said, that he was desirous of asking a question on the subject of the late proceedings in Ceylon. From the papers laid upon the table of the House, explanatory of the transactions in that island, it appeared, in a despatch of Lord Torrington, dated the 14th of October, that the courts-martial which had been sitting in four different places in Ceylon, had terminated their sittings, that twenty persons had been sentenced to transportation, and eighteen had been condemned to death, sixteen of whom had been shot immediately. In the papers which had been laid upon the table, no account whatever of any of the proceedings at these courts-martial, or any of the transactions attending them, had been given to the House. He wished, therefore, to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Judge-Advocate General, or the hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Colonies, whether any copies of the proceedings at these courts-martial, alluded to in the public despatches of Lord Torrington, had been sent home to England. It was impossible to proceed satisfactorily with the inquiry upstairs unless these documents were produced.

said, that no copies of the proceedings of any of the courts-martial which had been held under the proclamation of martial law in Ceylon had been received at the office of the Judge-Advocate General. He apprehended that copies of such proceedings would not be transmitted to that department, inasmuch as the proceedings of the courts-martial would have reference to persons who were subjects of Her Majesty not subject to the Mutiny Act or the Articles of War. If any such proceedings were sent to his office, it would be his duty to transmit them to the office of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He was not aware that copies of any such proceedings had been received at the Colonial Office.

said, he could confidently state that all the papers relating to the proceedings taken under martial law in Ceylon had been already printed and laid before the House. No other documents were in possession of the Colonial Office. Subject dropped.

, in moving that the House should go into Committee on this Bill, said he should not trouble the House with any statement unless the Motion was opposed. No one rising, the question was put that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, and the House went into Committee. The following Clause was added:—

"And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Governor of any of Her Majesty's foreign dominions, plantations, or colonies, by writing under his hand, to appoint one or more competent officer or officers to receive and file such certificates as are by this Act directed to be filed by the clerk of the peace or sheriff's clerk; and upon any such appointments being made, all the provisions of this Act shall be in force in that part of Her Majesty's foreign dominions, plantations, or colonies wherein such appointment shall be made, and shall extend therein to the case of every person who shall obtain such certificate as in this Act mentioned, from any justice or magistrate acting therein within his jurisdiction, and who shall cause the same to be filed with the proper officer appointed by the Governor as aforesaid in that behalf."

said, that the object of this Bill was to assimilate the law in Ireland to the law which had been passed last Session for England, and which had been found to work extremely well. By this Bill those laws which were now scattered in different Acts of Parliament would be consolidated in one Act.

said, that the alteration proposed to be made by this clause was an important one. It was the introduction of a now principle. He did not think it had been enough considered; he hoped, therefore, it would be postponed till the Judges in Ireland were consulted with regard to it. Those who were conversant with the proceedings in courts of law in Ireland must be aware that it was on cross-examination of the witness that truth was frequently elicited.

said, that no new principle was introduced; it was merely the application of a law which had been found to work well in this country to Ireland.

said, that if the laws of Ireland generally were assimilated to those of England, he would not say a word against the present clause. He hoped time would be given to consider the clause.

thought the cases of treason should be excepted from the Bill. By this clause he apprehended that the notice at present required in cases of high treason would be done away with.

said, that under this Bill the same notice should be given in cases of high treason as at present.

saw no cause for postponing the clause, which was a good one.

would not object to the clause, if the law of Ireland generally were assimilated to the law of England. He thought that in Ireland, where the sanctity of an oath was not always ob-served, the power of cross-examination of the witness should not be given up.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale was mistaken. The sanctity of an oath was as much respected in Ireland as in any country in the world.

said, he alluded to those persons who came forward as informers.

said, that if the clause were agreed to, he would give an opportunity for again considering it on bringing up the report. In the meantime he would consult the judicial authorities in Ireland on the subject.

said, he could not allow the clause to pass unless cases of high treason were excepted. He should, therefore, move the insertion of these words, "except in cases of high treason."

said, that it would be an advantage in cases of high treason to have the depositions taken down before a magistrate. In fact, there was no alteration of the existing law except the introduction of the words, "where the person is ill."

said, that the Bill did not assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in cases of high treason.

said, that the trial should not be proceeded with till it was known whether the person that was ill would recover or not.

bore testimony to the utility of the alteration in the law made in the last Session of Parliament.

said, the clause was calculated to supply a want in the administration of justice in Ireland.

said, he should object to the clause, because it gave a new power, and also because it enabled a metropolitan or a stipendiary magistrate to do what could only he done by two of the ordinary magistrates of the country.

said, he should oppose the clause.

