rent could be obtained by the landlord. It might also be necessary to interpose the equitable jurisdiction of a Court before even the mortgagee should be able to exercise his rights. He thought that, even in the case of mortgages, which, lawyers regarded as so very sacred, something could be done; but in regard to family charges the case was still stronger. A mortgage was the actual transfer of the legal ownership for a money consideration; whereas family charges were usually the result of voluntary settlements. If those who created those charges could revise them, they would now desire to revise them in the interests of the landlord, and against the charge-owner. The case had now arisen for revising thes6 charges. He would admit it was impossible to pro-

    1677
    ceed with the matter further that Session. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government might, during the Recess, appoint a small Special Commission to consider the subject, having sole regard to the case of Ireland, and having regard to the case of mortgages and other charges, to see whether the difficulties which stand in the way of an equitable settlement could not be overcome.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would receive the attention of the Government. They would, probably, institute some form of inquiry; but whether by Commission or Committee, and by which House of the Legislature, would be a matter for further consideration.
    MR. HALDANE, in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, said, that his only reason for bringing it forward at that time was that it seemed to him the case of the Irish landlords was an urgent one which must be dealt with at once. Unless something was done they would be squeezed out of life, not merely under existing circumstances, but by the further legislation which was contemplated.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, the Opposition were placed at an unfair disadvantage compared with Conservative Members. The supporters of the Government who had attended the meetings at the Carlton Club knew what the intentions of the Government were. On the second reading of the Bill there was a universal feeling that what they were then discussing was a bogus Bill, and he thought, therefore, that the House would not be justified in proceeding further in the direction of going into Committee without attempting to obtain from the Government some information and the necessary explanations, in order to know what were the main features of the Bill that the Government intended to press forward. He maintained that, not only in the interest of Public Business, but in the interest of the measure itself, it would be prudent
    1678
    and reasonable that the Government should make a statement as to the changes to be introduced. If Lord Salisbury's language was not misunderstood, it was intended to radically alter the measure. If the Government refused to put the House in possession of what they meant to do, on them would be the responsibility of whether delay and confusion might occur at subsequent stages in the progress of the Bill. The Government had not even taken the usual step of putting their Amendments on the Paper. Was it to be assumed that their Amendments were of less importance than those of private Members? The Government having yielded to an influence which it was impossible for them to withstand, surely there was no reason why delicacy should prevent them making a clean breast of their altered attitude in regard to this Bill. In order to protest against the silence of Ministers on the point, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MAC NEILL, in seconding the Motion, said, it was essential, in the interests of their constituents and of the House, that they should know what was intended. Since the second reading had been agreed to, there had been a semi-official announcement of great alterations in the Bill, which were described by Lord Salisbury as minor changes. The knowledge of those minor changes should not, at all events, be meted out in instalments. How did they stand with regard to the saving of time? There were 56 pages of Amendments. How many of those might be modified or swept away if the Government would only declare their intentions? The debate should be adjourned until the Government would make up their minds. The question, for instance, of revising the judicial rent and the question of the Bankruptcy Clauses were vital, and the public interest required that they should know what the changes were which the Government proposed to make in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope, Sir, if is possible, the Government will not invite the House to go into Committee on this Bill without telling us what Bill it is, or what they intend

    1679
    to do. The House of Commons has never been treated in such a manner as this before. The Government have gone a long way in their treatment of the House of Commons; but such a thing as this has never been heard of. What is the meaning of the second reading of a Bill? It is that the general provisions of the Bill shall be discussed as a whole on the second reading. Then the stage of moving the Speaker out of the Chair is proceeded with; and the meaning of those preliminary proceedings is, that there shall be an opportunity of discussing the general aspect of the Bill, and the bearing of one clause on another. We know very well that many of those clauses may depend extremely on their relations one with another. We know, in our experience of the last Bill, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland desired to explain the effect of one clause on another, but was not allowed to do so. Is this the Bill we read a second time? We know perfectly well that it is not. It is all nonsense for you to talk about the meeting at the Carlton Club being a private meeting. If so, why did you send accounts of it by the newspapers to all the world? You are afraid of a Dissolution, and you must buy votes from the Liberal Unionists. And then you dare not say what is the price you have paid for the votes. You are trying to conceal it. The Government are the bravest men in the world until the moment of fight. They nailed their colours to the mast, and then in a moment of danger they put their tail between their legs and ran away. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; you have run away to-night. It is most extraordinary to me that we are not to be allowed to know the changes which are to be made in this Bill. Why is that? We know perfectly well what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means by greater stability, and what he thinks of judicial rents. Last Friday he swore that he never, never would alter his mind or make any concessions on the subject of the revision of judicial rents. Let the Government tell us whether they adhere to the stability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we shall know where we are, and we shall be satisfied. [Mr. A. J. BALBOUR: Will you be satisfied?] We shall then know where we are. We want to know what are these terms you disapprove of, and which are contrary to Conservative prin-
    1680
    ciples—Conservative principles which you have surrendered, because it is necessary to have the support of the Liberal Unionists to defend the Union? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would never make any concession to win votes. We want to know what is the bargain made since? We know what the Bill was on Friday night last; but we want to know what it is now? We want to know something about that miraculous conversion of last Sunday, and of the effect it has had on the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Tell us what are now your opinions with reference to leases, the Bankruptcy Clauses, and to judicial rents and other points on which he was never to give way? These are matters which affect hundreds and thousands of men in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) I fear is to be cashiered for the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) as leader of the Ulster Unionists, who does not like the concessions it is said you have made. Yes; that hon. Member is paraded as the lawgiver of the Government. Well, we know what the views of the hon. Member for South Tyrone are on this Bill. We know also what the views of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) are; and we know as well what the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) are, and we should like to know how far these views have been adopted by the Government. I am not going to say anything about surrender. Conservative surrender is a thing of which there are many examples in history, for instance, it has been illustrated by the pen of the present Prime Minister. I do not suggest there has been any surrender to the Member for South Tyrone, to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, or to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It is not to them the surrender is made, but to the electors of Spalding and Coventry. These are the real political Leaders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are anxious to know what the exact nature of the surrender is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an extremely valiant man till he sees he is going to be beaten, and then, with that discretion which is the better part of

    1681
    valour, he runs away. His courage, like that of Bob Acres, oozes out at his fingers. The right hon. Gentleman would not buy votes by giving any pledges, but when he sees that he is very likely to be beaten, he now says—"It will never do to be beaten, so let us buy votes at the market price." I only want to know, in that case, what the market price is. We were told that these desperate Liberal Unionists might bring about a Dissolution—a terrible thought. A Dissolution, conscience makes cowards of us all. [Ministerial ironical cheers.] Oh, no, we are not cowards. We are fighting for our principles, and you have dropped yours. You are afraid that if you were defeated you might have to dissolve Parliament. So you are positively going to recommend to the House a scheme which on the face of it your principles disapprove, and you are doing that in order that you may buy a majority, for the purpose of preventing the country from pronouncing their condemnation of your policy. If you want to see a picture of humiliation look at the Treasury Bench. Look at the men who would not buy votes, and look at the transactions of last Sunday. They absolutely avow that they have accepted opinions which they dislike, which they disapprove, and the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the Carlton Club in order to explain why he has been made the Jonah of his Party. He has spent the last three days and three nights in the Carlton Club to explain to the Conservative Party why it is he has thrown overboard all those principles which he proclaimed in this House the other night, and which he went over to the Alexandra Palace on Saturday to declare he never would abandon. That is a specimen of the species of the stability of which we have heard so much. It does not suit your purpose before we go into Committee to explain the recent transactions. Yet you expect us to go into Committee on your Bill without an explanation of its whole character. Is the House of Commons going to stand that? The other night the First Lord of the Treasury told us that the proper occasion to explain matters would be on going into Committee, and ever since then he has been trying to get out of that declaration. It would be the simplest thing in the world for you to say frankly that you have reconsidered these
    1682
    matters since the second reading, and have seen reason to change your minds. You need not state your reasons if you like; we know them well enough. We do not ask you to confess the reasons of the bargain you have made, we only want you to state the conclusions at which you have arrived. We will allow you that peace with which you desire to receive the surrender, but come forward and tell us what your Bill is going to be, so that we may discuss it, as we have a right before the Speaker leave the Chair. Sir, if there is any sense of self-respect or any regard for its own dignity left to the House, I hope it will not allow itself to be treated in this manner—a manner in which it has never been treated before by any responsible Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir William Harcourt) has alleged that we are afraid to state our opinions at present, and he emphasized that assertion by informing us that our consciences made cowards of us all. I know not whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever in his life suffered from terror; but if he ever has, I doubt whether the cause of his fear was the same as that which he attributes to us, for whatever else may have made him afraid, it ran hardly have been his conscience. He wishes the House to refuse to consider a Bill in Committee until the Government of the day has declared exactly what its intentions are in regard to every specific point of detail connected with the measure. That has never been insisted on before. I recollect the case of a Bill of even greater importance than the Bill now before the House; I can recollect when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought in his Bill of last year for establishing Home Rule. He was afraid of defeat on that Bill. Conscience made him a coward on that occasion. [The right hon. Gentleman here entered the House.] I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman brought in his Home Rule Bill last year, and on that occasion, to quote the words of the Member for Derby, conscience made him a coward, and he indicated to the House that they were not to consider themselves bound by the details of his proposal; but that they were to vote for a bare abstract principle, and that they were to trust to the

    1683
    discussion in Committee for determining what the specific details of that measure were to be. Well, I do not now offer to the House a bare abstract principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has apparently concluded, from a garbled report which he has seen of a private meeting, that certain changes which, in his opinion, entirely alter the character of this Bill are to be introduced into the measure. Allusion was made at Question time by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) to a meeting of the Liberal Party preceding the second reading of the Homo Rule Bill. At that meeting, reporters were admitted, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian acknowledged that he was reported with substantial accuracy. That distinguishes broadly the meeting at the Carlton from the Liberal meeting. The meeting at the Carlton was a private one, and the report which appeared in the papers was a breach of confidence. It was evident that the report was made from memory, and by a gentleman with very confused and imperfect memory. Well, on the strength of those reports, the right hon. Gentleman comes down and says—"You are bound to make a public statement of what you are going to do with regard to this Bill." We entirely deny the obligation. It is monstrous to suggest it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says the changes will make it a new Bill. I entirely repudiate such a contention. The Bill will not be a new Bill. The course the Government are taking is a course that every Government takes when dealing with a large and difficult measure. We have laid the Bill before the House. We have explained its objects, and we have taken advantage of all the criticisms heard in the House, especially by those who have not indicated that they are wholly hostile to every provision of the Bill. We have not, it is true, consulted those who, like the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) are entirely opposed to it.
    MR. DILLON: Who said so as regards myself?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why, you yourself.
    MR. DILLON: I only indicated three or four clauses as capable of amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member said that Clause 1, profoundly modified, might be accepted, and dismissed the whole remaining portion of the Bill with contempt.
    MR. DILLON: With the exception of Clause 1, I rejected the rest of the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is my contention; the hon. Member disapproves of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs spoke for an hour and a-half without uttering a single word of approval for any clause, or even sub-section of the Bill. Such hostility is uncompromising. When the right hon. Member for Derby talks about change of front and running away, I would beg him to recall the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. After making the speech, he had not the courage to divide on his Motion. ["Oh, oh?"] The Bill which the Government intend to pass is, in the main, the same as we had introduced, and we will shortly state the Amendments agreed to. How is it possible for the Government to anticipate the changes which it may be thought desirable to introduce? The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian assents to that.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear! I never dissented.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman could not have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. It is perfectly true that, as a result of the criticisms which it has already received, it has been decided to introduce certain changes. Other changes must depend on the course of the discussion in Committee, and on the amount of time which remains for the discussion in Committee.
    THE SPEAKER: It will not be in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to go any further, as the Motion before the House is one for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then, if necessary, I shall make what observations I have to make at the proper time, after the Motion is withdrawn. Meanwhile, the lively strictures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby are wholly misplaced. We are not presenting a mere shell of a Bill to

    1685
    be filled in in Committee. The measure which we hope will be passed will be the measure we introduced to the House, and to the second reading of which it has already assented.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is not my intention to prolong this discussion. My object is to bring it to a close. The matter from our point of view is a very plain one. In the course of the debate, I indicated in the plainest terms that the most controversial matter entirely turned upon the admission or non-admission of the judicial rents to revision. That has been our position. We have now heard the declarations of the Government. We have also heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the strongest terms, announcing the loftiest principles and motives and opposing utterly any such provision. We have further read in the papers an account of a meeting which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says was a private meeting; but it is the first time in my experience of half-a-century that I have found a Minister bold enough to say that an aggregate meeting of a Party in both Houses at a Public Office was a private meeting. At our meeting, which was not of both Houses, we had one reporter, knowing the mischief of having inaccurate reports spread abroad. We had that one official reporter, therefore, and we are told that that made it a public meeting, whereas this was a private meeting. I utterly dissent from the doctrine that a meeting of a Party which is in power and rules the two Houses is a private meeting. But, whatever it is, and whether it was private or not, we have a right to be informed of the upshot of that meeting before we are called upon to enter into a discussion dealing with the details of this Bill. I do not want to create any difficulty. Are we to have the Government Amendments on the Paper to-morrow morning, or Saturday morning, so that we may debate them on the Speaker leaving the Chair on Monday?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Speaker will leave the Chair to-night.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Speaker will leave the Chair to-night! We are told to value freedom of discussion. We are also told that hon. Gentlemen opposite, whatever other people do, value freedom of discussion, and
    1686
    that, in introducing this Bill, they had regard to principles of honour, which would not allow them to touch judicial rents. That was their declaration on which they founded the Bill and introduced it to the House. Lord Salisbury said, last year, that if these rents were interfered with the public must pay. Well, what is it that appears in the different newspapers with regard to this meeting, supplied, apparently, by their own friends who were at the meeting? Is it not a reasonable request, when we understand, from the whole of those reports, that judicial rents are to be revised, and that a fundamental principle of the Bill is to be revised, that we should have an opportunity of discussing it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to Order, Sir. I was about, a few minutes ago, to state the substance of the changes proposed to be made, when you stopped me doing so. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in entering upon a discussion of a matter which I was not allowed to touch?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I was not discussing it.
    MR. SPEAKER: No discussion on that matter can take place until after the Motion for Adjournment is withdrawn.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I was not going to discuss it. What I was going to say is, that if we are to credit these reports, a fundamental change is going to be made in the principle of this Bill, and the demand of the Government is that we shall not be allowed to discuss these changes with the Speaker in the Chair. I say that so outrageous a demand was never before made, and the House of Commons, which has surrendered all its liberties and thrust them prostrate at the feet of the Government, will not, I feel sure, accede to that demand. I think my proposal is a moderate one. "Will the Bill leave the judicial rents intact, or will it introduce a change? If we are told that judicial rents are to remain intact, and the Amendments are Amendments of detail, we shall raise no difficulty; but the right hon. Gentleman knows what has gone forth uncontradicted to the world, and he knows what the pith and substance and essence of the matter in dispute is. Every one of these reports furnished by his own friends declares

    1687
    that a great change is about to be made. They all agree in that—that there is to be a fundamental change in the Bill, in the essential principle of the Bill. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman is a bolder man at assertion than anyone I have ever known; but I do not think that even he will venture to deny that these reports represent to us that a substantial, essential change is about to be made in what we regarded as the essential principle of the Bill. Well, I say that if that is going to be done, it is a fair demand, and we make it, and I trust we shall persist in it, that we shall have power to debate all these changes, if we see cause, with the Speaker in the Chair. If the Amendments are put on the Table, we shall endeavour to judge them fairly; and if they are Amendments of detail, we shall, I think, make no objection; but if they involve a change of principle, we have a right to ask for an opportunity of discussing them before the Speaker leaves the Chair. You might as well deprive the House of the power of discussion on the introduction or the second reading of a Bill as attempt to deny that, when the Government introduces what a large portion of the House believes to be essential changes, we are entitled to discuss those changes before the Speaker loaves the Chair. And I want to know, from the Leader of the House, whether he can show to me a single case in which the contrary proceeding has ever been followed? I defy him to do so. My affirmation is that there never has been an instance, to my knowledge, when a Government has introduced into a Bill what was deemed by a large minority of the House to be an essential change in the principle of the Bill, in the interval between the second reading and the Committee, that an opportunity of discussing that essential change has been refused. That is my proposition, and if the right hon. Gentleman will lot us know that he will give us that opportunity, in my opinion he will gain a good deal of time, and will be able to forward the Business of the Session. But if an attempt is to made, after all the violent acts we have had in the present year—under high sanction, I admit—to commit this violent act without the smallest reason, there will be, in my opinion, evident and palpable loss of
    1688
    public time. I enter my protest against such a course, and I hope it is not going to take place, and I merely request that we may be favoured with an assurance that if, en reviewing the Amendments of the Government, a fundamental change is, in our opinion, introduced into the Bill, we may have an opportunity of commenting on the change before the Speaker leaves the Chair.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman, after having consented last Thursday evening to the second reading without a Division, in the express hope that certain changes which have been indicated might be introduced, now says unless these changes are stated in detail and the Amendments with regard to them are placed upon the Paper he will advise his Friends to refuse you, Sir, permission to leave the Chair.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What I stated was this. It was understood that the Government intended to introduce a number of changes into this Bill. If these changes appear to the minority of the House to involve essential alterations in the principle of the Bill, I ask the Government that we should have the opportunity of discussing those essential changes before the Speaker leaves the Chair.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman now seeks to lay stress upon the possibility of changes or Amendments which the Government may think it right to lay upon the Table, and he makes a claim, on the part of the Opposition, to consider whether these Amendments or clauses shall be deemed by the Opposition to be essential changes in the Bill, and he demands that the House shall not proceed with the consideration of the Bill in Committee until the Opposition have had the opportunity of forming their own judgment as to whether these Amendments are essential changes or not. I think that is a demand—whatever the right hon. Gentleman's experience may be, and it is certainly greater than my own—which is much greater than has ever been made by any Opposition before. It is for us to say whether the changes are essential changes or not. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was about to proceed to indicate roughly and generally the main changes, such as they were, which