said, that in this country every magistrate of the city of London had the power which was objected to.

rose for the purpose of moving an instruction to the Committee that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to Ireland. It might be urged, perhaps, that those provisions were not suited to all the complicated relations between Irish landlords and tenants, and he might also be told that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had declared it to be the intention of the Government to bring forward a measure on this subject with reference to that country; but he must remind the House of the numerous and abortive attempts which had been made to legislate on this complicated subject. He did not mean to assert that this Bill was to prevent the necessity of future legislation; but he hoped the House would support it as a step in the right direction, for he knew they would be anxious to promote any measure which would contribute, however slightly, to encourage the investment of capital in Ireland. It had not been in his power, of course, to consult all the Irish Members; but he had spoken to a great many, and the result was that he did not apprehend that any attempt would be made to alter the Bill.

had felt some reluctance to extend the scope of the Bill; but as so many Irish Members desired its extension to Ireland, he felt that he should not be justified in offering any opposition to a wish so generally expressed, particularly as he saw nothing in the Bill which could render it inapplicable to Ireland.

regarded this simply as an enabling Bill, and being of opinion that, as far as it went, it went in the right direction, he would support its extension to Ireland.

did not wish to interfere with Ireland, and he recommended Irish Members to follow his example with respect to his country. He did not think this Bill necessary for England; and although he did not mean to oppose the Speaker leaving the chair, he would certainly oppose the Bill on the report, and all future stages.

said, his head was turned at the time when the Motion of the hon. Member was carried, but he had no objection to include Ireland within the scope of the measure.

rejoiced in the prospect of applying so well-digested a measure to Ireland, in lieu of the plan proposed last year; and wished to know if this Bill was to be regarded as a substitute for a Government measure?

could give no pledge on the subject.

urged the Government to take advantage of the unanimity of Irish Members with reference to this Bill.

protested against converting this into an Irish discussion, when the subject before the Committee was an English Bill.

, in conceding the application of the Bill to Ireland, did not accept it as a substitute for the more extensive measure promised by the Government.

feared that the extension of the Bill to Ireland would render it impossible to get through the Committee that day, or even that day week. He strongly recommended the Committee to make the Bill a good and complete measure as regarded England first, and then to extend its provisions, if they should think fit, to Ireland. If they began by extending it to that country, every one would be getting up to propound his favourite nostrum. ["No, no!"] He rejoiced to hear it— would any one answer for the Irish Members?

said, the anti-imperial speech of the hon. Member for Cockermouth had filled him with grim despair. It certainly was a most unfortunate circumstance that the head of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was turned when the question was put, for the thing was already settled when he rose, and perhaps under the circumstances it might have been better if the head of the right hon. Gentleman had continued to be turned. No proposal to alter the Bill had come from any of the Irish Members, who had shown themselves men of business by taking what they could get, knowing that half a loaf was better than no bread.

proposed to limit the meaning of the word "notice," by inserting the words "notice served upon such tenant."

said this clause provided that it might be lawful for a landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement. He would ask if it was not universally understood that every landlord and tenant had at the present moment that very power? So far as his knowledge went, they had that power at the present time. If that were so, he thought the clause would only have the effect of leading to litigation between landlord and tenant.

said, that as it seemed generally agreed that the words proposed should be inserted, he had no objection to their being so.

thought that the effect of this Amendment would be to prevent the tenant claiming compensation from his landlord in cases where notice had been given by the tenant.

asked the hon. Member for Berkshire whether he meant to give unlimited power to the tenant for life, and the tenant in occupation to saddle the remainder man with whatever liabilities his fancy might determine?

said, that if the hon. and gallant Member would allow them to proceed with the Bill, he would soon see how the contingencies which he appeared to apprehend would be amply provided against.

stated his opinion to be in favour of the clause as it originally stood, as, by the Amendment proposed, they would most probably deprive the measure of those advantages which it was evidently intended to confer.

was in favour of the clause.

was also in favour of the clause as it stood, as it would be very easy for the tenant, if he were so inclined, to act in such a way as to force his landlord to give him notice.

was of opinion that if they introduced the Amendment proposed, they would render the Bill almost altogether inoperative. The proposal was—that in the event of the tenant making permanent improvements in the farm, he should not be entitled to recover the appropriated value of such improvements in case he gave notice to the landlord of the termination of his tenancy. Suppose a tenant at will, having confidence in his landlord, and contemplating a probable tenure of the property, expends a good deal of money and labour in permanent improvements—if, then, they said to such a person, "We invite you to make these improvements, the effects of which would endure for—say twelve years "—if they then said to him, "but in the event, however, of your giving notice in the second year, of the expiration of your tenancy, you may lose the benefit which, under other circumstances, I admit may endure for ten years longer:" surely no man, under the circumstances, would be induced to invest his capital in these improvements. Several contingencies might arise to render it advantageous to the laud-lord as well as the tenant to determine the tenancy—such as unexpected misfortunes, bad health, &c. Now, by the Amendment proposed, they said to the tenant, "If you terminate the tenancy by your own act, the profits to which you would otherwise have a legal claim will go to the landlord." If the landlord objects to enter into the agreement, there would be no obligation on him; but, on the other hand, if they deprived the tenant of that just compensation to which he was entitled, because he happened to have given the notice, they would most likely prevent the Bill from coming into any useful operation.

instanced the case of a clergyman entering upon a living on the death of an incumbent between whom and the tenant an agreement had been entered into in respect to certain improvements upon the farm. The tenant turns round upon the new incumbent and tells him that if he does not reduce his rent 30 per cent, he will give up the farm, and require the compensation allowed him under this Bill for the drainage and other improvements he had effected. The clergyman, under the circumstances, being not very flush in money, would be thus placed in a very great difficulty; and it was to guard against such a contingency he wished the words proposed to be added to the clause.

was induced to propose the additional words to meet the objections of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, although they were not quite in accordance with his own views. After, however, what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, he would withdraw the Amendment.

wished to ask the hon. Member for Berkshire what meaning he intended to convey by the word "lessor," which occurred in the 1st Clause?

proposed to strike out the word "lessor," and to substitute for it the word "owner."

asked, were there not intermediate persons? Could there not be a lessor without being an owner?

said, that the word "owner" in this Bill, was defined at great length in Clause 11.

suggested that the agreement referred to in the clause should be stated to be in writing.

said that he would do so in the report.

proposed to omit the words "by the purchase of food for cattle or sheep." He thought it most unjust that the tenant should have the power of claiming compensation for the purchase of food for his cattle in the temporary improvement of his farm; for he would suppose the case of a tenant occupying a farm near London, or some one of those fashionable watering places where he could carry his hay and straw and sell them for a good price. Having done so, it was quite natural to suppose that he would purchase oilcake, Indian meal, and articles of that sort, for which he would have the power, by the clause as it stood, of recovering compensation; whereas he had already disposed of all the food that might be fairly raised from the estate.

observed, that there were two classes of improvements—temporary improvements and durable improvements. Temporary improvements generally fell on the tenant; durable improvements, drainage and so forth, ordinarily belonged to the landlord. There was no doubt that the effect of this Bill was, to a certain degree, to throw on the tenant durable improvements, which the landlord was hitherto in the habit of defraying. It would have a bad effect for the landlords to say to the tenants, you shall take your share of what hitherto has been ours, but we refuse to bear any portion of your outlay. The hon. Member read portions of the evidence to show the necessity of allowing compensation for outlay for artificial manures.

said, that of all the classes of compensation, the most difficult was that which had reference to the improvement of the soil by the use of oil cake and artificial manures. That was the point on which there was a great difficulty in legislating; there was no difficulty in the case of permanent improvements.

said, that it must not be taken for granted, that because certain arrangements had worked well in one county, they would work well in new districts which were not accustomed to them. It might be very true, that in Lincolnshire the arrangement was so satisfactory that even the landlord might hardly be aware of it; but it did not follow that when you introduced it into Devonshire it would work equally well there. Was it to be said, that if he fed his sheep with turnips grown on his own farm, he had no claim for compensation; but if he purchased the turnips he had a claim for compensation? In that case he would sell all his turnips, and would purchase the turnips of his neighbour. He would even go further, and make an agreement with his neighbour, and say, "I will sell my turnips to you, and you shall buy your turnips of me, and then we shall have a claim upon the landlord for temporary improvements."

said, that if these words were struck out altogether, it would be the greatest possible discouragement to the farmer. It had been found, by the report of the Committee, that by law no landlord could give this compensation unless he was supported by the custom of the country. As to the word "sheep," he must admit, that, according to some of the evidence, there was not the same risk in feeding sheep as in feeding cattle. The words might be altered to "by the purchase of food other than of any kind grown on the farm." If they wished to encourage high farming, they must give this power.

suggested that the words should be, "by the purchase of such descriptions of food for cattle or sheep as shall be specifically mentioned in this agreement."

observed, that on the banks of the Thames, in many parts where mangel wurzel was grown, nothing was so common as for the farmer to send his mangel wurzel to town, and then with the proceeds to buy artificial manure. Much of the artificial manure was wholly absurd and useless; it was fabricated to impose on the young farmer, who had not the experience of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth and the hon. Member for Berkshire.