    1689
    the Government thought it right to introduce into the measure. But he was stopped by you, Sir, on the ground that it would be out of Order to indicate those changes. The result is that the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has himself prevented my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary from making any statement whatever as to the changes which the Government were making.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I kept my seat in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to proceed, and there was an evident intention that you, Sir, should leave the Chair without any explanation.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am dealing with the actual facts. The hon. Member for West Bradford moved that the debate should be now adjourned, and the fact is, that the mouth of my right hon. Friend is shut. He cannot now give to the House oven a general idea of such changes as we may think it right to introduce into the measure. Therefore, the hon. Member for West Bradford has the great satisfaction of knowing that he has put it out of our power to give the House the information it desires by moving the adjournment of the debate. I can say, however, that we are prepared to put our Amendments on the Paper tomorrow, and the House can proceed with the consideration of the Bill in Committee on Monday; but I deny that it is at all fitting or right that the measure should be delayed at this period of the Session, simply because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to consider these Amendments, which are not inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which carry out the principle of the Bill, which do not depart in the slightest degree from that principle, and which follow necessarily, from the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend, to meet in part the views of Gentlemen who have expressed their desire that the Bill should pass in order that a preliminary debate should be raised on these changes. I can only answer to the statement made on the other side that if it is the intention of the Opposition to delay or to frustrate the progress of the Bill, upon them must rest the responsibility. The Government are prepared to proceed with the measure; we are prepared to give full information to the House, in ample time
    1690
    for the consideration of any of the Amendments, and there will be full opportunity for deliberation concerning them. Then, if the Opposition shall think it consistent with their duty, consistent with the interests of the county, and consistent with the interests of the tenant farmers of Ireland, to interpose delay and in any way to frustrate the Bill, it will not be for the Government to bear the blame, but it will fall on hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) has begun rather early to charge us with a desire to delay or to frustrate the Bill. It is the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself who is answerable. If on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, the right hon. Gentleman had made this statement as to the changes in the Bill which he now promises he will make, the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) would not have made this Motion, and we should have been at the point we have now arrived at, an hour ago. Therefore, it is the Government who are responsible for the delay that has taken place. I do not want to prolong controversy; but, so far as precedent is concerned, I should say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is as good an authority as the House possesses. But there is one case, that of the Education Act, 1870, when great changes were expected between the second reading of Mr. Forster's Bill and the Speaker's leaving the Chair. What happened? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian himself, as Head of the Government, explained before the House went into Committee what the nature of these important and vital changes was. Now this Bill is probably not so important as the Bill of 1870. I do not want to wrangle about the Carlton Club. Everyone knows that the Government have resolved—I am glad they have resolved —to accept important changes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian—I think in his speech on Thursday night—recommended the Government to keep as long as they could an open mind, and as far as possible to give a free reception to the ideas which had been developed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord

    1691
    Randolph Churchill), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and to make considerable modifications in the Bill. I understand that if the Motion is withdrawn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would, on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, explain the substance of the changes the Government propose to make in Committee. If that were so, I would recommend that the Motion should be withdrawn.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that on the distinct understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was about to give the explanation that was vouchsafed to the Carlton Club he would have no objection to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, as he had already indicated to the House, he would be perfectly ready to give a general account of the Amendments the Government meant to put down on the Paper; but he hoped it would be understood that, if he did that, in return the Speaker would be allowed to leave the Chair that night.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, the House would be better able to judge what it should do when it had heard what the Amendments were.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he declined to be a party to any pledge; and he protested against the inaccurate statement of the events of that evening that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The delay which had occurred in the declaration of the intentions of the Government was entirely due to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was not in his place when an opportunity occurred of which he might have availed himself.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken of the Amendments the Government were going to put on the Paper; but there were many Amendments put down by the Friends of the Government; and the House wanted to know which of the many Liberal Unionist Amendments the Government were going to accept in
    1692
    addition to those they would put upon the Paper. They ought to know what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's statement was before they agreed to any conditions. Surely the country would now perceive what utter muddlers the Government were. From their muddling mode of conducting Business they had become the greatest obstructors that had ever been known in the House. What were their feelings when they looked back on the proceedings of the earlier part of this evening?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not speaking strictly to the Motion before the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he quite acknowledged it. He was illustrating the matter. He did his best to find excuses for the Government, and the only excuse that could be found for them was that very possibly the terms of the bargain were not yet settled, and that the Government were still discussing the matter with their Liberal Unionist Friends. If that was the case let the Government say so frankly, and postpone the matter for two or three days. They had had to make a surrender; they had hauled down their flag; they had to eat the leek, and they wanted to do it bit by bit in Committee; but the Opposition wanted them to swallow it now—and whole. If they did the country would know that we never had a more addle-pated, a more muddle-headed, and a less vertebrate Government, and one that obstructed so much by putting forward proposals and withdrawing or changing them. The House could not say, until after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, whether the Speaker should leave the Chair that night or on Monday.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The two Amendments which the Government propose to put upon the Paper relate to the question of what has been termed the "back door," and also to the question of the temporary abatement of rent. I can describe the principle on which the Government propose to deal with the first question in a few sentences. We are perfectly aware that it is possible, although we do not think it very probable, that certain landlords may use the

    1693
    powers left them by this Bill, and the powers they possess as ordinary creditors, to circumvent the limitations which we have sought to put upon evictions by the 22nd and subsequent clauses. We are aware that it is possible that a landlord may proceed against a tenant as an ordinary creditor does against a debtor, may sell up his effects, and may, among other things, sell up his tenant-right, and, having sold that, may proceed to evict We have also thought that that is a possible objection that ought to be considered and met; but we do not think it would be just or right to place any limitation upon landlords which we do not place upon other creditors. We therefore propose shortly to place an Amendment upon the Paper which will, subject to the discretion of the County Court Judge, prevent any creditor, be he who he may, from selling up the tenant-right. As I have said, that Amendment will be shortly on the Paper; but I do not think any study of it will enable anyone to get a clearer idea of it than is conveyed in these few sentences. The other question is the one, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) more particularly alluded to when he talked of the enormous change made in the Bill by the decision the Government recently came to. I do not agree with right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the magnitude of those changes. They are not inconsiderable; but, certainly, we do not think they amount to a total remodelling of the Bill, neither are they so great as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine. If I may gather the intentions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite from the Amendments which are on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne(Mr. John Morley), their view of the method of meeting the present situation is to throw every single judicial rent into the melting-pot and to bring it out brand-new. This is revision of rents with a vengeance. I will not state fully the objections the Government entertain to that proposal; but we consider it to be wholly and absolutely inadmissible, and when it is brought forward I shall state more fully why we cannot accept it. Our proposals are of a much more limited description. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that we have laid down the proposition that judicial rents are not to be revised.
    1694
    Well, Sir, to that proposition, with proper limitations, we still adhere. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh, as as if we had always interpreted that proposition as meaning that under no circumstances would any rent fixed by the Sub-Commissioners be altered in any respect.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: So Lord Salisbury said.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. and learned Member or hon. Members generally can have studied the Bill either in its present shape or as it was introduced by the Government into the House of Lords, because, subject to certain conditions of bankruptcy, we always comtemplated that there might be some relief from judicial rents. [An hon. MEMBER: Eighteen months.] An hon. Gentleman opposite says "Eighteen months." As the Bill was originally produced in the Lords that limitation of 18 months did not exist; but, under the Bill as it now stands, an alteration of the judicial rent under bankruptcy is possible for 18 months. We never interpreted that, however, as an interference with the judicial rent in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman thinks they ought to be interfered with. We have always thought, and we think still, that it would be absolutely fatal to any permanent future settlement of Irish affairs if we were entirely to upset the arrangements come to in 1881. To that opinion we still adhere. The proposal of the Government that we shall put on the Paper is undoubtedly different from that which was in the Bill when it was in the House of Lords and when it was read a second time in this House on Thursday last. We recognize the fact that this House has taken upon itself, as we think, the impossible task of managing all contracts relating to land in Ireland through a machinery of Courts and Commissioners. We regret that that principle was ever adopted; but we recognize the fact that it has been adopted. We know that this House has taken upon itself the task of making Irish landlords good by Act of Parliament. The system adopted in 1881 was to establish leases for 15 years all over Ireland for such tenants as chose to apply to the Court to have a fair rent fixed. Since that time there has been something in the nature of a revolution of prices in Ireland—a revolution in

    1695
    Ireland of far less magnitude than has taken place in England; but still, undoubtedly, there has been something in the nature of an economic revolution in prices. Well, we asked ourselves this question—What would an ordinary English or Scotch landlord be disposed to do who had made a lease in 1882 or 1883, and who found that after he had made that lease prices had altered to a considerable extent? What have English and Scotch landlords actually done to a very large extent? Well, an English or a Scotch landlord would say—"There has been an unexpected fall of prices; but there may be an equally unexpected rise. I will not therefore alter the terms of the leases which I have made with my tenants, but I will give them a temporary abatement in order that they may get over the difficulties of the next two or throe years." That is the policy which has already been adopted by the vast majority of Irish landlords, and it is a policy we think we may, without serious injustice, make compulsory by the Bill upon all. Hon. Gentlemen have talked as if the suggestion made by the Cowper Commission was a quinquennial revision of rents on very much the same basis as that on which rents were fixed by the Act of 1881. As I said in my speech on the second reading, a quinquennial revision of rents, on whatever basis, is a total absurdity. Not only were you monstrously wrong in fixing 15 years as a convenient period for a lease in Ireland, but you would have been equally wrong if you had fixed five years; because you say tenants whoso rents were fixed only three years ago are already so oppressed by the alteration of prices that their cases ought to be considered by the Legislature. It is a mistake to suppose that the Cowper Commission suggested anything so crude and absurd as a mere quinquennial revision of rents. The suggestion was made with this important modification, that you should arrange your rents by some automatic process depending upon prices. But even if a perfect system of sliding scale could be devised, it might be a serious obstacle in the way of a purchase scheme, which in the opinion of the vast majority of the Members of this House, is the only true and final solution of the Irish Question. But we do consider that we can adopt,
    1696
    in a rough fashion, a sliding scale so as to obtain that temporary abatement of the judicial rent for the next three years which may enable an Irish tenant to tide over the interval which will, in all probability, separate us from the final scheme of purchase. Our proposal is in effect this—that the Land Court shall be instructed, by the Bill, to devise a scale of revision based solely upon prices, and which shall, of course, vary according to the districts to which it is to be applied. The Land Commission shall, have power to fix averages and to arrange districts. The districts will, of course, be settled by the character of the agriculture and the character of the soil. Having arranged these districts in a more or less rough-and-ready fashion, they will apply automatically the diminution of rent that they think just, having regard to the fall of prices and to the fall of prices alone to the various holdings contained in the sections. That will apply for the next three years, and the House will observe that it is a very rough, ready, and rude, but expeditious method of applying the principle of a sliding scale so as to obtain a temporary remission of rents until the purchase scheme can be carried—for introduced, I hope, it will be in a very few months—and brought into operation. That is the object which we have in view. It is to get over the interval. We frankly admit that that plan is, in its nature, a rough-and-ready plan; but it is cheap and expeditious, it will not lead to litigation, and I trust it will not have the effect of impairing in any way the certainty and security of any future settlement which may be arrived at on the basis of purchase.
    MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what principle the reduction will be given?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The circumstances to be taken into account by the Commission will be the general character of the holding and the fall of prices.
    MR. DILLON: On what principle in relation to the fall of prices will the reduction be estimated?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That, as well as all other questions of rent, will be left to the Land Commission appointed under the Act of 1881. When the hon. Member interrupted me I had almost

    1697
    explained the full scope and purport of our suggestions to the House. The merits of the plan are its simplicity and cheapness.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Have you dropped, or are you going to drop, the Bankruptcy Clauses?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are still of opinion that the Bankruptcy Clauses will be a great boon to the tenants. Regarding them, I do not think I have anything to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was that, while we thought those clauses would be a boon to the tenant, we should drop them with reluctance, if we found that the Representatives of the tenants entertained a great objection to them, and knowing, as we do, that the Representatives of the landlords do not look at them with any enthusiasm. We do not think we should be justified, at this period of the Session, in expending any large measure of the public time upon them. That statement was made explicitly by my right hon. Friend. I hope I have now, with sufficient clearness, though with rather rude outline, explained the main principles of the Amendments which we shall have to propose. I hope, also, that I have laid a sufficient basis for the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman desires.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked, what was the view of the Government with regard to the restrictions on leaseholders, and what arrangement had been come to as regards them?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to that the Government will, of course, very favourably consider any proposals which may be submitted, although, they do not themselves propose any Amendments. They still, however, adhere to the opinion laid down that perpetuity leases should not be included. After this statement, I trust that the House will be satisfied with a brief discussion, and that the Speaker will be allowed to leave the Chair this evening.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the right hon. Gentleman has very fairly and sufficiently stated to the House the alterations that the Government propose to make in this Bill; but I desire to call the attention of the House to the course which they have taken in dealing with the whole of this
    1698
    question. Now, they introduced this Bill in the other House of Parliament, and they had an opportunity there of considering all these questions upon which they now announce these alterations. They had the advice of the Liberal Unionists, who abound in the House of Lords. A Motion was made by Lord Fitzgerald, on the subject of the fieri facias, and the Government refused it. [Mr. A. J. BAIFOUR: We still refuse it.] They refuse it still. They refuse the view of the Liberal Unionists on this special point of fieri facias. Let us understand that. That is not part of the bargain. Then they had a remonstrance from Lord Cowper, the Chairman of the Commission, as to there being no provision whatever with reference to a reduction of rent. That they absolutely refused in the House of Lords. The Bill comes down to this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) makes a speech, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) makes a speech. Still, there was no sign of yielding upon any of these points. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, was put up on Thursday to make a "no surrender" speech upon the subject. This is what he said—
    "Let it be distinctly understood that we do not mean to buy a vote by pretending or assuming any agreement of opinion which is not an absolute agreement and would not express the convictions we hold."
    Did you hold these convictions last Thursday upon the subject of abatement which you call by that name, and imagine that you are going to change the character of it by using one word instead of another? There was a remarkable appeal made to the Government from a remarkable quarter. I see the noble Viscount the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire (Viscount Cranborne). He is not the Rose, but he lives near it. The noble Viscount has said—
    "The rents fixed before 1885, though calculated on higher prices than now prevail, were still fair rents, and ought to be maintained. The Members of the Unionist Party sitting on both sides of the House have pledged themselves not to interfere with the judicial rents, and he did not think that the Government"—
    the noble Viscount enjoys, I envy him, the innocence of youth—

    1699
    "and he did not think that the Government would ask them to interfere with judicial rents and to be false to their pledges."
    He says—
    "The Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, have all declared against tampering with judicial rents."
    That is the pathetic appeal made by the noble Viscount to the Government; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a magnificent tone, declared on Thursday night, "Oh! never." The noble Viscount was quite justified in his appeal. Last year there was a proposal made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) for tampering with judicial rents. What did the Home Secretary say then? Did he say—" We do not like the particular form of your proposal; if it were an abatement for three or four years which any reasonable Englishman would grant, why, of course, we would give compulsory powers for it?" No; that was not his language. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "It is not within the competence of an honest Parliament to vary the pledge that for 16 years there should be no interference with the judicial rent, and if the statutory rent is not paid, the landlord shall recover the possession of the land."
    That was the pledge upon which the Government took their stand last year, and with regard to which the noble Viscount now appeals to the Government. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale is probably more responsible than anybody in this matter. What was his language last year? He said—
    "The House is not entitled, however tempting it might be, to use its power of depriving any class of the community of rights guaranteed to them by law."
    What were those rights? The judicial rent for 15 years, which he said the House is not entitled to deprive the tenants of. The noble Marquess said—
    "He protested against any scheme to deprive landlords of rights that have been secured to them by the Act of 1881."
    The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale was, therefore, instigating the Government to refuse to deal in any form with the abatement of rent for 15 years. Then came forward the gallant Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thurs-
    1700
    day night last; and he says that "if you tell the tenant that his rent is to be varied according to the price" you will have established a totally different principle, which goes to the whole root of purchase. That is the very thing the Government are now going to do. There is to be a 16 per cent or 20 per cent reduction. According to what we have just heard, the Court is to determine what is to be the reduction according to the price." Therefore, the very thing which, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Thursday night that nothing would induce him to do he has now agreed to do. "The principle of purchase," said the right hon. Gentleman, "is that there should not be a fluctuating price, but a price fixed once for all." Are you going to fix it, once for all, in the next three years, or is it to vary according to the price?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I ought, perhaps, to explain that I only deal with judicial rents fixed before the date when the Commissioners said the fall in prices began to be serious; and the rent is to be fixed each year of the three years. It is not to be a settlement for the three years; but it is to be automatic—each year for that year.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is exactly what I understood—namely, that there is to be a variation. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] That is the very thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that apostle of stability, said he never would agree to. Let me read what the right hon. Gentleman said, because it is the solemn assurance of this great advocate of stability in finance, stability in domestic affairs, stability in foreign affairs. He said—
    "I never agreed to the rent being fixed according to the prices, because, if you do that, it will be fatal to purchase."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Are you quoting?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes. I will read it again. It is so long ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forgotten it.
    "If you tell the tenant that his rent is to be varied according to the price you will have established a totally different principle, which goes to the whole root of purchase. The principle of purchase is that there should not be a fluctuating price, but one that is to be fixed once for all."

    1701
    His argument was that nothing should be done to vary the rent according to price, because it would destroy purchase. But that is what I understand the proposal of the Government to be—namely, to vary rent according to prices. Now, what has happened since Thursday last? Oh, that is confidential. Let us go by dates. On Saturday night it happened that the true gospel was still being preached at the Alexandra Palace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was as firm as a rock upon his principles. But Sunday intervened, the conversion took place, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was received into the true Church by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Listening to the final benediction of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, he was converted, and thus the vital principle of the Bill disappeared. The Carlton has been the scene of many memorable conversions, and will be, I dare say, of many more. The statement of Lord. Salisbury has not been denied. These confidences will get out. According to the account which we have had, Lord Salisbury said that he had conceded the principle unwillingly; that he did not agree in the principle; that he thought it was a very bad principle, but that he could not help himself; and, therefore, he threw overboard the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his principle, and commended himself to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. I admire the frankness of Lord Salisbury. He does not conceal his opinion of the situation. Lord Salisbury said—"Why have we done all this, and sacrificed the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Because, if we did not, there might be a Dissolution." Well, if you thought the country agreed with you; if you thought your sacred principle dear to the country; if you thought that the country approved of your Coercion Bill and the rest of your conduct, why do not you pray every day and all night for Dissolution? But you hold a Dissolution up as something terrible to look upon. Why frighten the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson); why frighten the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr.
    1702
    Chaplin), who lives next door to the Spalding Division? Why do you say that if we do not dissolve, that dreadful man the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) would dissolve, and then the end of the world would come? These are the arguments by which the great Conservative Party are induced to sacrifice the sacred principle of the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. I sympathize with the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh very much. He is thoroughly in earnest; he is a man of war, and he does not care the moment the battle has begun to run away. He is not afraid of Dissolution, or anything else. I would advise, if he really wants to fight, to leave those Benches, and come here. He belongs to a Party who always runs away; and if he will come here we shall be very happy to receive him, and make use of his fighting qualities. Men like the hon. and gallant Member are always ready to fight—
    "'gainst fearful odds
    For the rent-rolls of their fathers, and the
    altars of their gods."
    The moment the odds are a little too heavy against them, when they think there is a chance of their being defeated, they throw away all their former principles, alter all their acts, and run away. I should advise the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh to enlist under some better standard, and not to belong to an army where the flying rout is led by the valorous Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they are only patient, they will see plenty more of this kind of thing. How many months will it be before there is a meeting of the Carlton Club, and they are told—" If we do not go in for Home Rule "—not our Homo Rule, but some kind of Home Rule—"you will have a Dissolution, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh will be expected to vote for Home Rule, in order to avert a Dissolution." I confess I am very glad the Government have run away; it will save, I hope, a great deal of time and a good deal of discussion. To use the phrase of one of their former Leaders, they have "yielded to fear what they would not yield to reason." All these matters were argued and reasoned out when the Bill was iu the other House; but they would not yield until last Sunday; until they found they were going to be

    1703
    beaten they would not listen to it for a single moment; but, if report is not untrue, the hon. and. gallant Member for North Armagh thinks that they have bought the support of the Liberal Unionists at too dear a rate. Surely, that is rather shabby. The hon. and gallant Member thinks that the support of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), and I will throw in the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), has been paid for too dearly. Surely, no price is too great to be paid for adhesion by such as these. Let us look at the Constitutional aspect of this question. I am not speaking of Gentlemen opposite, for I know what their opinions are; they have shown that they do not care a pin for the Constitution; but I am speaking to old-fashioned people on this side of the House. I have always understood that the Constitution of England requires that a set of responsible men, called the Ministers of the Crown, should recommend to Parliament, and should be responsible to Parliament, for the measures they approve. Upon the very face of it this Government say—"We are recommending measures we do not approve, because they are forced upon us by men whose votes we want, but who are not responsible for the measures they recommend." Anything more thoroughly inconsistent with the Constitution of this country it is impossible to conceive. You avow, you have avowed, that you propose to buy votes for a measure you do not approve, in order to escape a defeat which might terminate your Government, or a Dissolution which might destroy your Party. That is the statement which has been given forth, and not denied, from the Carlton Club. Now, what are you doing to do with this measure? You have altered the measure in a manner you do not approve, and you are going to send it back to the House of Landlords stamped with your own disapproval. That is the manner in which you are going to settle the House of Landlords. What infinite mischief have you done already by your obstinacy in this matter of judicial rents? Months have elapsed—a sad 12 months for Ireland, a disgraceful 12 months for England—all because, until you were compelled by fear of Parliamentary defeat, you refused to do the
    1704
    very thing you now avow you will do to-night. The hon. Member for Cork, not 12 months ago, proposed a measure which would have had a temporary effect in relieving tenants from the pressure of unjust rents. I will not argue whether that was the best proposal which could be made. That was not the question. The question was whether something should be done in that direction. You had a majority, and you might have made the Bill anything you liked; but you refused, and laid down the sacred principle that you would not, that you could not, that no honest Parliament could touch judicial rents. What has happened? You chose to cut yourself off from all communication with the Irish Members on the subject. You said to them—"You are ignorant men, and know nothing of the state of Ireland." You were encamped in Ireland as the Austrians were encamped in Venice; like them you were ignorant of the opinion, and you cared nothing for the Irish people. It was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who said that you had treated Ireland as the Austrians had treated Italy, and as the Russians treated Poland.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say so; I am quite sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. What I really did say was this, or words to this effect, for I cannot remember the precise words, that the Government of this country in Ireland was as bureaucratic as the Government of Austria in Venice and the Government of Russia in Poland.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Government and Unionist Party have shown absolute ignorance of the condition of Ireland, and the proof of it is this—that in the debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork you said you did not know whether rents were fixed at too high a rate or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork did know, but you would not listen to him. The fundamental principle laid down by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), the basis of the Unionist principle, is that you must disregard the opinions, the wishes, and the knowledge of the Irish Members in any settlement of the Irish Question. You chose to endeavour to govern Ireland by that means, and the consequence is that you are utterly unfit

    1705
    to deal with the Irish Question. You showed your ignorance last year. Last August you appointed a Commission, evidence was taken, and before Parliament met you knew perfectly well—it is true the Report of the Cowper Commission had not been presented, but the evidence had been presented to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and you knew perfectly well the condition of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) charges upon you, to his honour, that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland used his influence with the Government, and that the Government knew perfectly well that rents were too high, and he recommended a reduction of rents. You knew it last January. I want to know why you did not then produce this measure? The men who refused last autumn to make any proposal for the reduction of rents, in consequence of the fall in prices, are the men who are morally responsible for the Plan of Campaign. I charge upon my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale that by refusing the demand, which is now on all hands admitted to be just, he drove the Irish people to take refuge in the only defence against admitted wrongs, and the oppression from which they are now suffering. I do not want to use harsh words, but the noble Lord the Member for Devon (Viscount Lymington) has had the face to charge Sir George Trevelyan with treachery. Abuse and contumely from the noble Lord is a compliment, and Sir George Trevelyan would be more proud of insult from the noble Lord than of compliment. Treachery because he would not be an accomplice to such a wrong as that. Treachery because it was found that he would not be a party to compel men for 12 months to undergo the injustice of these excessive rents, and the evictions which took place upon that basis were morally unjust evictions. [Cries of"No!"] You may say "No;" but it is the finding of the Cowper Commission. It was in consequence of the course the Government and the Unionists took last year. I want to know what has been the consequence of this? We have the testimony of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that nowhere except where the Plan of Campaign has been in operation has there been any material
    1706
    reduction in rent. He said that in the South and West abatements have been made, and there has been great reduction. Was it made from any sense of justice, or humanity, or feeling of mercy? No; for according to the hon. Member for South Tyrone intimidation and outrage have caused the abatements to be made. In Ulster, where there has been no intimidation in the shape of the Plan of Campaign, where there was no outrage, there has been no abatement. There you have the Irish landlord in his native colours, and there there has been no abatement of rent. I say that the men who refused or who were parties to the refusal last August of any abatements upon these excessive rents are responsible for all the evictions that have taken place since. If these abatements have been made these evictions would not have taken place. We have got this morning a Return showing what these evictions have been. In six months there were 8,891 persons evicted. And all these men were evicted because you would not give relief from excessive rents. [Cries of "Not all!"] Well then, I will not say all. You say, however—"Oh, but so many people were retained as caretakers." Now, we have never got at the bottom of that. What becomes of the caretaker six months afterwards? Does he remain in the house or not? His fate has not been explained to us. But, even making a liberal reduction for those who are readmitted as caretakers, you will still leave 6,000 persons who are evicted in consequence of your refusal to give this relief last year. I lay upon you the responsibility for these evictions. Now, what might you not have done, even if you were so ignorant of the condition of Ireland, and were so unwilling to borrow the knowledge you did not possess from the Representatives of Ireland, if you had brought in your Bill at the beginning of the Session. You knew every fact you now know, all but the fact that the Liberal Unionists were going to vote against you; every other fact was known to you at the beginning of the Session. Mark what a difference there would have been in the history of the Session. What a difference there would have been in the history of Ireland, if, instead of rushing upon coercion, you had given relief to these unfortunate people by a Bill introduced in January,

    1707
    and had reserved yourselves for your final measure of purchase. Why, what a different situation, what a different temper you would have found the House of Commons in, and in what a different way would it have dealt with the Public Business of the country? You did not choose to do so. You were absolutely bent on going into the business of coercion; you put off until the last day of the Session this measure, imperfect no doubt, but a measure which I hope may be made more perfect in Committee; and it is in consequence of the course you have taken that you have wasted the time of the Session, ruined your prospects of the government of Ireland, and destroyed this Session for the use of the people of the United Kingdom. If you had introduced a Land Bill affording reasonable relief to the tenants of Ireland, as you now say it was your intention to do, freeing them from the burden of excessive rents, in nay opinion we should never have heard of this Coercion Bill. Therefore, I throw back upon you the taunts you level at us on the subject of obstruction. I repeat that the course you have taken in reference to legislation for Ireland has ruined your prospects for the government of that country, and has destroyed the Session for the use of the people of the United Kingdom.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The distinctions which have been drawn between revision and reduction are very much like the quibble we had upon the Coercion Bill, when we were told that coercion did not mean coercion. With regard to this revision or reduction, there will be a substantial reduction; but it pleases hon. Gentlemen opposite to call it revision, which amounts to precisely the same thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) ably pointed out that it is not we who have been the Obstructionists; he has justly thrown upon the Government the responsibility for everything that has occurred in Ireland; and everyone on this side of the House who does not happen to be a Liberal Unionist concurs in what my right hon. Friend has said. When the Opposition dinned it into the ears of the Government that they ought to make a reduction of rent they were met by a non possumus; they now reply by a, possumus. Her Majesty's Ministers have been in a false position
    1708
    throughout. They took Office without a majority; they had to submit to the Unionists, and were obliged to do as they were told. They have done so because they are afraid of a General Election, and because they know that public opinion is turning against them. I do not complain of Her Majesty's Ministers; but why did they accept Office? I was in the country the other day, and I looked into a pigsty and saw a man knocking the pigs about. I said—"Don't push those little pigs about;" but the man said—"They don't care what you do so long as you leave their noses in the trough." That is very much the position of the present Government. The right hon. Member for Derby might prove by argument and reason that they are in the wrong, and that they have sacrified their principles; but the Government do not care, they know they have got a numerical majority, and they treat everything said by their opponents with supercilious silence. The First Lord of the Treasury, in a speech last night, said of his followers—"A better Party to follow their Leaders never has been found in any House of Commons." I entirely agree, if it is the business of followers simply to follow like a flock of sheep, to go right or left as they are ordered to vote, black one day and white the other, that a better Party to follow Leaders never was found in the British House of Commons. The noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne), on the same occasion, elevated the same idea upon principle. He said—"The weather-cock has turned, and we must turn with it." Now, is it surprising that when the weather-cock turned against them they wished to change their opinions? When, however, right hon. Gentlemen opposite speak of themselves as Leaders they are somewhat mistaken; they are entirely the slaves of slaves—they are the slaves of hon. Gentlemen there (pointing to the Treasury Bench), and right hon. Gentlemen there are the slaves of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Opposition side and call themselves Liberal Unionists. I really do not know why a right hon. Gentleman who prides himself on this, that his Allies are the gentlemen of England, should condescend to sit with such obscure and humble persons as his former Colleagues. Why do not the gentlemen of England sit together? Her Majesty's Government paid a price

    1709
    for the support of right hon. Gentlemen who call themselves Liberals, and who advise people to vote for Conservatives, who never lose an opportunity of reviling everything they once held sacred, and who attack everyone who still remains Liberal on this side of the House. Assuredly those right hon. Gentlemen have earned their reward—surely some concession ought to be made to them. The concession which the Government gives them is their principles, nothing less and nothing more. We are told that this Bill is to pave the way for an Irish Purchase Bill; and if we are to believe the report which appeared in the newspapers somewhat mysteriously of what took place at the Carlton Club, Lord Salisbury stated at that meeting that if the rents were reduced in Ireland to a judicial figure the landlords should be compensated. Who is to compensate them? The money is to come from our pockets.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Salisbury stated nothing of the kind.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: May I take it, then, that under no circumstances will any sort of compensation be given to the Irish landlords, if their rents are reduced? Do I gather that from the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman is silent. No; the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of his followers. This is a policy of conciliation. He dare not say that. He wants to catch votes, and he says this was not stated by Lord Salisbury. But he will not get up in the House and say that under no circumstances will compensation be given to the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) was the first author of the idea that first charges and mortgages ought to be reduced. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fervour with which he goes further than the gentlemen of England themselves. The right hon. Gentleman finds favour with his Allies by telling them he is prepared to aid and abet them in robbing the commercial classes of this country. The House, I think, ought to know something distinctly about this Purchase Bill. I am perfectly aware that there are some Gentlemen in the House in favour of a purchase scheme. We were told there would be no risk; but there is no liability without risk. I do not care by what Government a Pur-
    1710
    chase Bill is brought in, or who votes for it—I shall always vote and protest against it, if any species of liability or risk is thrown upon the British taxpayer. The last Election was, to a great extent, lost because there was an idea abroad that there was some scheme in contemplation for buying out the Irish landlords and incurring liability on their account. [An hon. MEMBER: There was no Bill.] No; the Bill was withdrawn. The Bill is dead. I perfectly understand the position of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I do not suppose the right hon. Member thought the scheme was economically sound; but he wanted to pass the Home Rule Bill; the right hon. Gentleman and many others were ready to pay a price for it, and this was a species of offer he made to the landlords of Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: A bribe.] Yes; a bribe. But when you are dealing with the landlords you must give bribes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian saw that the sands were running through the hour glass. The offer was made and the offer was refused, and it will not be made again. Therefore, there was an erroneous impression on the part of the electors. But what I wish to point out is this. So horrified were the electors at the idea of being called upon to incur any risk or liability in connection with the Irish landlords, that the mere notion of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian recurring to a Purchase Bill injured the prospects of the Liberal Party in the elections. But who were those who made capital by insisting that the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring in such a Bill again? It was the Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists. If any Parliament was ever pledged to anything, it was the last Parliament that they would not incur any liability or risk for paying off the landlords of Ireland. Then I trust that no Bill of the kind will be brought in again; but I hope the Irish Members themselves will see that if it is it would injure their cause if they joined the Conservatives in throwing this liability on the taxpayers. If the country decides that it should be done, we must submit, and I would ask nothing better than to go to the constituencies and let the constituencies decide whether or no they would incur this liability on behalf of the Irish landlords, or give Ireland full