objected to the words proposed to be struck out by his hon. Friend the Member for South Devonshire, as incapable of general application. In the county with which he was connected, the rights of the tenant were already so extensive as to render the proposed concession a matter of no interest.

said, that the Bill had already been before a Select Committee; but there seemed to be so much difference of opinion about the subject, he thought that the best way would be send it to another Select Committee. He objected to important public business being-obstructed by a long discussion as to whether sheep or cattle should have linseed cake. He should oppose striking out the word "sheep," because he thought if they were fed upon artificial produce it would increase the value of the land.

said, that the Bill was looked upon with great anxiety by the tenant farmers of the country, who at the present moment were catching at straws. And he was of opinion that they were looking to a measure which would turn out to be a gross delusion, and from which the great majority of them would receive no benefit whatever.

objected to the increased power proposed to be given by the Bill to the valuers. The great difficulty at present seemed to be to define what animals were cattle and what were not. He knew that the hon. Member for Berkshire was a great feeder of pigs. Now, pigs were important animals, and he wanted to know why they were not mentioned in the Bill? And he put the question to the House, Are pigs cattle, or are they not? He asked that question for the purpose of pointing out the difficulty of defining what are cattle and what are not.

thought the Bill was one of the most dangerous character. So far from conciliating landlord and tenant, it would breed only dissension. So far as his information went, it was approved of by neither landlord nor tenant; and he suggested that the best thing the House could do would be to reject the Bill altogether, and at once.

suggested, that as the House was in total ignorance of what they were to divide about, it would be better that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

was anxious only that the House should decide upon the principle of the clause, and then he would be happy to adopt the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Tamworth.

supported the proposition to postpone the decision upon the clause; time would afford the hon. Member for Berks an opportunity of adopting words which would carry out his meaning in a manner satisfactory to all.

bowed to the wishes of the House, and in the meantime he would endeavour to construct the clause according to what he believed to be the sense of the House.

then reported progress.

thought the Bill one most important in its nature, and the House had really not yet had any discussion upon the very important principles which it contained. He felt bound to enter his protest against the hon. Member taking any further stage of the Bill at that hour (half-past Five), when it was impossible the House could enter upon any discussion of a useful nature. A large constitutional question was involved, and unless he received a pledge that an opportunity would be given for an ample discussion of the principle, he would feel it his duty to resist the further progress of the measure.

concurred in the objection, but he found the Bill as it now stood totally different, not only in its provisions, but in its title, from what it was as originally introduced. The title of the Bill now was, "a Bill to facilitate the Recovery of Debts from Persons possessing the Privileges of Parliament, and to exclude Insolvent Members from Parliament." Was it intended to convert that House into a court of law, now the Palace Court was to be done away with? Who were to practise in it—who were to be the attorneys and counsel? But there was a rumour in the town that the measure was brought in to point at a particular Member of Parliament. That was not, however, the ground of his opposition to the Bill; but if it was brought in for such a purpose it ought to be known, and the House ought not to submit to be made the tool of any hon. Gentleman who might desire to exclude certain other Members from the House.

could have hoped that the quiet and independent course which he had pursued as a Member of that House would have saved him from such a charge as that now brought against him by the hon. Member for Middlesex. It had been insinuated, if not broadly asserted, that in introducing this Bill he had been actuated by interested motives. It had boon insinuated that he was actuated by a feeling of spite or malevolence against individuals. ["No, no!"] That charge he emphatically denied. The Bill had been introduced on public grounds, and with no other feeling. The measure was simply directed against those who would make that House a sanctuary for insolvency. Such was the feeling, and the only feeling, with which he had brought in the Bill.

thought that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets had misunderstood the object of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, in proposing the committal of the Bill pro formâ. The hon. Member's object was to have the proposed alterations printed, and recommitted.

thought that the House had been rather hardly used by the hon. Member for Dartmouth. He (Mr. Henley) had taken the liberty, a week ago, of entreating the hon. Member not to press the Bill on, for he felt that the House at large had not had sufficient time to consider it. Now what had happened since? The hon. Member had forced the Bill through Committee. After the Bill had been twice altered, the hon. Member now proposed its recommittal, a course which he (Mr. Henley) thought not quite fair to the House. What the House might determine upon, he could not say; but whenever the Bill had been brought on, there was a proposal on the part of the framer of it to make alterations in it. This was a more important measure than many hon. Members might be aware of. It was impossible that the Bill could be discussed then, and he should recommend the postponement of any further proceedings upon it until after Easter.