    1711
    national independence without incurring such a liability.
    MR. PARNELL: I wish, in the first place, to correct a considerable error into which the right hon. Gentleman fell in quoting from the Return of evictions for the last quarter, as for six months; but they were for the quarter only, and the right hon. Gentleman did not give the entire number. From the last Return issued by the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on the 2nd of July, 1887, it appears that in the last quarter 9,140 persons were evicted, or more than double the number stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for Cork is perfectly right. I stated that 8,991 persons were evicted for non-payment of rent, and that 5,711 were admitted as caretakers during six months. It should have been three months.
    MR. PARNELL: I have called attention to the matter, because I have some remarks to make on the question of evictions, which does not appear to be dealt with in the Government Bill. Now, Sir, I think I am entitled to claim credit, to some extent, for the suggestions I made last autumn in the direction of the abatement of judicial rents, because I found that the Government had been following very closely the three leading principles of my Bill. In the first place, they are now going to deal with a revision, or, as they call it, an abatement of the judicial rents. In the second place, they lay stress upon the fact that there has been a considerable fall in agricultural prices, just as I laid stress upon it; and, in the third place, they make the abatements run for three years, as I made them run. I am, therefore, encouraged to hope, from the successful way in which my Bill has been imitated, both in respect of the Leaseholders' Clause and the question of the abatement of judicial rents, that some attention may be paid to the claims I now wish to make, in all good faith and sincerity, with reference to certain matters omitted from the Government measure. I do not wish to dwell on the inconsistency of the Government on the present occasion. It is sufficient for me that the Bill, as far as we can judge of it in its altered form, will go a long way to alleviate the evils which now exist in Ireland. I intend now to ask the Government to go a little
    1712
    farther in that direction, so as to obviate and do away with all possibility of hardship and trouble arising out of the delay which has taken place in legislating on this matter. I observe that there is no effectual provision in the Bill dealing with arrears of rent. Of course, the Chief Secretary has not told the House at what period the judgments of the Commissioners will take effect, whether in respect of the year's rent ordinarily payable at the end of this year, or ordinarily payable at the end of next year. If their decisions follow the 2nd clause of the Government Bill, these reductions will only take effect in respect of the gale accruing next after application made to the Court, which would be ordinarily payable some time next year. But the Bill cannot come into effect for a month or so, and would apply to the gale due in September or November next which would be ordinarily payable some time next year, the date varying in accordance with the practice on different estates. It would have no effect whatever upon the rents becoming due this autumn, and the tenants would be left to struggle with the existing rents as they have been doing under the Plan of Campaign. I think that the House will agree with me that it is earnestly desired that this should be a measure which would deal with the critical position in Ireland at the present time, and also in years to come, if it should continue; and as long as the tenants are left, as a number of them would be left, with a year's rent coming due in the autumn, with the old excessive standard hanging over them, their position would still be a very unfortunate one. This matter, however, would no doubt be more clearly explained when we see the clauses of the Bill; but I would respectfully urge that the first judicial decision should have effect upon the year's rent ordinarily payable at the end of the year, as in November. I also urge that there should be an effectual provision to assist those tenants who are oppressed with arrears. The weight of the arrears has been perpetually associated with the difficulties of the tenants. It was one of the causes which led to the terrible future position of the tenants after the passing of the Land Act of 1881, although that Act did an immeasurable amount of good to Ireland, and was one

    1713
    of the most successful Acts ever passed for that country. Let me now go on to another point. The Government are now going to abolish the right of the landlord to proceed by writ of fieri facias; but there are a great many tenants who have been evicted during this year under that process, simply owing to the failure of the Government to legislate. Would it be fair that such tenants should be shut out from the benefit of this Act? Are they to be punished for the nonpayment of rents which the Government now admit to be unfair? The Government may say that the Plan of Campaign is responsible for that. Now. I am not responsible for the Plan of Compaign; but I would submit that the Plan of Campaign is not more responsible for the failure to pay these rents than this House. If we are to have a temporary settlement of the question, we should deal with the situation as it stands; and not to remove all the causes of the irritation which still exists would mar the beneficial operation of the measure. Therefore, I would impress upon the Government the justice and expediency—I would almost say the necessity—of introducing something into the Bill under which these writs of fieri facias should be set aside, and the tenants allowed to have the full benefit of the Act. Finally, I would refer to the case of tenants evicted in the ordinary way whose period of redemption has expired. We are dealing with a case in which there has been a long and cruel and unnecessary delay; and in the period involved in that delay Parliament should be generous and see, as far as it can, that the tenants should be reinstated upon their holdings, and that such raws and blots should not be allowed to remain longer in existence. I will go further, and say, with reference to the evictions which have taken place in Ireland for a great number of years back—for instance, there have been many thousands of evictions in the County of Kerry, which has been one of the most disturbed counties in Ireland; but I would gladly see power given to the Courts to reinstate all such tenants, and also power given to them to compensate the landlords out of the Irish Church Fund for any loss they might incur in consequence of such reinstatement, I am now referring to cases of old evictions, in regard to which the
    1714
    landlords may have incurred a considerable expense, and may be able to prove that they may suffer loss in consequence of reinstatement. I believe that if this measure, with the suggestions I have made, was passed and fairly worked it would be accepted by the tenants of Ireland as a satisfactory means of tiding them over their present difficulties; and, at all events, in the unhappy agrarian struggle which has been going on in Ireland, they would wait with patience and hope for the projects of the Government with regard to their larger scheme.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have risen for the purpose of suggesting that the statement which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) is entitled to some reply. In my opinion, some most important allusions have been made by my hon. Friend to the case of the evicted tenants, and I think that if there is anything in the condition of Ireland which deserves attention, even from the point of view of the Government themselves, it is the case of these unfortunate men. I would ask the House to refer to the evidence of General Buller before the Cowper Commission. He strongly pointed out that it was the idle and hopeless men who have been evicted who have been the cause of the outrages in the counties of Kerry and Clare. My hon. Friend the Member for Cork has been the jealous guardian of the agrarian question in Ireland, and also of the Irish Church Surplus. He has always resisted any proposal which has been made outside his own Party for the appropriation of any portion of the surplus; he has regarded that surplu3 as sacred, and has maintained that it is only to be used for purposes of a national character. The proposal he has now made is a most statesmanlike one, and I believe it is one which, some time ago, met with the approval of the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who has had considerable experience of Irish affairs. My hon. Friend suggests a way of dealing with the old cases of eviction, which date from the year in which the land trouble commenced—namely, in 1880, down to the time at which the landlords made arrangements with the Emergency men and the Protestant Defence Association to take up their cause and carry out these evictions. My hon. Friend pro-

    1715
    poses that in every case in which, the landlords can prove that they would sustain loss if the farms were given back to the evicted tenants the Church Surplus should be available for giving them compensation. Now, I think that that is a practical and a statesmanlike proceeding. It can do no harm to the landlords, nor can it do harm to the Government. It may be said that we should be dealing with the property of the Irish landlords. Let me point out to the House and to those Gentlemen who have been so persistently attacking the National League for its intimidation that they virtually admit our case when they say, in the words of General Buller himself —"These farms cannot be let at the present time at any profit owing to the intimidation which prevails." Let me give an instance which has come within my own knowledge. In moving for a reduction of rent in the Chancery Court in Ireland, it was stated, in regard to particular holdings in the County of Tipperary from which the tenants had been evicted, and where the rents formerly amounted to £2,000 a-year, that the entire evicted lands had been let for something like £600 a-year. In the face of facts like this, I maintain that there would be no harm done to the landlords if we were to give back to the tenants land from which they are deriving little or no profit. The House may rely upon it that the hon. Member for Cork would not have made a suggestion of this kind unless he knew that it would tend to the pacification of the country without regard to Party spirit. The speech of my hon. Friend was entirely divested of Party triumph. He claimed no triumph in regard to what took place last autumn, although a considerable triumph was achieved, and was entitled to be favourably considered. There was one detail on which he might have pressed the Government. Why do the Government go back to the proposals of 1882 in dealing with the question of arrears The tenant is regarded in the clauses of the original Bill as a bankrupt tenant, and where, then, is the good of allowing the arrears to hang like a millstone round his neck? It is practically a dead asset, as far as he is concerned. We maintain that it is a dead asset. I have certainly never known a tenant to go out of his holding and submit to eviction, except,
    1716
    perhaps, in a few cases which have occurred in recent days, if he could beg, borrow, or steal sufficient to pay the rent. Not one such case in ten thousand has ever occurred. It is the knowledge of that fact which constrains my hon. Friend to say that if the Government will mould their Bill in the direction he suggests it will not be necessary to make use of the Coercion Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) have made the allegation that whenever a pacific proposal has been suggested it has always been repudiated by the Irish Party. That allegation, I think, cannot be repeated now. I call upon the House to bear witness as to how the proposals of the Government have been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork in his calm and temperate speech. He has met those proposals in a spirit which even the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham cannot complain of. We are not disposed to quarrel with the proposals of the Government as we now understand them; but, of course, it will be necessary to subject them to criticism. If we are to deal with the question in a spirit of statesmanship and conciliation, I beg of the Government to drop out of the Bill the two contentious clauses, and let the Bill pass in peace. I refer to the 4th clause, by which evictions are made easy, and the clause absolving the landlords from paying rates on evicted farms. If the Government will drop those clauses out of the Bill, I venture to say that the measure need not trouble the House at any great length. The question of the leaseholders will, of course, engage considerable attention—the question of making a man surrender a lease for which he has given a valuable consideration—that is a question which must engage the attention of the Government and of the House. Before I sit down I should like to call the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) to one point. I congratulate the Government upon having the services of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in studying the Bill from the point of view of an Irish lawyer. Although there have been many able lawyers in this House, I think the right

    1717
    hon. and learned Gentleman is quite as competent to deal with these questions as any of his Predecessors. He must be aware that the question of sub-letting will practically annul the Leaseholders' Clause, unless it is fairly and reasonably attended to by the Government. Let me give an instance which came under my notice, and which is a reported case. It was this—and I tell the leaseholders of Ireland; I tell their Friends in this House above the Gangway, the Liberal Unionists, and I call the attention of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to the facts I am about to state, and which were brought before the Irish Land Commission within the last two months. The landlord was Captain Bolton, and the tenant was a widow. The case went before the Land Court, and the Sub-Commissioner reduced the rent, which stood originally at £140 a-year, to £90; or, in other words, took off 50 per cent. A technical question, however, was raised in connection with the holding, with the view, I presume, of settling the value. The tenant was asked—"Have you any labourers' cottages on the holding?" The reply was—"I have one which has been on the holding for generations." It was the landlord's cottage, and there was a ground rent attached to it, for which the tenant received the munificent rent of 6d. a-week. Here, then, was the case of a labourer's cottage, which had been in existence upon the holding for two or throe generations, and because it had been let to a labourer 40 or 50 years ago, and had descended to his wife and children—at the time I speak it was in the possession of a daughter—that little mud cabin, occupied by a poor woman, who had married into it, or been born in it, I do not know which, was held to be a sufficient justification for depriving the tenant of a reduction of rent, which the Court had fixed at 50 per cent. The result is that the landlord has issued a writ against the tenant, and she asks for God's sake that something shall be done in order to prevent Captain Bolton from trying to obtain from her a rent which has been pronounced by the Land Court to be iniquitous and unjust. At present, if enough land is sub-let to enable a pigstye to be built upon it, the tenant can be deprived of the benefit of the Act of 1881. The question has already been
    1718
    argued and settled in the Court of Appeal, and I have been told by a learned friend of mine that the decision amounts to this—that if you have sub-let a piece of land only the breadth of my hand, or sufficient to build a pigstye upon it, that sub-letting will deprive the tenant of his interest in the land. The case I have referred to is that of Keating and Bolton; and I am prepared to tell the leaseholders of Ireland that there is not one man among them who will get a single fraction of benefit under this Act, unless the question of sub-letting is dealt with. The word "holding" is the word that governs the tenure. A tenant must be in absolute possession of the holding, and the holding comprises within its compass the entire land let by the landlord to the tenant. If he is not in possession of that, he may be deprived of the benefit of the legislation which has been introduced on his behalf. I have pointed out this blot in the Bill from the tenant's point of view, and, having done so, I hope the matter will receive full consideration from Her Majesty's Government. The Government provide in their Bill that the Leaseholders' Clause is to come into operation provided that the tenant is in bonâ fide occupation of his holding, and that it is to take effect if no beneficial lease has been made. In other words the tenant has only to let a single foot of the land in order to deprive himself of the advantages of his lease, and to enable the landlord to say—"You are not in bonâ fide possession of the land." That is the ridiculous position in which the question has been placed; and therefore I claim, at the hands of the Government, a revision of the unfortunate provision which was inserted by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in the Act of 1881 in order to effect a very different purpose. If there is any clause of the Act of 1881 upon which the Government and the House ought not to lay too much stress, it is this. At the time it was under discussion it was very much bandied about, and in the end underwent considerable change and alteration. Amendments were inserted in it by wholesale. When it came back from the Lords it had been amended; when it went to the Lords it I had been amended. Therefore, I think that the question of sub-letting, as well as the question of town parks, should

    1719
    receive from the Government the attention it deserves. Of course, these are points upon which I cannot expect an immediate answer; but I certainly do expect that some reply will be made to the questions which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork with such sincerity and statesmanlike prescience. The offer now made by my hon. Friend is one which will prevent the necessity for coercion, and will give peace to Ireland. Those who refuse the offer will be responsible for any future agitation, crime, and misery, which, may take place in that country.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): With regard to the last point raised by the hon. and learned Member, I think it should be remembered that the Government have already undertaken to do their best to meet any difficulty with regard to the bonâ fide occupation of land, and the subject was alluded to in the debates on the previous stage of the Bill. We recognize the difficulty, but the language was borrowed from the Act of 1881, and there is no intention on the part of the Government to neutralize any benefit which may arise to the tenant. The matter is one to which the Government have already promised to give their attention. I now turn to the important speech of the hon. Member for Cork. I do not think it would be possible at a moment's notice for a Member of the Government to give a definite answer to the questions asked in that speech, raising, as they do, large and new points of considerable scope; but I recognize with pleasure the language used by the hon. Member when, dropping bygones, he addressed himself to the real matter before the House— namely, the improvement of this Bill. He took a very different course from that of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir William Harcourt). I am bound to say that if there seemed to be in this House one hon. or right hon. Gentleman to whom the arrangement come to and the proposal about to be made was disagreeable, that Gentleman was the right hon. Member for Derby. In not one single phrase did he say anything in regard to the advantage gained under this measure by the Irish tenants. The Irish tenants are the last people for whom the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to express any
    1720
    sympathy. His interest in evictions seems to be confined to the disappointment which he feels at not being able to evict the tenants of the Government Bench. I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was more worthy of the occasion, and of the serious matters we have to discuss, than the prepared banter of the right hon. Gentleman, which caused unmixed delight to hon. Members below the Gangway, but which had evidently been concocted before he heard the statement of the Government. No wonder that the right hon. Gentleman was keen for a full-dress statement from these Benches, because if it had not been delivered he would not have been able to fire off his speech, which, with all its comments, he had prepared beforehand.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I knew all that.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then if the right hon. Gentleman knew it he kept a deal to himself, and he put into his speech a great deal that he never could have known, because it was contrary to the fact. The right hon. Gentleman is not happy either as a prophet or as a student of reports, and in truth his whole statement of the case is founded in error. However, I did not rise to answer the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been ill-natured to criticize his enjoyment in delivering a speech which has certainly nothing to do with the Bill before the House. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was not intended for our ears, but for those of persons out-of-doors. So far as he is concerned, it is a piece of Party polemics; but, as far as we are concerned, there is nothing in that speech which deserves our serious consideration. As I have just said, I rose not to reply to the right hon. Member for Derby, but in answer to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), to take note of the language used by the hon. Member for Cork, who has promised to assist the House in carrying through this Bill, on condition that the Government regard it in the view of a temporary arrangement, which is intended to bridge over the interval between our present position and purchase, which, contrary to what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has urged, is the only real solution of the Irish difficulty. I hail

    1721
    that declaration of the hon. Member for Cork with the greatest satisfaction. Of course, the House is aware of the fact that there will be great difficulties to contend with in carrying out the agreement which has been come to. We foresaw that there would be considerable difficulty, in view of an ultimate solution of the land problem by purchase, in adopting anything like a sliding scale; but we understand the hon. Member for Cork to believe that our present scheme will not ultimately damage any proposal that may be made in reference to purchase. It is to purchase, and not to any sliding scale of rents, that we must look for the future solution of the Irish agrarian difficulty. I am glad that we have come so near a solution. I do not think that the hon. Member for Cork will expect me at this moment to express any opinion upon the three points he has laid before the House, which raise questions of very considerable importance, or to give any pledge with regard to them. I am unable at this moment to say anything in regard to the re-instatement of tenants who have already been evicted, or the appropriation of the Irish Church Fund for the purpose of providing compensation for the landlords, both of which were points which I understood the hon. Gentleman to raise. But I think, after what has passed, we may hope that while every consideration will be given by the Government to Amendments moved in Committee which are consistent with the general spirit of the Bill, the hon. Member for Cork will assist us in carrying the measure through this House without any unnecessary delay.
    MR. DILLON: It seems to me that an opportunity has been opened up which it would be a cruel misfortune to allow to pass away without an agreement being arrived at with regard to this measure. I perfectly recognize that it is impossible for the Government, at such short notice, to make any statement with reference to the points which have been urged on their attention by the hon. Member for Cork; but I rise to add my voice in an appeal to the Government that, between this time and the Committee stage of the Bill, they will take into their consideration the points which have been urged by my hon. Friend. I wish most earnestly to adopt the tone alluded to
    1722
    by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to recognize to the fullest extent the great change which has come over the situation in this House, and over the prospects of the Bill since we last discussed it. I ask the Government and the Conservative Party really to believe that, so far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we are not anxious to prolong the agrarian controversy in Ireland. It has always been said—and the charge has been brought against Irish Members again and again, and it is a most unfounded reproach—that we have desired to perpetuate this agrarian struggle as long as possible, because through it alone we could hope to regain our national rights. It is my sincere desire, on the contrary, to arrive at some means or another, even if it be only a temporary measure by which this agrarian struggle can be allowed to slumber for a year or two, and during that period I feel perfectly confident that we shall succeed in asserting our national rights. Let me ask the Government seriously to consider whether they cannot meet our views on these points between this and the Committee stage. If the Government will give effect to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork, a result may be achieved of the most unexpected character in regard to the saving of the time of the House, and the winding up of the Session without heat and Party controversy. If it be the real desire of the Government to bring about a condition of peace in Ireland, I would leave it to their fair and impartial consideration to say whether they can hope for such a result so long as many thousands of families existing in that country are being cast out of their homes on account of unjust rents, and so long as no avenue is open to them to regain the possession of their homes and to enable them to earn their living. The second point is, that no measure for the revision of the rents can be trusted to in Ireland which will not take account of the rents payable this autumn, and which also does not take into account the case of tenants who are more or less in arrear owing to the excessive rents which all parties have agreed should be revised. I would ask the Government to consider, in an impartial spirit, the demands which we make between this and the time of going into Committee on the Bill. If they can arrive at a settlement on equitable terms

    1723
    by which power can be given to the Commission Courts to insure that those tenants under ejectment for arrears of rent shall be able to got a reasonable reduction, and if the Government can arrive at Amendments to effect this, then it will be possible for this Bill to pas3 through the House without any serious controversy. There are two other points—there is, first of all, the system of reductions, on which, however, I will not say more than that it will be a good tiling if the Government leaves to the discretion of the Land Commissioners the principle upon which the reductions are to be assessed in proportion to prices, but to lay down as a general principle that a redaction of 15 per cent would meet the case would be of no use at all. I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland seriously to consider the condition of the glebe tenants and the purchasers under the old Acts of 1870 and 1881. Although these tenants are not a numerous class, it ought to be a principle accepted by the Government that, when they are passing a measure intended to pacify the whole country and to meet a general grievance, they ought not to leave out from the benefit of the measure any considerable class of the population. The tenants I am pleading for number about 5,000 or 6,000 families; and the clause introduced with the view of meeting their grievance I warn the Government will fall short of attaining the object in view. If the Amendments I have placed on the Paper are agreed to, they will involve no loss or risk to the Treasury; and I ask the Government to consider what object can be gained by refusing fair and reasonable relief to the glebe tenants and those persons who made a loss by purchasing the land when it was at a high value? If the Government come to the conclusion that I am right in this statement, I ask them to accept the Amendments which have been put down, and remove all needless controversy and loss of time. I beg the Government to believe me when I say that there is no man in this House who is more anxious than I to see safe and honourable road out of the agrarian controversy. I am in this position—that if there is no possible settlement of this question by the end of next month I shall have dependent on me at least 700 or 800 families in Ireland who have nothing to stand between them and star-
    1724
    vation except such funds as can be got from America and charitable organizations in Ireland. I say that a man in my position does not know what it is to have an easy hour either by night or day; and, for my part, I assure the House that there is no one who has a more personal or intense desire than I have to see a safe and honourable path out of this difficulty, and that Ireland should, at least, obtain a peace of two or three years after the terrible strife that has occurred.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: There is one point in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer against which I desire to enter my protest. The right hon. Gentleman stated that this measure may be looked upon as a temporary one, with a view to a great purchase scheme. My right hon. Friend told us on Saturday last that any Amendment introduced for the revision of the rents would be a fatal blow to the Bill, and that it would almost relieve the Government of the responsibility for introducing the great purchase scheme. I think the right hon. Gentleman was more right in his statement on Saturday than he is to-day. I believe that the proposal of the Government will deal a serious blow against the purchase scheme. I am not otherwise than pleased at that. I did not think there was any prospect of a purchase scheme being made acceptable to the country even before the introduction of this Bill. I feel satisfied that the House and the country will not agree in the future to any great or universal purchase scheme such as is now suggested by the Government. I will not enter into my reasons for that opinion; but it seems to me that one of the great arguments in favour of a purchase scheme is this—that, while it would relieve landlords and enable them, to get out of their present position, it would enable another reduction of rents to be effected; and if by the Bill before the House you enable a greater reduction of rent to be made than was attainable under the Act of 1881, I think the claim of the tenants to a scheme of purchase will certainly be disposed of. With regard to the proposal for amending the Bill before the House, I am bound to say that it appears to me to be of a satisfactory character. The Cowper Commission

    1725
    proposed a quinquennial revision of rents, and under that system the tenants who had their rents fixed two or three years ago would not be able to obtain a revision of thorn until after another two years; whereas now it will be possible for all who have obtained a judicial rent to go at once into Court and get a revision of rent on a triennial scale of purchase. I say it is distinctly a more favourable proposal than that of the Cowper Commission; and, therefore, I hail it as a very decided improvement of the Bill. Such a change in the measure on the part of the Government is a distinct admission that they made a mistake last Session in refusing to accept the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork. I venture to ask the Government to recollect the statement they made last year and to deal with the Irish questions which may arise with the aid of Irish Members, and in a somewhat different spirit than they have shown hitherto. I think it will, on the whole, be wise to take council with the Irish Members with regard to the future provisions of the Bill, and I earnestly ask them to listen to the proposals of the hon. Member for Cork. There is one question which I strongly urge upon the consideration of the Government; that is, that most of the tenants in Ireland are in arrears of rent, and I repeat that they will do wisely to take the Irish Members into council during the further discussion of the Bill, and if they do so I believe that they will be able to settle the agrarian question on a lasting basis, and thus remove one of the greatest grievances under which Ireland suffers.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I believe that the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will be received to-morrow in Ulster with great satisfaction; but there is one point on which I wish to say a few words in relation to the glebe tenants. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Government will find that there are almost no arrears due by the purchasers under the Act of 1870, who will get, therefore, the full benefit of the proposals under this Bill; but the case of the glebe tenants is altogether different. There are five or six different classes of glebe tenants, and it is only proposed to relieve two of those classes. Now, I do not see why any distinction should be made between them, in as much as they
    1726
    are all in the same difficulty and ought, in my opinion, to be dealt with in the same way. But the proposal of the Government is that they should pay up half the arrears, and that the remaining half shall be capitalized and added to the mortgage. I quite appreciate the difficulty of putting in the same position those who are in arrears and those who are not; but I very much fear that the tenants will not be able to pay half the arrears, and that, therefore, they will not get that benefit which the Government intends they should receive. I hope that between this day and Monday the Government will be able to see their way to be more liberal towards the glebe tenants by capitalizing the whole of the arrears and adding them to the mortgage. On the occasion of the second reading debate, I asked whether the Government proposed to extend the same relief to purchasers under the Act of 1881 and those under the Act of 1870, and the Government said that the matter would be provided for by this Bill. I do not see that it is met by any of their proposed Amendments, and I call the attention of the Attorney General to that fact. [Mr. GOSCHEN: the clause is being prepared.] I have only to say, in conclusion, that we have had a full and fair statement from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which, I repeat, is one that will be received with great satisfaction in Ulster.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Order for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution [19th July] read—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £26,524, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
  MR.M'EWAN: Before this Vote is taken, Sir, I wish to bring under the notice of the House a case of flagrant injustice done to Pr. Grech, resident physician at Malta. On the 27th of December last a man arrived from Port Said with his face covered with pimples of a suspicious character;

  1727
  he went the same day to Dr. Grech, who pronounced his case small-pox. He immediately sent for the chief physician, who made an examination, and also pronounced it a case of small-pox; he ordered the patient to be isolated in the upper story of the house; on the 29th of the month three members of the family were also affected with the disease. The sanitary officer came and the deputy-inspector, and they told the patients that they must be removed to the lazaretto. Dr. Grech being referred to, pointed out that there was some danger, it being night, and the weather stormy and cold; and he said that the house was sufficiently large to enable them to isolate the whole of the patients. The chief physician was called in, the same arguments were used, and he also "would not take the responsibility of ordering the patients to the lazaretto: the whole three went to the police office for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the police. The superintendent did not reply, and Dr. Grech then ordered the attendant to go to Valetta for instructions. Upon that the police officer took from his pocket an order for the removal of the patients. Dr. Grech protested against their taking this nocturnal journey, and said, with, perhaps, some asperity, that it was a remarkable thing that the police should show so much activity, seeing that they had been so remiss in letting infected people come into the island. The policeman said he did not know anything about these matters, but was simply obeying orders. Dr. Grech then left. About an hour afterwards he was apprehended, put into an open boat, taken across the water, and when he landed at Valetta he found the magistrate waiting to try him. The policeman charged him with having insulted him and prevented him in the discharge of his duty. Dr. Grech requested that the trial might be postponed in order to get witnesses and prepare the defence; but the magistrate refused. He asked to have counsel, which the magistrate refused at first, but afterwards they were sent for. They had no opportunity of consulting Dr. Grech, and they knew nothing of the case; but they pointed out that it was not a case of urgency, and that it ought to be postponed till next day. The accused demanded that the men should be examined; but the police magistrate
  1728
  said that no further evidence was required, and he was condemned to prison for four days; he was taken to the common gaol of Corodino, where he was immediately ordered to strip and put on the prison dress, and he was thrust in amongst the convicted scoundrels of the island. There is in the prison no distinction of persons or crimes; the men guilty of the most trifling misdemeanour have to herd with the most abandoned criminals—assassins and thieves. Application was made to the Governor of the island to release Dr. Grech, or commute the sentence; but the Governor said he could not interfere with the course of law. This arrest was illegal, the trial was illegal, and the conviction was illegal. The charge that Dr. Grech had prevented the policeman from doing his duty broke down before the magistrate, because it was found to be utterly unsupported by his testimony. The policeman, as a matter of fact, did not remove the patients till the next day, and Dr. Grech was not arrested until an hour afterwards; according to the laws of Malta no prisoner can be tried until he has had two clear days to prepare his defence and get witnesses; but that law was totally disregarded, and consequently the conviction which followed was illegal. When Dr. Grech came out of prison he applied to the Court for a copy of the evidence on which he had been convicted, which was refused; he then applied to the Governor of the island, who also refused it. Dr. Grech did not hesitate to say that his object in asking for this was to lay the whole case before a higher authority. The Colonial Secretary, being an English gentleman, sent out a most indignant despatch, condemning the action taken against Dr. Grech; but there the matter ended, no apology being made. Objection was raised to giving the evidence, because as it was said a claim for redress might be founded upon it. I say that a great injustice has been done, and if redress is not given, or the means of getting redress are not furnished, it is evident to me that both the Governor of Malta and the Colonial Secretary do not think that a Maltese, although a subject of the Queen, is entitled to the same protection of the law as Englishmen. If this man had been an Englishman I think the right hon. Gen-

  1729
  tleman would not have contented himself with merely writing a despatch; if he had been an Englishman the probability is that the Governor of Malta would have been removed, and that the Colonial Secretary himself would not have felt very easy in his office. I think the Colonial Secretary has failed to do his duty in this case, and for that reason I move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£26,524," and insert "£25,524."— (Mr. M'Ewan.)
  Question proposed, "That, £26,524 stand part of the Resolution."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I am glad to recognize the very temperate manner in which this Amendment has been moved. I am not surprised at this very painful case creating attention, and I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for having brought it under their notice. I can assure the House that I have given to it my anxious and careful consideration, and I have not hesitated, as the hon. Member has frankly admitted, to express my opinion strongly upon it. I am not prepared to dispute many of the statements advanced by the hon. Gentleman; but I will venture to call the attention of the House to a point in the case which was hardly dwelt upon by the hon. Member. In removing these persons, convalescent as well as those who had not caught the disease, from this infected house the police were acting legally, and in strict accordance with a most useful sanitary law of Malta, especially framed to prevent the spread of disease. Looking to the importance of this preventive measure it is clearly very undesirable that any difficulties should be placed in the way of the police who are carrying out orders under that law. Now, I am bound to say that I think that Dr. Grech—though acting from an honest conviction that he was in the right—at one time overstepped the limits of discretion, and used language which the hon. Member admitted had some "asperity" in it, but which I should characterize in somewhat stronger terms. Dr. Grech, entertaining the views he did, had a right to protest; but he should have contented himself with such a protest, and not
  1730
  used language which was calculated to raise difficulties in the way of the legal action of the police in removing these persons from the infected house. But having said this much, I must now express my strong disapprobation of the subsequent proceedings, and of the unjust, I might almost say barbarous, treatment of Dr. Grech. With the permission of the House, I will read out three paragraphs of my Despatch of 17th June to the Governor, which fully and briefly express my view of the case—
  "3. After carefully considering Dr. Carbone's Report, and the depositions taken by the magistrate, I have failed to find any sufficient justification for the arrest of Dr. Grech, after he had ceased to interfere with the removal of the small-pox patients, or for the hasty trial of the charge at night; and I must add that the refusal of the magistrate to postpone the hearing until Dr. Grech could call witnesses, was, in my opinion, a denial of justice. I am further unable to find in the depositions any evidence of the alleged insult to the police, and even had this been otherwise, the sentence of four days' imprisonment was, considering Dr. Grech's position, in my opinion far too severe.
  "5. I regret to be obliged to come to the conclusion that Dr. Grech has been treated not only harshly, but unjustly, and the case strongly illustrates the necessity of the proposed amendment of the law by giving an appeal from the decisions of the magistrates.
  "6. I request that you will cause Dr. Grech to be informed that while I much regret his conduct in opposing the removal of the patients to the lazaretto, I have been obliged to express my strong disapproval of the proceedings taken against him."
  I may add that I have since received another Despatch from the Governor, giving me further explanations of the case; but that I have felt compelled, after consideration, to reply that I see no reason to modify my opinion. As regards the action of the Governor, I desire to say that he must be acquitted of blame. He acted on the advice of his Law Officer, and in the Colonies, as, indeed, in this country, the Government cannot be blamed for so acting. Sir Lintorn Simmons was fully justified in adopting the opinion of the Crown Advocate, though I confess I cannot myself agree with that opinion. Let me say also that the arrest has been spoken of as illegal. This is not the case—the arrest in itself was legal, although, in my opinion, the charge upon which it was made was not sustained before the magistrate. But subsequent failure of

  1731
  proof would not make the arrest illegal. I have been asked to reverse the sentence; but after inquiry into this point, I do not see how, in the absence of any appeal from the magistrate's decision, and after the sentence has been worked out, there could be any formal reversal. Nor, again, can I see how, or by whom, any formal apology can be given. Dr. Grech has received by my decision, which was communicated to him by the Governor, and which he can make public, and he will further receive from the debate this evening, a full admission of the justice of his complaints and of the harsh treatment to which he has been subjected. He is thus set right in the eyes of his family, his friends, and the public. I have been asked if I will direct compensation to be awarded to him. Well, in the first place, Dr. Grech himself has not made a formal application for compensation, and, after making inquiries upon this point, I find that the cases where compensation has been awarded are extremely rare, and that they are of a more serious character than the case under consideration. At the same time, if Dr. Grech should think it worth his while to make such application, I shall be prepared to give it careful consideration. In conclusion, I hope I have shown the House that I have dealt fairly with this very painful case, and that I have, as far as possible, remedied the injustice done to Dr. Grech.
  MR. CHILDERS: I also am aware of the facts of the case my hon. Friend (Mr. M'Ewan) has brought before the House, and I think he may well accept the answer of the Colonial Secretary (Sir Henry Holland). There is, however, one feature of the case which I hope the Colonial Secretary will not lose sight of. He has very properly stated that in matters of this kind the Governor is bound to follow the advice of his Law Officers, and that the very distinguished general officer who is Governor of Malta did what was proper in taking the advice given him. I think the Colonial Secretary may well consider whether the Crown Advocate or principal Law Officer has shown in this matter anything like competency for the Office he holds. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not postpone dealing with this case till a proper system of appeal is established; but that at once
  1732
  he will consider whether the Crown Advocate is really competent for the Office he fills. This is a delicate question, and I should not wish to carry it further. There has been a gross miscarriage of justice, arising, apparently, from the Advocate's incompetency; but, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to go to a Division.
  MR. ANDERSON: I heard with great gratification some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, though I was very much surprised, having attended closely to the case, to hear him say he thinks this arrest was not illegal. Anything more monstrous than the arrest of this gentleman I cannot conceive. Do let me remind the House what the charge was. The charge against this doctor was that he had interfered with the police in the discharge of their duty. That is not proved; I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will say that is not proved. But that was not the charge of which he was convicted. Is there existing at Malta any power by which the police can arrest a person for an offence which he has not committed? What this doctor did was simply this: he suggested, on a winter's evening at the end of December, that it was very dangerous to remove people in the height of small-pox four miles in an open carriage. I think his suggestion was most humane, and if he had not made it he would grossly have neglected his duty. The policeman produced his order, and insisted upon taking these people to the hospital four miles off, and because the doctor said—"You will endanger the lives of these people if you do it," he was charged with interfering with the police in the discharge of their duty. But the doctor was convicted of one of the most extraordinary offences ever heard of in the world. He was acquitted upon the charge of interfering with the police in the discharge of their duty, but found guilty of having addressed "indeterminate reproaches" to the police. It appears that in the law of Malta there is a clause which enables persons who have been guilty of what are called "indeterminate reproaches"—but I think I ought to read the clause to the House. It is very short, but nevertheless instructive. There