said, he would not now express any opinion on the principle of this Bill, but they must all be agreed that the measure was a very important one, affecting as it did the privileges of the constituencies of the country. The Bill was now greatly altered, and yet the House had never had a proper opportunity for discussing it. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had not given his opinion upon it; and indeed he (Mr. Vernon Smith) did not know in whose charge the Bill now was—whether it was in the hands of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, or in those of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; but the latter now seemed to be its adopted father. The House was not now prepared to take any stage of the Bill, and he hoped that at all events its committal pro formâ would be put off to some other day.

said, that the Bill was not his Bill at all, although he had been ready to lend the hon. Member for Dartmouth the benefit of his assistance with regard to it. It was now proposed to commit the Bill pro formâ, to have it reprinted, that the House might know what the Bill really was; but he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to have the Bill again fully discussed in Committee after being reprinted.

said, the course originally proposed by the hon. Member for Dartmouth, namely, to introduce these Amendments, and then call upon the House to proceed with the Committee without further consideration, was exceedingly objectionable. But if, as he understood the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General), it was now to be committed pro formâ, merely to have the Amendments suggested introduced, and the Bill, having been reprinted, was then to be committed and pass through Committee, there certainly could be no objection to that course.

said, this Bill was a very important one, and called for by the present state of public feeling in the constituencies. The first petition which he had had the honour to present from the important constituency which he represented (Plymouth), was against allowing Members of this House to evade the payment of their creditors in a manner which was open to no other class of the community; and he believed the hon. Member for Liverpool had presented a similar petition from that port. It had been alleged that this Bill was directed against an individual Member of this House; but it was most unwarrantable to insinuate that any of those who had supported this measure had been influenced by any personal motive of the kind.

said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton had wished him to state his opinion on this Bill. He could only state that he thought its object a very good object, and one that he believed the House would wish to see effected. But it appeared to him that there were very great difficulties in the way of doing so; and it would be a dangerous thing if a Bill went up to the House of Lords in a shape which would not meet their Lordships' support, and which they would not have the power to amend. It was his opinion that unless a Bill went up there in such a shape as to have some chance of passing, it had better not go up at all. But with regard to the present measure, his opinion of it would depend upon the shape into which the Bill should ultimately be put; and if it did not meet with his approbation, he would state his opinion on the third reading.

said, the petition alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, prayed the House to take steps to enforce the payment of their creditors by Members of Parliament—an object about which not one word was said in the Bill now before the House. He (Mr. Anstey) had himself heard the rumour alluded to, that this Bill was pointed at a particular Member of this House, and had heard it, not from the enemies of this Bill, but from its supporters; and the rumour was one that had gained a considerable degree of credence. The hon. Member for Dartmouth had, however, contradicted it very satisfactorily as far as he was individually concerned. He (Mr. Anstey) was prepared to divide the House upon the question for going into Committee pro formâ; but unless some other opponents of the measure concurred with him in wishing to do so, he would not press for a division.

said, the Bill contained two important measures rolled into one. It professed to make Members of Parliament pay their debts; and, secundo, to do something else to them after the law had had its practice upon them. There was something unfortunate in the title—there was something colourable in it. If any alteration in the law were suggested, having the effect of compelling Members to pay their debts, he did not think there were six Gentlemen in that House who would object to it, or display any sympathy for those who would be affected by it; but if the question was whether an additional and unconstitutional penalty should be incurred, that was a different question. He thought there were good reasons for not proceeding precipitately with the Bill.

recommended the hon. Member for Dartmouth to withdraw his Bill, and introduce an entirely new one, with all the amendments which he wished to make incorporated with it, as the present Bill had undergone so much alteration, and encountered so much opposition.

said, that, with the greatest deference to the suggestion of Mr. Speaker, he felt himself somewhat at a loss how to proceed. He had a strong conviction that if that suggestion were followed, the Bill would be lost entirely for this Session; for experience proved to him that a Bill brought in by a private Member after Easter had not the smallest chance of being carried through. After some little delay, the hon. Gentleman, however, said, that, contrary to his own opinion, he would bow to the Speaker's suggestion, and take the earliest opportunity of introducing another Bill.

felt bound to oppose the Motion.

said, it was usual, in courtesy, to allow a Member to bring in a Bill. There was some business on the Paper which it was important should be disposed of, and the hour was getting late. Probably the hon. and learned Member would wave further opposition upon that occasion.

His only object in opposing the Motion was to save time; for, in the then temper of the House, he felt certain leave to reintroduce the Bill would be refused. If he gave way, he would certainly divide upon the first reading.