  1733
  are several clauses about insult, but one of them says—
  "If the insult consists of mere vague expressions, indeterminate reproaches, or words or acts merely indecent, the offence shall fall under the class of contraventions, and the person charged and convicted shall be punished with one month's imprisonment;"
  and then follow definitions as to what indeterminate reproaches mean. It is startling to us in this country, who recently have had considerable enlightenment on Criminal Law, to hear of such a state of things as exists in Malta. It is an indeterminate reproach for a doctor to lodge a protest against four people being removed in an open carriage, and on a winter's night, to a lazaretto four miles distant. For making this protest he was arrested. I entirely fail to see on what possible ground this arrest can be declared legal. It is monstrous to hear a Minister of the Crown say he thinks the arrest is legal. It is shameful to think that a subject of Malta can be taken off to prison for having acted as Dr. Grech did, brought before a magistrate at 9 o'clock at night, and refused an adjournment in order that his counsel and witnesses might be sent for. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Hon. Members may cry "Agreed!" but this is a very important subject, and we mean to have it discussed. I venture to say no more important matter has been brought before the attention of the House; and I protest against the action of the Maltese authorities in respect to it. I have great sympathy with the Motion my hon. Friend has made, and I think that something ought to be done in the matter. I am disappointed I did not hear from the Government a single word of real redress in the case. It must be conceded that Dr. Grech has been shamefully treated. Is the magistrate who acted in the case to remain in his position? Is there no power to prevent a recurrence of this state of things? I think the magistrate ought to be removed; I think the policeman ought to be dismissed; and, what is more, I think the Governor, Sir Lintorn Simmons—of whom I know nothing, but who, I have no doubt, is an officer of great experience—should, when the facts were laid before him on the following day, have disregarded all the redtapeism, and have instantly ordered the discharge of the official at fault. The
  1734
  statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not satisfactory. He holds out no hope that the magistrate will be removed; and, therefore, I, for one, will most heartily go into the Division Lobby with my hon. Friend.
  MR. HUNTER: I should not have risen to address the House at this late hour (12.45) if this had been the only case of gross maladministration of justice at Malta which has come under my notice. I should like the House to consider the extraordinary character of this case. Dr. Grech protested against the removal of four patients in an open carriage, on a winter's night, to a lazaretto four miles distant, when there was plenty of accommodation in the house of the patients—plenty of room for isolation. Dr. Grech was arrested on a false charge in order to justify the arrest. The charge of having obstructed the police was withdrawn, and the charge of "indeterminate reproaches" substituted. Dr. Grech was taken at 8 o'clock at night before a magistrate, who, as a matter of fact, was not on the rota for trying cases that night, and at half-past 10 o'clock the conviction was recorded, no postponement having been allowed for the attendance of the prisoner's witnesses or counsel. Could anything be more monstrously injudicial on the part of any magistrate? I submit that unless we receive from the Government some assurance that the magistrate will be dismissed, we ought to go to a Division as a protest against his conduct. Lot us consider the next step in the case. The very next day an appeal was made to the Governor. As the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary truly says, the Governor cannot be held responsible for a decision of this kind; he must, undoubtedly, act by the advice of his Law Officers. But, surely, in a case so gross as this—four days' imprisonment, four days' herding with criminals of the most abandoned type, for the offence of protesting against the removal in an open carriage, on a winter's night, of respectable patients from their own home to a lazaretto—no officer could be justified in refusing to give redress. I consider the officer who advised the Governor equally guilty with the magistrate who convicted the man, and I trust the Colonial Secretary

  1735
  will be able to give us some assurance in the direction—not of compensation of Dr. Grech, for I do not think compensation is sufficient—of preventing similar oases occurring in the future. I remember that a very gross miscarriage of justice occurred not very long ago. There is something very wrong in the administration of justice in Malta, and it is absolutely necessary a reform should be made.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I think that so far as Dr. Grech is concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. M'Ewan) might very well be content with the statement made to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, for that right hon. Gentleman has stated that this is a case in which justice has been denied, in which the insult that was charged against the prisoner did not take place, and in which the sentence which was passed upon him was excessive. He has pronounced the opinion that in the eyes of the public Dr. Grech has been acquitted, and with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman Dr. Grech and his friends might well be content this case should pass away. But there is one consideration to which I wish to direct attention. There is the justice of Great Britain in one of its smallest Colonies to be vindicated. The question of compensation has been mentioned, and the Colonial Secretary has offered to do more in that direction than anybody could have expected. But compensation is nothing to the point. What we want is that the men who have lowered the name of Britain in the Colony should be punished. We want a full inquiry— a fuller inquiry than has yet taken place. We want the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself to go into the case more fully, and to carry punishment as high as punishment ought to be carried, even if it should reach as high as the Governor himself. Let the magistrate be punished, let the Crown Advocate who has given bad advice be punished, and if there are higher officials who have been guilty, let punishment reach them also. I agree with my hon. Friends that we have been amply justified in bringing this case forward by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to carry punishment higher my
  1736
  hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. M'Ewan) will certainly be justified in carrying his Motion to a Division.
  Question put.
  The House divided.— Ayes 162; Noes 74: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 314.) [12.55 A.M.]
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £172, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, & c. for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.'"
  Resolutions agreed to.

DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 307.]
[Mr. Arthur Solicitor, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Colonel King-Harman.)
DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 307.]

  COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [11th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for Committee on the Bill."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. DILLON: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I wish to say a few words in regard to this matter. I have been desirous of having this Bill discussed in order that I might elicit from the Government some final and definite declaration as to what Amendments they are willing to make, or what concessions they are prepared to give, in order that we who represent constituencies in Ireland may know what is our real position in regard to the Bill. The more I have examined this Bill, and the more I have had the opportunity of communicating with the people of the West of Ireland with regard to it, the less I like it. I am convinced that it is the duty of Irish Members to oppose the Bill to the best of their ability. I must first of all direct attention to the Memorandum which was circulated with the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Bill by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on which Memorandum the Bill is founded. This Memorandum, I take the liberty of saying, is one of the most extraordinary and reckless documents that was ever issued by a Minister of the Crown. It is the most slipshod document I ever

  1737
  read from a responsible Minister, and it bears on the face of it the most clear evidence that the Chief Secretary did not take the trouble to study the Blue Book of the Royal Commission which sat to consider the matter, and which, made a Report thereon. Let me now endeavour to substantiate this proposition. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman makes the following charge. He says—
  "To meet the distress which in those Unions was expected to occur before harvest last year, Parliament sanctioned as a free grant from public funds the expenditure of a sum of £20,000 to be used in outdoor relief. The Guardians squandered the money so obtained in the most reckless fashion. They exercised no supervision themselves, and they took no precautions that supervision should be exercised by anybody else."
  That is a most serious charge to make, and whilst I admit that shocking and painful irregularities occurred in the administration of the relief, I say that for the making of a charge of so sweeping a character there is no justification to be found in the Blue Book. Let me point out how carelessly drawn is this Memorandum on the very face of it. I will not go beyond the Memorandum itself to show the carelessness of the Chief Secretary. Near the end of page 3, the following passage occurs: —
  "In the case of Belmullet, in which, it may be observed, the Guardians were not guilty of the same maladministration as those of the other Unions."
  This is gravely stated, although, earlier on, it is alleged against all these Unions affected by the Bill, that they squandered the money obtained from the public funds in the most reckless fashion, and "exercised no supervision themselves." The Memorandum goes on to state—
  "The result was what might have been anticipated. Parliament authorized the expenditure of £20,000 in charity. On the strength of this, the Unions in question spent £35,000; producing no other permanent effect whatever upon the district than to plunge it more deeply into debt, and to increase the demoralization of the population."
  That is a most exaggerated statement. What "permanent effect" did the Government hope to bring about? Why they hoped to save the people from starvation, and in. that effect they were successful. What on earth the Chief Secretary, therefore, means by "producing no other permanent effect whatever" than demoralization, I fail to understand. It is my belief, looking at this Memo-
  1738
  randum, that the Chief Secretary had not read the evidence which I shall call attention to presently—
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow rue to interrupt him for a moment. A short time ago a Question was addressed to us on these Benches by a right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether this Bill would be proceeded with to-night, and the answer was that it would not be taken. When the hon. Gentleman appealed to me a few moments back, I thought it was to be taken, as I was not aware of the previous arrangement made. Perhaps it would be fair, under the circumstances, if a Motion for the adjournment of the debate were taken. I do not know whether it will be an inconvenience to the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon); but after the representation made by us to the Front Bench opposite, it is most desirable that the Bill should not be proceeded with now.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Take it on Monday.
  MR. DILLON: I did not understand that the Question had been asked. I understood, on the contrary, that the stage was adjourned from Monday last to Thursday to suit my convenience.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to state what took place. A question was asked me across the Table by a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench—a right hon. Gentleman who has now gone away—as to whether the Bill was to be taken tonight? The answer I gave was "No;" and I understand that in consequence of that answer the right hon. Gentleman has gone away. I alone am responsible for what took place.
  MR. DILLON: Under the circumstances, if I do not lose the right of speaking, I shall have no objection to the adjournment.
  MR. JACKSON: Move the adjournment.
  MR. DILLON: I move the adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [Lords.]
(Mr. Solicitor General.)
SHERIFFS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [Lords.]

  [BILL 262.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I make an appeal to the Government? When this Bill was down before I got the promise from them that they would give some attention to the subject, with the view of having the measure applied to Ireland. The measure is now blocked; but I think some influence might be brought to bear upon those who have put down the block in order to get them to remove it if an understanding is given that the Bill will be applied to Ireland. I think some of the principles of the measure are good.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I remember the hon. Gentleman referring to this question some time ago, and, no doubt, the subject is worthy of attention. My impression, however, is that the Irish Acts are too simple to be worth consolidation, and that this measure could not be extended to Ireland. I undertake to look into the matter, if necessary.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 220.]
(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Baggallay, Mr. Arthur Cohen, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Sir Lyon Playfair.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 220.]

  CONSIDERATION. THIRD READING.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to put a Question to the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill (Sir John Lubbock) on a matter with regard to which I spoke to him some time ago. In the commencement of the Bill it says that the provisions shall not apply to Scotland or Ireland; but when I applied to the hon. Baronet, I did not gather from him that he was opposed to their being so extended. I would now ask the hon. Baronet and the Government, whether they do not think that the provisions could be extended to Ireland? Perhaps the Irish Attorney General will give us a guarantee that he will consider the matter, and, if he sees no harm in the extension I propose, will see that
  1740
  it is effected. The Bill is a non-contentious one, and if it can be extended to Ireland it will be as well for the House to extend it.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I proposed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derry, whose name is on the back of the Bill, that the Bill should be extended to Ireland. That hon. Member, however, did not think it necessary. For my own part I should have been glad to do so.
  Amendments made.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: The Amendments we have agreed to have not been in any way contentious; therefore, I would now ask the House to allow us to take the third reading.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time."— (Sir John Lubbock.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SCHOOL FEES (NON-PAUPERS) BILL.
[Mr. Llewellyn, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Hohhouse, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Quilter).
SCHOOL FEES (NON-PAUPERS) BILL.

  [BILL 106.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. It is not necessary for me, in making the Motion, to detain the House for more than one moment—
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to the circumstances connected with this Bill. Although the measure, as it appears on the Paper, is not blocked, I wish to ask you, under circumstances to which I would briefly draw attention, whether it ought not to appear with a block? The Bill was down for second reading on 22nd June—it was on the Orders of the Day for that day. There is no entry on the votes respecting it on that day; and in the weekly statement we have furnished to us it appears on the 27nd of June as "dropped," and also on the 4th of July, the 11th of July, and the 18th of July. On the Orders of the Day of yesterday there was no Notice of the Bill; but on the Votes of yesterday there was an entry to the effect that the second reading was fixed for to-day. I would ask you, Sir, whether the block which was

  1741
  on the Bill when it was dropped does not apply to to-day? I would ask you, Sir, if that is not so, whether it is not an abuse of the Forms of the House for a Member to re-establish a Bill on a Wednesday and then to bring it on the very next day, within the 24 hours? If that were legitimate every Bill might be so brought on as to evade a block. There would be no opportunity of blocking any Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is obvious that if a Bill which has been on the Paper for some time, and is blocked, is suddenly revived great hardships would be caused by preventing the power of blocking it. If my memory serves me aright, I think I have already ruled that a block ought to adhere to a Bill, under such circumstances as those referred to, until the measure appears reinstated upon the Paper in the usual way and there has been an opportunity for the original block to expire. I think the block ought to operate to-night. Perhaps the hon. Member will name another day.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: Tomorrow.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: The block will still remain, Sir?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; until the original period expires.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Licensed Premises (Earlier Closing) (Scotland)* (183).
Second Reading—Margarine (Fraudulent Sale) (169); Coroners (177).
Committee—First Offenders (140–182).
Committee—Report—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment* (176).
Report—Copyhold Enfranchisement (180).
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Tramways* (181).
Third Reading— Public Health (Scotland) (Cowdenbeath Water) * (154); Public Health (Scotland) (Duntocher and Dalmuir Water) * (167); Pier and Harbour (No. 2)* (137); Gas and Water* (131), and passed.

THE MAR PEERAGE.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, who had the following Motion on the Paper:—
  "That the prayer of the Earl of Mar in his petition presented on the 27th ultimo, for an investigation into the connection between the Mar estates and the ancient Mar dignity, with the view to obtain an unprejudiced re-hearing in a court of law, of his right to the estates of Mar, be granted."
  said that, not having been able to bring his Motion on in the House at the conclusion of Tuesday's Sitting he put it down for to-night, and he could not now proceed with it, owing to the number of Bills which had since been placed on the Notice Paper which took precedence of it. He begged to give Notice that he would postpone the Motion till Tuesday, the 2nd August. He could not put it down for an earlier date, as until then he should have to be in Scotland in consequence of official duties. He wished to make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to prevent any Government Bills being put down for that date which would necessarily have precedence of it. He thought he had some claim to this indulgence, as he could have brought on the Motion on Monday, but he gave way in order that the Government might bring on the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he thought it his duty to inform the noble Lord, that if the Motion was ever made he should be obliged to submit to the House that it ought not to be entertained. Not only was it a private matter
  1572
  which could only be dealt with judicially by the House, but it was in regard to property which had been the subject of solemn litigation, and of a decision by the Court of Session, affirmed by their Lordships 10 years ago, as the Court of Final Appeal. There was a Standing Order of the House, that matters pending, or which at any former time had been pending before the House in its judicial capacity, should be referred to the Committee of Appeals. This Notice was in direct contravention of that Standing Order. When he saw the Notice on the Paper it occurred to him that it was not one that should be permitted to be debated, as it might lead to serious results. He was not in favour of one person more than another in the matter. With him it was merely a matter of principle. It seemed to him that no more illegal or unconstitutional Notice was ever put upon the Table of this House. If the Motion came before their Lordships, he should move that the Question be not put, as the most respectful way of dealing with it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that he must refer the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) to the Prime Minister for an answer to his question.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that he had put the Motion on the Table of the House several times, and his only motive for postponing it was to suit the convenience of the House. Of course, after the statement which had been made by the noble and learned Lord (the Earl of Selborne), he would consider whether it would be right on his part to proceed with his Motion. But it would have been much better if the noble and learned Lord had heard the grounds on which he made the request. He was sure that his noble and learned Friend would not take exception to anything which he would have to say. He was simply going to urge that the prayer of the Petition which had been presented should be answered. He had nothing whatever to do with the Petition itself, and he did not attempt to approve of all its terms. The noble Duke, who had first placed the Motion on the Paper, was not able to be present, and had asked him to undertake it. He did not feel inclined to say "No." If he did not bring it on, it would appear as if he were running away from what he had undertaken.

  1573
  He hoped the noble and learned Lord would not think it was out of any disrespect to him if he ventured to put the Motion down in order that he might have an opportunity of explaining the special grounds why, without going into the judicial or legislative questions, it would not be out of reason to entertain the Motion. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships' attention to the subject, and hoped the Prime Minister would prevent Government Bills interfering with its consideration on the 2nd August.
  THE PEIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he did not think his noble Friend was aware of the state of the Orders of the House. On Tuesdays or Thursdays any Bill, Government or not, that was put down took precedence of all Notices of Motion, and if the Government was to abstain from putting down Bills they could have no security that the noble Lord's Motion would be considered. Why should not the noble Lord put down his Motion for Monday 1st instead of Tuesday 2nd August?
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: It will be Bank holiday.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is nothing to prevent us sitting on that day. It would be an admirable day for such a discussion.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: Then I will put the Motion down for Monday the 1st August.
  Motion postponed.

FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No. 140.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No. 140.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after the word ("That") and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee)."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the Lord Chief Justice had expressed his desire for some such measure as this, and opposed the reference to a Select Committe.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he agreed with the Lord Chief Justice, and
  1574
  earnestly hoped the Bill would be proceeded with, and not referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he should be very sorry if their Lordships objected to the Bill. He considered its objects excellent.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that the Amendments of the Lord Chancellor, which he accepted, would alter the scope of the Bill to a considerable extent in the way of limitation; they would make the Bill shorter and clearer; and, therefore, he thought it would be better that the Bill should be reprinted with those Amendments. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would go into Committee pro formâ.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 182.)

SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL,—(No. 43.)
(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
SMOKE NUISANCE ABATEMENT (METROPOLIS) BILL,—(No. 43.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he hoped that their Lordships would not consent to go into Committee until the evidence taken before the Select Committee which had considered this question was before the House. This was a most important measure, seeing that it was not confined to manufactories, but extended to every private dwelling in the Metropolis; and the effect of the Bill would be that it would be open to an inspector to enter any room in any house, and see what sort of fires they were burning. That would be, he submitted, an intolerably inquisitorial power. The Bill also gave to the vestries the power of drawing a line between houses of particular valuations, with a view to exempting some. He had received a letter from the Vestry of St. James's, in which they objected strongly to the principle of the Bill, and espe-

  1575
  cially to the exemption of property above or below a certain valuation. He was most anxious that their Lordships should have before them the evidence to which he had referred; and he, therefore, would ask his noble Friend, to kindly postpone this stage of the Bill.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, that the Government had an Amendment down dealing with the point to which the noble Earl took exception, and when that was reached the noble Earl could support it.
  EARL BROWNLOWsaid, that the evidence taken before the Committee was of very great importance, and it was most desirable that it should be before the House before the Bill was considered. He, therefore, felt bound to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to postpone this stage.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLsaid, he was not aware that the evidence had not come before their Lordships. Under the circumstances, lie should ask leave to postpone the order till Monday.
  Committee of the Whole House put off to Monday next.

MARGARINE (FRAUDULENT SALE) BILL.—(No. 169.)
(The Viscount Powerscourt.)
MARGARINE (FRAUDULENT SALE) BILL.—(No. 169.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to prevent the sale of a certain compound, not butter, under that name. A letter had appeared in The Times, which their Lordships no doubt had seen, from Sir Lyon Playfair, suggesting that, instead of margarine, this substance should be called "butter substitute." Others suggested that it should be known, by the name of "butterine." The object of a Bill of this kind was to make the law as difficult of evasion as possible. After many consultations on the subject, in some of which he had taken part, the agriculturists of England and Ireland had decided that the name "margarine" was most likely to carry out the desired object. Therefore, he hoped their Lord ships would retain that name in the Bill. There were one or two matters with regard to the clauses of the Bill which
  1576
  he should like to notice. In the second clause it was proposed to be enacted that the word "margarine" should mean the various substances mentioned in the clause, and that they should not be sold except under the name of "margarine." That was the view of people who were engaged in the butter trade. To the third clause an Amendment was suggested, but these were matters to be dealt with in Committee. Clause 5 was also proposed to be amended; but it should, not be done unless a proviso was inserted that a person giving a warranty should not be a man of straw, but a man of substance. Since coming to the House he had received a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, to whom the Bill had been referred, and the evidence taken by that Committee could be sent for. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Viscount Powerscourt.)
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, that this was by no means the first time this question had come before Parliament. Last Session a Bill was introduced into the other House, backed by the names of Members from Ireland, and a Bill was also introduced last year into their Lordships' House by Lord Vernon, which he professed his willingness to modify in accordance with suggestions made by the then Government. The present Bill was referred to a Select Committee in the other House, and that Select Committee had made certain recommendations with reference to the sale of margarine, of which the noble Lord had spoken. One of the recommendations of the Select Committee relating to the name under which the commodity should be sold was opposed in the other House, and rejected by a majority. The hon. Members who carried that vote had not had an opportunity of Reading the evidence upon which the Committee founded its Report; and it was most desirable that their Lordships should not be in the same position in deciding the question. Therefore, it would be better to wait until the House had the evidence taken by the Select Committee before it. He understood the noble Viscount was willing to postpone the Committee stage of the Bill till the end of next week.
  LORD BASINGsaid, that as he was Chairman of the Select Committee of the other House with reference to this Bill, he should like to make one or two observations. The provisions of the Bill, with one exception, were practically agreed to by all Parties on the Committee. The persons representing the trade in this butter substitute were very honourably distinguished by the readiness with which they agreed to accept any restrictions or regulations which Parliament might think fit to impose with a view of carrying out the objects of the Bill. Unfortunately, there was great difference of opinion as to whether the butter substitute should be called "butterine" or "margarine." Upon that question he would only make this observation—that by the use of the term "butterine" this substance had become so well known as to obtain a great market. That, on the one hand, was in favour of butterine; but, on the other, it could not be doubted that the word "butterine" had greatly increased the fraudulent sale of the article. The appearance of the material produced, which was manufactured with care and as a proper and wholesome article of food—its appearance as well as its name had greatly increased its sale. The practical importance of the Bill being agreed upon, he ventured to hope that their Lordships would pass the second Reading, although he agreed that some time ought to elapse before coming to a decision upon the only important question that arose with regard to the Bill. The noble Lord opposite had referred to Clause 5 as needing some Amendment; but he would point out that it was practically only a reprint of a clause in the Food and Drugs Act, and had never done any mischief. It did not follow that because the allegation was made that an article had been sold is the same state as it was received with a warranty from the wholesale dealer the Court would accept that statement without evidence. He ventured to hope that the clause might be retained in the Bill. He should like also to suggest that the commencement of the Act should be postponed till the 1st of January next year, as it would be hard on many persons that it should be brought into immediate operation.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, whatever might have been the evidence offered to the Committee, there was a
  1578
  strong feeling amongst agriculturists, which had reached him from various quarters against the use of the term "butterine," which, obviously, was a word open to misrepresentation. It was clear that a tradesman in exposing the title "butterine" to his customers could so manipulate the ticket that the customer should only see the word "butter," and not the final "ine." The result of the use of the word had been that the substance was mistaken for butter and its price had been raised. While butterine was only worth from 4½d. to 6d. per pound, through being mistaken for butter, its price had risen to 10½d. to 1s.. per pound. Practical agriculturists and farmers were unanimous in wishing that the sale of pure butter should be insured by a substitute not being permitted to be sold under a name which caused it to be mistaken for butter. Unless some strong reason were shown, he trusted their Lordships would retain the name adopted by the other House.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that in Committee he intended to move that the word "butterine" should be substituted wherever "margarine" occurred in the Bill. The Committee of the House of Commons, having heard the evidence, adopted the word butterine on Division by 2 to 1. It was not margarine, and it was not desirable to give it a false name. Margarine was the substance from which butterine was made. Margarine was pressed fat, and was manufactured into butterine by a wholesome process in which milk was used. The substance so manufactured had been known in the trade for the last 12 years as butterine, and during that period it had been sold to the extent of £4,000,000 in value. It would be most unfair now to throw suspicion upon the article by changing its name from butterine to margarine. If any thing were to be done to prevent fraud and adulteration as regards articles of this character it should be effected by means of a general Act, and not by a Bill of this character. He should endeavour to draw up a general Bill of the nature he had indicated. Of the 87 who voted in the House of Commons in favour of margarine 46 were Irish Members, who were interested in suppressing butterine as a rival of butter; but it should be remembered

  1579
  that farmers were interested in the sale of suet, from which butterine was largely made. He was glad to hear that the Committee stage of the Bill was to be postponed for a week in order that their Lordships might have an opportunity of reading the evidence given before the Committee which had been appointed to consider this subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought all were agreed that it was desirable to give a second Reading to the Bill, and that there should be an interval of some days before the Committee. In his opinion it would be equally absurd to object to the term "velveteen" instead of worsted, because of its similarity to "velvet," as to object to the term butterine. There are two textures, one is called velvet, the other velveteen, the former of a much finer material, the second, probably as worn for clothing. What would be thought of a Bill rejecting the name of velveteen which has been known for years, in order to give the substance the name of worsted, which does not describe it, but which describes one element of it, upon the excuse of its being necessary to protect the velvet makers?
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that the object of those who objected to the word butterine was to prevent the public from being imposed upon. He thought that the question might be settled by the introduction of both words, "margarine and butterine" being given to the title of the Bill, as both these substances, which were quite different from one another, were strictly defined in the Bill.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THR COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK)said, that he had seen the substance called butterine, which resembled butter, but which contained no trace of butter. The term butterine was calculated to mislead people into believing that the substance was of the nature of butter. It was therefore necessary to discriminate between those who made a well-manufactured article and those who made a bad and unwholesome mixture; otherwise the Bill would be an idle one.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he objected to the substance being called by the name of margarine, which it certainly was not.
  EARL FORTESCUEthought that it would be better to discuss all these points
  1580
  in Committee after the evidence which had been taken on the subject was in. their hands.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, what was wanted was an honest name. "Butterine" was a false name adopted to deceive the public.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 1st of August next.

CORONERS BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Lord Chanellor.)
CORONERS BILL.—(No. 176.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day far the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was simply a measure for consolidating existing Statutes.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he hoped that with this Consolidation Bill the subject of the amendment of the law would not be lost sight of. He could not help feeling impressed by the slow way in which we moved in matters of this sort. Some years ago he recommended an amendment of the law, and pointed out the direction which it should take. The consequence of the observations which he made was that an Act was passed by the State of Massachusetts, and he believed at least one other State followed the example. He had since heard that the Act was working extremely well. In this country where his observations had been made the law stood just as it was when he spoke 10 years ago.
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that one of the most successful pieces of our legislation had its origin with his noble and learned Friend, he meant the consolidation of the law with respect to bills of exchange. One argument in support of the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack he derived from his noble and learned Friend—namely, that the best way to see what Amendments were required in any body of law, was to consolidate the existing laws.
  LORD THRING, as Chairman of the Committee for the Revision of the Statute Law, said, he hoped the Bill

  1581
  would be passed without any amendment altering the law. Any material improvement in the form of the Statute Law must be made by the aid of numerous Acts consolidating the scattered provisions of the law; and experience showed that such Acts could not be passed unless an assurance was given that they did not materially alter the law.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he did not mean that their Lordships should not pass this Consolidation Bill; but he hoped that that would not interfere with the amendment of the law relating to Coroners.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that when any change was made in the law, it would be very necessary to deal with the question of the election of Coroners. As the freeholders of a county elected a Coroner, there was a long and expensive canvass, whenever there was a contest, as in most oases happened; and he know for certain that the usefulness of some coroners had been permanently injured by the embarrassments into which they had fallen in consequence.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, that when he had the honour of being at the Home Office he brought in a Bill dealing with Coroners' elections. He knew the enormous expense of such contests in Lancashire, and he believed that it had seriously affected the usefulness of those officers. He, for one, would wish to see some other mode of election, but the first step to reform would be the consolidation of the law.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
COPYHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

  (NO. 180.) REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that all their Lordships were agreed that where, in fact, the right of forfeiture was not of any pecuniary value at all, which was the case in the vast majority of instances, it ought to be excluded from consideration. He proposed, on the third Reading, to move an Amendment to that effect.
  Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

NEW ZEALAND.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD SANDHURSTsaid, he had ventured to put on the Paper a Notice referring to the subject of the emigration of pensioners to New Zealand for two reasons. First, he hoped to induce their Lordships to agree with him that the idea he was about to ventilate was one which would be beneficial to the pensioner and to the Colony, and also to the advantage of the Mother Country; and, secondly, he proposed to call their Lordships' attention to the circumstances of the pensioner who, although in receipt of a pension, was not, owing to regulations, in a position to avail himself of the advantages which the receipt of such a pension should suggest. His object was to improve the position of the pensioner, direct his attention to the advantages of emigration, and facilitate that emigration which should not interfere with the labour market in the Colony. If, by a process of this kind, we could induce a stream of those men to go out, we should be forming a fresh link and direct association with the Colony, which, in itself, was sufficient to recommend the general idea to their Lordships. Again, the majority of those pensioners lived near and in the towns. The labour market was, as they were all painfully aware, greatly congested even in the agricultural districts, and if they could provide a system of this kind of emigration they might, though perhaps, imperceptably at first lessen the pressure. Successful men in the Colonies attracted others, and that pensioners had been successful as Colonists there was little difficulty in showing. There had been lately great interest taken in the subject of Colonial defence. He could not, of course, say what determination Her Majesty's Government had come to at the Colonial Conference; but whatever that determination might be, a body of pensioners could not fail to be of use in assisting any scheme. If only a small body went out they would form a valuable disciplined nucleus for a defence force, for he should suggest, if his plan came to anything, the pensioners being made liable to serve in New Zealand for Colonial defence, as they were liable to be called on by the War Office up to a certain age. If, on the other hand, a large number emigrated, he

  1583
  thought that the Imperial and Colonial Governments would find them of the greatest use. There was this difference between Australia and New Zealand in regard to defence. He believed that between Sydney and Victoria, there was no point at which a large force could be landed with a prospect of doing great harm if one of the great cities were attacked, the railway system was such that forces could be brought from Brisbane to Adelaide. New Zealand was different, it was a difficult country to defend on account of its innumerable harbours, and the formation of the country did not admit of sufficiently rapid communication between all parts. If they had stations of pensioners—disciplined veterans—who could be available, he thought that the men would materially aid in naval defencs. No one travelling in Now Zealand could fail to be struck by the advantages which that Colony offered for emigration, whether from England, India, or elsewhere. The Colony had truly been described as a paradise for working men. A comparatively short time ago the Government of New Zealand, with the dual purpose of opening up the country and attracting populations to settle on the land instead of staying in the towns, passed a Bill leasing on very advantageous terms to the occupier holdings from one to 50 acres. Success attended the effort, and Captain Daveney, the Imperial pensions officer, a gentleman of great experience and knowledge, bearing in mind the successful attempt of Sir George Grey to establish pensioners' settlements, perceived that great opportunities were offered for pensioners. He obtained from the Minister of Lands leave to send information on the subject to India in case there might be time-expired men who might be desirous of settling in New Zealand instead of returning to England, for their Lordships would remember that a time-expired man in India was given his choice of a passage home or to a colony; and, moreover, the Minister remarked that if anything came of the plan he would direct the Surveyor General to set aside good land for pensioners' settlements. These leases were on very favourable terms, and, moreover, there were great advantages for poor men in the Colony. Elementary education was free, and food was generally cheaper than in England. There was far more chance for a man
  1584
  raising himself and gaining a competency there than here, and his children would, no doubt prosper more than himself, as there would be plenty of employment for them as they grew up. The idea was really a development under more favourable conditions of what was done in this way by Sir George Grey, and now there was no chance of disturbances with the Maoris which the early pioneers had to fear. He was informed that all who stayed on their land did well. He had received the following from the Imperial pensions officer:—
  "Sir George Grey founded five settlements. The pensioners lived on their lands until death. They managed not only to live well and bring up their families respectably, but numbers of their descendants still cling to their allotments and would not part with them. About 150 of these men still remain. I go out quarterly to pay their pensions, and it is a pleasure to look at their neat cottages and gardens. Most of them have been 40 years in their present abode."
  Sir George Grey also testified to the success of the scheme. He had received a letter from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir M. O'Rorke, who said—
  "I am very glad you are endeavouring to promote the introduction of additional pensioners into this Colony, and I hasten to offer you my testimony in favour of the scheme. I settled in the pensioners' settlements 31 years ago, and have represented it for 27 years uninterruptedly in the New Zealand Parliament. These settlements are unlike anything I have seen in Australia; the pensioners and their families having evidently taken root in the soil, and not indulging in the rambling propensities of other classes of Colonists. I can hardly decide in looking back over the last 30 years whether the Colony or the pensioners profited most by Sir George Grey's scheme. I consider it absolutely necessary that the pensioners should be accompanied by their wives."
  That, he considered, was very valuable testimony. The pensioner was himself a capitalist with this advantage, that he could not spend his money in gin shops immediately on arrival at the port of debarkation. The men who go out must be pensioners and not those who had commuted the whole of their pension. Therefore, he did not wish to ask the Government for capital to carry out this idea. But there was a difficulty confronting them which might easily be got over—namely, the payment of passages out to New Zealand of a pensioner and his family. With regard to Army pensioners, there were some 85,000. The

  1585
  average age at which a soldier after 21 years' service went on the non-effective list was 39 to 40, and the average rate of pension of a sound, healthy man was 15 d. to 16 d., the average number discharged per annum being 2,000. The pensioner might have his pension paid him in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions without having to obtain leave to go; therefore he might go to any Colony. If, however, he went to any foreign country before the age of 50 his pension was stopped. After 50 he might draw his pension in any part of the world. He could not commute his pension until after 50, and he must commute the whole or none. If he did commute his pension, he only capitalized it at four years' purchase instead of at the actuarial rate allowed to officers, which would be 11 years' purchase. The principle of allowing a man to commute the whole of his pension was, in his opinion, a bad one, because after a time, having had every temptation to throw his money away, and never having been in possession of such a sum before, he was very likely to return starving. But although he was opposed to commutation, he did think that if it was allowed at all it ought to be allowed at such an estimate of years' purchase as would be obtainable from an annuity company. An officer could commute a portion of his pension so long as he did not leave less than a third of it, or less than £80, and the computation of the number of years' purchase was based upon actuarial calculation. He thought it hard that a private soldier should have to take four years' purchase at 50 years of age when the proper rate would be 11. If at 39 he were allowed to commute a small proportion, he might then have sufficient to pay his passage, or, at any rate, to pay all but a very small margin of his passage out. Then he should like to remind their Lordships that this system of four years' purchase was started under very different circumstances than the present. In 1830 it was thought desirable to emigrate 1,500. When they were sent out their pension was commuted at only four years' purchase, as the land given them then was supposed to represent the remaining value. Now the four years' system obtains, although the land representing the remaining value was not given. As he had said, he was strongly opposed to pensions
  1586
  being entirely commuted, as were also the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital. But, at the same time, if the principle were allowed it ought to be done at a fair rate, and, as was the case with officers, a portion might with advantage be commuted if the family were desirous to emigrate, so as to give a pensioner enough to pay his passage and leaving him the remainder of the pension to be received on landing. An advance of nine months was already given; but that was of use only to single men, for the sum realized would not be sufficient to pay for a family, and as the voyage only takes six or seven weeks, the emigrant would find himself without means on arrival. Possibly if the noble Lord did not approve this plan, perhaps he would consider the desirability of a loan, with repayment spread over a term of years, which would be deducted from the pension. He hoped the question would be carefully considered, both by the War Office and the Colonial Office. He had treated the pension as a reward for past services, and not entirely as a retainer for the future. But he had been told that his proposal would denude the country of some of its Reserve Forces. But the pensioners were only a substratum of reserve, were never called out, and were paid by Post Office order where they liked. The enrolled pensioners, who, no doubt, were a valuable force, served under an agreement at £1 per quarter. Pensioners did not belong to it merely from the fact of their being pensioners; it was an enlistment on their part, though he did not underrate pensioners, and he thought the pensioner would be more useful as a defender in New Zealand than he would be England. The idea had been approved by many in New Zealand, and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce passed a Resolution in its favour. Some time ago the Prime Minister received a deputation, headed by Lord Meath, and the difficulty he pointed out was that for such an undertaking as that alluded to in the speeches of the members of the deputation a gigantic loan would be required, therefore a complete scheme must be submitted to Government before such a proposal could be submitted to Parliament. But he asked for no large loan, the only difficulty was that of passage money, and he had indicated a

  1587
  method of overcoming that difficulty. He had had the advantage of conversation with many well-informed gentlemen who had watched the rapid growth of the Colonies, and in many oases assisted in the building of them up, and they greatly encouraged him in the idea that emigrant colonization would be attended with good results. He hoped, therefore, that his recommendation as to pensioners would meet with favourable consideration from the Under Secretary for War, who had shown an interest in the Army which would be praiseworthy in a soldier but was remarkable in a civilian. If he and the noble Earl the Under Secretary for the Colonies would allow him to assist them they would set in motion a plan of which the results might at first be small, but might lay a groundwork for a far larger scheme with far more remarkable results in the future. He begged to move for Papers on the subject.
  Moved, "That there be laid before this House Papers relating to the emigration of pensioners to New Zealand."— (The Lord Sandhurst.)
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the noble and gallant Lord for having brought the subject forward. It was matter of great regret that men who had served their country well should be reduced to a condition of want, and if means could be devised of assisting them and their families to a Colony in which they would have better prospects than lay before them at home, a great blessing would have been conferred on them and the country.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, WAR (Lord HARRIS)said, he was extremely grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for bringing before the House a question which was not only a question of considerable interest to every noble Lord who had at heart the welfare of these men who had fought for their Queen and country, but a large and important question. The noble and gallant Lord suggested that pensioners should be assisted by the State in the way of an advance of money or more favourable terms of commutation in order to enable them to emigrate to the Colonies. Up to 50 years of age a pensioner was liable to serve in this country, or if he is in a Colony might
  1588
  be called up by the Governor of that Colony, or by the lawful authority in this country. But the pension was not altogether a pension, it was also in the nature of a retaining fee for future services. After 50 the pensioner was absolutely free, and his pension must be paid without any liability as to service on his part. With respect to the propriety of making advances to pensioners the Board of Commissioner at Chelsea had more than once endeavoured to induce the Treasury to allow advances in a lump sum for two years to enable the pensioner to emigrate, with the understanding that if he was not able to find employment in the Colony and returned his pension would go on as before. But the Treasury had not acceded to the suggestion, and the utmost advance they would make was from six to nine months' pension. The question of commutation was an intricate though interesting question. It had been recognized so far back as Queen Anne's reign, but it was not carried into effect until 1830, when British soldiers were allowed to commute their pension for four years in order to emigrate to Canada where tracts of land were granted them. A large number of men availed themselves of the privilege; but, being unable to get on in their new home were compelled to return to this country. Considerable complaints were made of the War Office authorities for having induced the men to accept these terms. In 1831 the Secretary of State wrote to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and pointed out to them what those terms were. The Commissioners expostulated that the terms were not good enough, and that a man's pension was worth more than four years' purchase; but the Secretary of State replied that he was bound by the Act of 1830. The difference between the terms which officers were allowed to obtain and what the pensioners could obtain had only existed within the last 20 years. 1869 was the first time that statutory authority was given to an officer to commute his half-pay on an actuarial value, whereas a pensioner remained under the old Act of 1830, and could only obtain four years' purchase for his pension. He was exceedingly obliged to his noble and gallant Friend for having brought forward this subject. He thought it was one which

  1589
  ought to be carefully considered by the country. This was, however, hardly a matter with which their Lordships could deal, for if a change were made in the amount which a pensioner could obtain as commutation the subject would have to be dealt with in a Money Bill in the other House of Parliament. But it was a matter which he thought was worthy the consideration of Parliament. He was exceedingly obliged to the noble and gallant Lord for having drawn attention to it, and he could assure him that it had not escaped the notice of the Secretary of State for War. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Stanhope) was quite prepared to take it into consideration; but it was impossible for their Lordships to go any further at this moment under the circumstances he had stated. It was a very large question, and it was hardly one with regard to which he could pledge himself at this moment. He had not found in the War Office any Papers which bore on this subject. The most interesting details were to be found in the reports of of the Parliamentary debates about 1831 and 1832; but if the noble Lord would call at the War Office he should be afforded an opportunity of seeing the Papers there that related to the subject j of his Motion.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he wished that the Colonial Conference, of the existence of which they had heard so much and seen so little, had been now sitting, because this was a question which might well come before them. He confessed he thought the Treasury was taking what they sometimes thought it did—a somewhat pettifogging view with reference to this matter. This question of State aided emigration was very important, especially in connection with the proposal now brought forward. Here it was not merely a question of relieving over-population, but of reviving the old Roman form of colonization in this country by providing for the defence of our Colonies and settling great numbers of deserving men who could not find employment. This question of State-aided emigration would, in its full scope, soon have to be faced by the Government, and he regretted that the Government did not see their way to face it even in this small connection on the present occasion. There were very few
  1590
  questions on which the country felt so great an interest at this moment as the question of emigration. In the present case the colony was willing to receive the emigrants if the Imperial Government would facilitate the sending of them out. In conclusion, he hoped that the Colonial Office and the War Office would endeavour to force a more statesman-like view of this question on the Treasury.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The EARL of ONSLOW)said, this question of emigration was not among the subjects to be brought before the Colonial Conference, and therefore the Conference was not invited to pronounce an opinion upon it. There were a number of noble Lords and of hon. Members who had taken up the question of emigration with great zeal and energy, and who at the time the Conference was sitting had lengthened interviews with distinguished delegates who attended its meetings and who expressed to them their views on the subject. In regard to the particular question brought forward by the noble Lord, he could only say that the colony of New Zealand and the Colonial Office were always glad that there should be such an addition to our colonists as was likely to be of service to the colony. One of the great difficulties which they had to contend with in any scheme of emigration was as to the class of men who proposed to go out. These men who had served their Queen and country with distinction were men whom any colony ought to be proud to receive. The noble and gallant Lord had asked that some papers on the subject might be laid upon the Table of the House. His noble Friend had stated that there were none in the War Office, and he might add that there were none in the Colonial Department. He believed the only Papers consisted of a collection of letters printed and circulated by the noble and gallant Lord who had brought forward this Motion. These showed that the noble and gallant Lord had been in communication with representatives of the Colony of New Zealand, and he might, perhaps, express a hope that the noble and gallant Lord would exercise his influence with the representatives of the Colonies in order to induce them to do something to get over what

  1591
  appeared to be the main difficuty— namely, the payment of the passages of the emigrants.
  LORD HARRISsaid, it was no doubt a question whether it was wise that the country should lose these men who, in the event of an invasion, might be exceedingly useful; but as a matter of fact the State had actually assisted them to emigrate.
  LORD SANDHURST, in thanking the Under Secretary of State for War for his sympathetic reply, said, he fully admitted that they could not go further at this moment. He regretted that the noble Lord (Lord Harris) and himself approached the question of pensions from two different standpoints, the noble Lord saying it was a retainer for the future, and he (Lord Sandhurst) regarding it as a reward for past services. The noble Lord also seemed to lay much stress upon the value of pensioners' services at home; and regarding the payment of passages, suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow), he would venture to remind him that New Zealand had already paid upwards of £2,000,000 in assisting emigration.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE CHANCERY DIVISION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked the Lord Chancellor, Whether any steps are likely soon to be taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee, lately presided over by the Master of the Rolls, as to the business of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice? The noble and learned Lord said that the Committee, which consisted of the Master of the Rolls, Mr. Justice Kay, the late Mr. Justice Pearson—whose name he could not mention without expressing his sense of the eminent judicial services of that learned and excellent Judge, and of the great loss which the country had sustained by his death—Mr. Justice Stirling, Sir Horace Davey, and four other gentlemen, made their Report on August 7, 1885; and though there were some differences of opinion, the conclusion they carne to was that it was clear that the actual number
  1592
  of Judges attached to the Chancery Division was unequal to cope with the business, and therefore they thought it necessary that the Chancery Division should be reinforced by an additional Judge. That might be done in either of two ways—either by transferring a Judge from the Queen's Bench to the Chancery Division, or by increasing the whole number of Judges. He found that the number of causes standing for hearing on the 16th of October, 1884, was 842; on the 23rd of May, 1885, 667; at the beginning of the present Trinity sittings 786, above 100 more than in May, 1885; and on the 20th of July, 1887, the number was 826. He thought their Lordships would be of opinion that under the circumstances it was desirable that steps should at once be taken to do whatever could be done to accelerate the despatch of business in that important Division of the Court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, that the Report was brought under his notice some time ago, and he had considered it. It was impossible not to feel that much depended on the appointment of an additional Judge; and he quite agreed that it was absolutely essential, in order to clear off the arrears, that additional assistance should be given. Much injury and additional cost was caused to suitors by the present state of things. They had to come up from the country once, twice, and perhaps oftener, to have their cases disposed of. The difficulty of dealing with this matter was the state of business in the other House. There was a power to appoint an additional Judge under the 18th section of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, by an Address of both Houses; and he was prepared to move their Lordships' House in the matter. After communication with the First Lord of the Treasury, it was impossible to say whether time could be found in the other House for a Motion upon the subject. Although it was a very urgent matter, there were other even more urgent questions; and, in the present state of business, his right hon. Friend informed him that it was impossible to name a day for making such a Motion, though the opportunity might occur before the Session came to an end.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, be thought that those who were averse to making

  1593
  this change were not sufficiently alive to the frightful injury which the present state of affairs was inflicting on suitors.

CELEBRATION OF THE JUBILEE YEAR OF HER MAJESTY'S REIGN—THE NAVAL REVIEW OFF SPITHEAD.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the very inconvenient arrangements made by the Admiralty to enable the Members of both Houses of Parliament to see the Naval Review. The arrangements for the Members of both Houses and their ladies were most unsatisfactory. They would be taken down to Portsmouth by special train, but left to get back to London as best they could. It was stated that they must return in any class of carriage they might be able to get into. The arrangements made by the Admiralty were not intelligible; and he would ask why, if they could have special trains down from London, they could not have special trains back to town, as he thought might be arranged with the most perfect case? The arrangements made for the Naval Review of 1856 were also very bad. Many Peers and Peeresses on that occasion did not get back to London until 3 o'clock in the morning. The whole affair wag a disgrace to the Admiralty, as the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) well knew; and he trusted that the mistakes made then were not going to be repeated on Saturday.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that, as his noble Friend had appealed to him, he would say that, partly from his recollection of the eventful day to which reference was made, and partly from his own want of confidence in Her Majesty's present Government, he intended to entrust himself entirely to the hospitality of the Mercantile Marine, and not to that of the Royal Navy.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE (A LORD in WAITING)regretted exceedingly that his noble Friend was not satisfied with the arrangements made by the Admiralty for the convenience of both Houses of Parliament. The Board had made the best arrangements in their power, and they hoped they would be successful in every respect and that every person would be satisfied. He had taken the trouble to go to the Waterloo Railway
  1594
  Station, and he learned from the manager that there was only room in the dockyard for one train at a time. The difficulty was to get a train into the dockyard and out of it: under ordinary circumstances, and if the way was clear it occupied 20 minutes, not allowing five minutes for filling up. The Admiralty guests, who numbered 2,900, would fill seven trains, and they would occupy about three hours in getting away. If a special train were in waiting when the guests were landed, no doubt his noble Friend, with his stalwart frame, would be able to get a seat, but smaller and weaker men like himself would be left behind. It was only six and a-half minutes' walk from the landing stage to the Harbour Station, where the trains would be continuous. It was thought very much better that the Admiralty guests should go from the Harbour Station, carriages being reserved for them in each special train despatched. It would be much more for the convenience of Members of Parliament that this course should be adopted, as otherwise they might be kept waiting a long time for special trains. Moreover, noble Lords and Members of Parliament, with the other Admiralty guests, would be landed at different times from Her Majesty's Ships, and would leave for town as they came ashore without waiting for a special train at a stated hour. He thought that the Railway Company had done the best they could, having regard to the fact that the company was answerable for the lives of all the passengers they carried. The Admiralty had, he thought, made the best arrangements possible under the circumstances with the Railway Company in arranging that two carriages should be reserved for noble Lords and Members of Parliament in each special train despatched for London.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether arrangements could not be made for more than two carriages for ours to be attached to special trains for the Admiralty guests to start from Portsmouth Harbour Station at stated hours?
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he thought it would cause a great deal of inconvenience unless more than two carriages were reserved by each train for the Admiralty guests.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to remind noble Lords that all the trains despatched from Portsmouth Harbour would be special trains. As all the Admiralty guests would not be landed at the same moment, it would be inconvenient to run special trains at stated hours for the Members of Parliament. If two carriages were not enough by each train, all the rest of the train was open to their Lordships and Members of Parliament.

  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Leave given to the following Lords to sign the Protest against the Third Reading, although their Lordships were not present when the question was put; viz.,

  M. Ripon.

  L. Wolverton.

  E. Chesterfield.

  L. Greville.

  E. Granville.

  L. Sandhurst.

  E. Kimberley.

  L. Hothfield.

  E. Sydney.

  L. Northbourne.

  V. Hampden.

  L. Monskwell.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  L. Hobhouse.

  L. Camoys.

  L. Herschell.

  L. Braye.

  L. Kensington.

  L. Rosebery.

  L. Burton.

  L. Leigh.

  L. Hamilton of Dalzell.

  L. Houghton.

  L. Thring.

  L. Acton.

  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock