said, that in consequence of a wish that had been expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) he wished to say a few words in explanation of something that fell from him last night. A near relative of his hon. Friend had a considerable estate in the parish of Glenelg, which went by the name of that parish, although, in fact, it formed only a part of it. He was desirous of saying that the disgraceful state of the poor to which he had last night called the attention of the House existed in a totally different district to that of the property of the relative of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, although it was situate in the same parish. So far from intending in any way to reflect upon the management of the property now in question, he was aware that a system of gradual emigration had been for some years conducted there with much liberality by the proprietor, and he believed the result of that emigration, which was entirely voluntary, was quite as satisfactory to the people as it was beneficial to the proprietor himself.

Sir, I wish to have some explanation from Her Majesty's Government of the unusual delay which has taken place in laying before the House the State Papers relative to the late unsuccessful negotiations for peace at Vienna. The House is aware that whatever might have been the result of those negotiations—whether successful or the reverse—whether the preliminaries for peace had been signed, or whether the result had been such as it appears to have been—the papers which have been exchanged during the negotiations might have been prepared for the House, so that when the negotiations had terminated there might be only a protocol or two or the last despatch to print. And the papers might have been laid upon the table of the House on the same night that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies returned and took his seat. If you find that this has been the usual course, I think that I may ask from the Government why the usual course has not been followed on the present occasion, and why there has been an apparent unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to place Parliament as soon as possible in possession of that information which on so grave a subject it has certainly a right to possess, as soon as it is in the power of the Government to produce it. I have searched the Journals which should guide us on this subject, and as I wish at present to confine myself strictly within the technical limits of a Parliamentary question, I will state what I find in the Journals to direct us at this crisis, and then I will ask the Government to explain to the House why upon this important occasion they have not followed the precedents which have always governed the conduct of Ministers under similar circumstances. The precedent which I take to govern us does not vary from others to which I might refer, but I select it because it is one of modern date, and of the highest importance, and because its circumstances are apposite to the present conjuncture. I take, Sir, the precedent of the rupture of negotiations in 1796. The House will remember that on October 18, 1796, the country was informed that the King had sent the Earl of Malmesbury as his Plenipotentiary to France to negotiate for peace. That was on the 18th of October, and on the 20th of December it was known to the country that the negotiations had terminated. The Earl of Malmesbury returned to this country on the 29th of December, but three days before his return—namely, on Monday, the 26th of December—the Minister came down to the House of Commons with a Message from the Crown—a Message from which will now read an extract to the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to conclude with a Motion?

Yes, I will conclude with a Motion, if you should find that I am not strictly within the limits of a question; but I apprehend that you will probably be of opinion that I am strictly within those limits. I wish first to state what, under similar circumstances, was the course pursued by the Ministry on the occasion to which I am referring, and then to inquire why that course has not been adopted on the present occasion. But if you, Sir, should be of opinion that I am trespassing on the rules of the House, I will conclude with a Motion which will not be inconvenient to the Government, inasmuch as it is one which they would have to make themselves at some period during the evening. I may remind the House, that on the 20th December it was known that negotiations had terminated. On the 29th December the Plenipotentiary (Lord Malmesbury) returned to this country; but three days before his return—namely, on the 26th—Mr. Secretary Dundas came down with a Message from the Crown, expressed in these words—

"It is with the utmost concern that His Majesty acquaints the House of Commons that his earnest endeavours to effect the restoration of peace have been unhappily frustrated; and that the negotiation in which he has been engaged has been abruptly broken off by the peremptory refusal of the French Government to treat, except upon a basis evidently inadmissible. His Majesty has directed the several memorials and papers which have been exchanged in the course of the late discussion, and the account transmitted to His Majesty of its final result, to be laid before the House."—[Hansard, Parl. History, xxxij.]

On referring to the Journals of this House, hon. Members will find that the State Papers alluded to in this Royal Message were of a very voluminous description. They will find there the schedule of the papers laid upon the table of the House, and they will perceive that neither in importance nor yet in number were the documents so submitted, inferior to those which are now so anxiously expected. But the House will observe that two days before—

said, he rose to order. He was most unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, and most desirous that he should have the fullest opportunity possible for making the statement which he wished to submit to the House; but he apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman, in entering into all these particulars, was transgressing the rules of the House with respect to the manner in which questions should be put. The right hon. Gentleman should make a Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention of concluding with a Motion, and is, therefore, perfectly in order.

Sir, I am sorry that any misconception on the part of the hon. Member of a statement which it is for the public interest that I should make, and which nothing but the state of the public service, and a regard for the honour and advantage of the country, should have induced me to make, should have subjected me to this interruption. Still, however, I do not despair of bringing the matter clearly before the House, and I will attempt to regather the broken strings of this narrative. The House will see that the moment it was shown that the negotiations were broken off—even before the Plenipotentiary had returned, there came a Message from the Crown to the House of Commons, and the Minister at the same time stated that all the papers relating to those transactions should be laid before the House, and he gave notice that upon the following day the documents in question should be placed upon the table—a very different position from that in which the House now finds itself placed. But was that all? On Monday, the 26th of December, the Message of the Crown to the House of Commons came down. On Wednesday, the 28th, in reference to the promise contained in that Gracious Message, the Minister placed upon the table of the House the whole of the papers connected with those negotiations. But that was not all. Mr. Canning, then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the preceding day laid on the table of the House, for the use of the Members, a State Paper of the utmost importance, composed with an ability which was not remarkable, since the pen of Mr. Canning may be traced in it, called "His Majesty's Royal Declaration," in which the King informed the House of all the circumstances of the negotiations, and of the cause which had led to their unsuccessful termination. The House will perceive that, in 1796, under circumstances similar to the present—so similar, indeed, that those with whom we were then in treaty appear to have conducted themselves very much in the same spirit as that described by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) the other night, in his brief account of his negotiations having terminated with "a peremptory refusal to treat, except on a basis evidently inadmissible"—the House, I repeat, will perceive that upon that occasion, under circumstances not only similar to, but I may say even identical with, the present—we had a Message to Parliament from the Crown—we had laid on the table, even before the negotiator had returned, the whole of the papers connected with the unsuccessful negotiations—we had, for the use of the Members, a Royal declaration containing the whole pith and marrow of these same negotiations; and, more than this, on the very day that he laid the papers on the table, which was on Tuesday, the Minister gave notice, for the following Thursday, of a Motion to take them into consideration. Now, Sir, as I have more free warrant than I had expected to speak upon this subject, I shall briefly ask the House to contrast the situation of Parliament in 1796, under similar circumstances to the present, with the condition in which the House of Commons now finds itself in 1855? How have we been treated? Has there been the same anxiety on the part of the Government to impart to Parliament all necessary information at a moment so pregnant with events bearing upon the fate of the country? Has there been not only the same promptitude, but the same cordial and wise ceremony in conducting the communications between the Throne and the Parliament? So far as the proceedings of Parliament are concerned, I am not sure that we have any authentic information that any negotiations whatever have been carrying on; and most assuredly we have not the slightest authentic information of what the basis of those negotiations was, and what the points of controversy were. Now, Sir, I think that this House has a right to inquire why there has been this singular difference between the modes in which Parliament has been treated under circumstances of so much importance and of so much similarity by the Government of that day and the Government in the present instance? Why was not Her Majesty advised to deign to communicate with Her Parliament when the negotiations for peace were found to have failed? Why has there not been a Royal Message? Why were not the papers prepared during the intervals of negotiation, as was the case in 1796, so that when the negotiations were announced to have terminated, Parliament might have been immediately made aware of the circumstances, and an anxious and deeply agitated country have been placed in possession of such information as might enable it to form an opinion on the state of our national affairs? Again, I ask, why has there not been a Royal Message? Why have not the papers been placed more promptly on the table of the House? Why has there not been a Royal declaration? And why has not the Minister come forward with that frankness that befits a British statesman, and, laying the papers on the table, fixed a day for the House to take them into consideration? I thought, Sir, I should have been permitted to ask these questions without being obliged to trench upon o privilege which I wished other Members to enjoy, of moving that this House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. I will, however, make that Motion, because I wish to be strictly within the rules of the House. Having now done so, I await with interest the answer of the Minister to the questions I have addressed to him.

I think, Sir, the answer which I shall have to give will have been anticipated by almost all who heard the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, who are at all acquainted with the circumstances to which he has adverted and the circumstances connected with the negotiations recently conducted by my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell). The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a case in which, in a war between England and France, negotiations were entered into directly between the two countries—a case in which it was perfectly clear in the course of the negotiations, before they were concluded, that peace was hopeless, and, peace being hopeless, it became the duty of the Government of the day to appeal to Parliament for more vigorous exertions for the prosecution of the war. If my noble Friend had gone to St. Petersburg without any previous negotiation with any other Power, and if the result of a fortnight's or a month's negotiations at St. Petersburg had proved similar to that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the cases would certainly have been much more parallel than they are in point of fact. It is well known that the negotiation which my noble Friend undertook was conducted through the intervention of the friendly Government of Austria. It is also well known that from the commencement of the war—and, I may say, even before the commencement of the war—Austria, as maintaining friendly relations towards all parties, has been incessant in her endeavours to bring about a reconciliation of the differences existing between England and France on the one hand and Russia on the other, and it was only a continuance of those efforts which led to the Conferences in which my noble Friend took part. Although, however, these Conferences did not terminate in a successful issue, they were not broken off. They were adjourned without any specific time being appointed for their renewal; but after my noble Friend left Vienna, and after the Conferences had been adjourned sine die, there took place, at the request of Austria, another Conference. [Lord J. RUSSELL: of Russia.] Yes, the application for a renewal of the Conferences did come from Russia, but through Austria, and not directly communicated either to England or France. At the request of the Russian Minister, who said that he had another proposal to make, the Conference was re-assembled, and—without being perfectly certain on the subject—I believe that up to this moment the detailed protocols or records of that Conference have not been received by Her Majesty's Government; at all events, if they have been received, it is within the last few hours. Well, Sir, the Conferences were adjourned, and my noble Friend returned to this country; but there still exist at Vienna the elements of a Conference—representatives of England, of France, of Russia, and of Austria. The course the right hon. Gentleman suggests might certainly be a very proper course to adopt, if it was the determination of Her Majesty's Government to shut the door against every possible means of settling those differences which have led to the war. If Her Majesty's Government had fully determined that, under no circumstances, would they listen to any further overture that may be made, either by Russia through Austria, or by Austria with the view of suggesting means of accommodation between the belligerent parties, then, undoubtedly, the course the right hon. Gentleman recommends Her Majesty's Government to pursue, of coming down with a Message to Parliament, stating that all possibility of accommodation was at an end, and declaring that peace was, under the circumstances, impossible, would be the proper course to adopt. But that, Sir, is not the position in which we are placed. We have failed in the attempt we made, but I am not prepared to say that there are no other means open by which, through the intervention of the friendly offices of Austria, propositions may be made which it may become the duty of Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider, with the view of determining whether it is still possible to bring the existing differences with Russia to a close. Allow me to say, Sir, that, even upon the showing of the right hon. Gentleman, the present case and that to which he refers are not parallel cases. The right hon. Gentleman says that, in the case of France, the basis of negotiations was peremptorily refused by France; but in this instance the basis of negotiation has been accepted by Russia. The four points upon which England and France agreed to negotiate have been accepted by Russia, and, to a certain extent, even the interpretation which England and France placed upon those four points has also been accepted by Russia as a foundation upon which to negotiate. The difficulties have been as to the mode in which the fair meaning of these points was to be carried out in detailed articles of agreement. I think, therefore, Sir, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the analogy of the two cases, that they are essentially different in their fundamental elements; and I consider that Her Majesty's Government would not have been properly performing their duty if, following out the fanciful analogy of former cases, they had taken steps which would have proclaimed to the world that we had lost all hopes of the possibility of an accommodation. Sir, I should, at the same time, be equally neglecting my duty if I were to hold out false hopes which might not be realised; but, while saying that I feel that the Government would entirely violate their duty if they stated that all hopes of accommodation were at an end, I wish to leave the question in the state in which it is. I wish to leave the door of negotiation open. I would not shut the door to any possible negotiation by such measures as those into which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to drive Her Majesty's Government. We said, Sir, that we would produce the protocols relating to the Conferences at Vienna. Those protocols shall be produced, and when, they are produced it will be for the House to determine whether they think it advisable to take any steps founded thereupon. We are anxious to give to this House and to the country all the information we think consistent with the public interests and consistent with the possibility of any future amicable arrangement of those differences which have compelled us to embark in a great and arduous contest. While, on the one hand, we are determined to continue that contest, so long as it shall be inevitably necessary, in a manner consistent with the honour, the dignity, and the interests of the country, so, on the other hand, we shall not be the parties to shut the door to the possibility of concluding an honourable and satisfactory peace.

said, he rose to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given notice some days ago. It was to ask what steps had been taken and what decision, if any, had been come to in relation to the proposal made by the Earl of Dundonald for the destruction of the Russian fortresses. He might remind the House that, after an expenditure of some 30,000,000l. upon the conduct of the war, the result, if not humiliating to this country, had at least been most unsatisfactory. He believed the number of available British bayonets in the Crimea did not exceed by more than 1,000 what it was when the battle of Inkerman was fought; that the army was still unable, as when they were stationed at Varna, to take the field for want of the means of transport; that a large portion of the cavalry was still dismounted; that a considerable body of the Artillery was without horses; and that, according to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty the other night, the only possible road by which our army could take the field—namely, that by Mackenzie's Farm—had been occupied by a force of between 50,000 and 60,000 Russian troops. He thought that hon. Members would admit that the question which he had just addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government was one which an independent Member of that House might legitimately and fairly bring forward. The public out of doors would hold that House responsible if they allowed a Government to remain in power which, failing to conclude an honourable peace, neglected any means which might be placed at its disposal calculated to bring the war to a speedy and successful termination. The plan to which his question referred was one that had been long prepared and well matured by one who had had great experience in naval warfare and in attacks upon fortified places. Lord Dundonald had distinguished himself by his exploits in the Basque Roads and the Bay of Callao and on other occasions, and he (Mr. French) would venture to say that in respect of scientific acquirements, professional knowledge, and personal gallantry, the noble Lord had not a superior, if, indeed, he had an equal among living men. One of Lord Dundonald's most uncompromising political opponents, Sir Archibald Alison, speaking of him under his earlier title as Lord Cochrane, said that he was, "after the death of Nelson, the greatest naval commander of that age of glory—equal to his great predecessor in personal gallantry, enthusiastic ardour, and devotion to his country, and perhaps his superior in original genius, in mental power, and inexhaustible resources." He (Mr. French) had said that the plan of the noble Lord had been long considered and well matured. So far back as the reign of George IV., at the request of that Sovereign, Lord Dundonald's plan was submitted to Admirals Lord Exmouth and Lord Keith, and such was their opinion of the terrific efficiency of the noble Earl's invention, that they expressed their opinion that, for the welfare of the human race, it was advisable that the noble Lord should carry his secret with him to the grave. The noble Lord at that time acquiesced in this view; but last year, seeing the predicament in which his country was placed, and being anxious to promote the cause of civilisation against barbarism, he tendered his plan and his personal services to the late Government without fee or reward, He at the same time offered his services to go to the Baltic and destroy Cronstadt. To these tenders he got no answer, but a reference was made to three admirals and two scientific persons. These admirals were of opinion that at present it was not expedient to carry the plan into effect; but he believed the scientific men gave it as their opinion that the force employed by the noble and gallant Lord would be perfectly irresistible. On the return of Sir Charles Napier from the Baltic the plans were shown to him, and, after giving them the fullest consideration, he came to the conclusion, as he (Mr. French) was informed, that the noble Lord was able to carry out everything that he undertook to accomplish. It was in these circumstances that he now wished to put a question to the Government. The Government might, on the ground of the high reputation of the noble Lord (Lord Dundonald) have safely availed themselves of the plans which he had submitted to them; but they had forced him to divulge those plans to seven or eight persons, and it might possibly be that the first experiment they heard of them would be in the destruction of our own forces. If the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown would state that the Government were determined not to give a trial to the plans of the noble and gallant Admiral, it would be easy for him to appeal to the country, and to obtain a sum of money sufficient to enable him to carry out those plans in defiance of the apathy and indifference of the Government.

Having, Sir, already made a speech upon the Motion before us, it is only by the indulgence of the House that I can be permitted to give an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend. I trust, however, that the House will not refuse to grant me that indulgence. No man can entertain a higher opinion than I do of Lord Dundonald—I have had the pleasure and honour of his acquaintance for a great number of years. He stands as high as any man ever did stand in his profession with regard to naval affairs; he is a man, moreover, of great and extensive scientific attainments; and, therefore, any opinion deliberately entertained by him is entitled to the highest and fullest consideration of the Government. The plan which Lord Dundonald proposed last year was, as my hon. Friend states, necessarily submitted to the consideration of a certain number of professional and scientific persons; and the effect of their inquiries and consideration was, that there appeared to be such difficulties of execution and such doubtful expectations as to the result that nothing was then done upon it. The plan has recently been again pressed on the consideration of the Government by Lord Dundonald. The matter is still under their consideration, and is far from being so free from doubts and difficulties as my hon. Friend seems to imagine. But all I can say is, that it is under consideration; and I think that, if there is a plan from Lord Dundonald or any other person, which is calculated to accomplish the ends and objects stated by my hon. Friend, there can be no great advantage in publicly discussing it, or pointing out to the enemy against whom it would be employed either the probability of its immediate execution, or anything which might enable them to guess the manner in which it might be applied.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether it was the fact that Colonel Crombie, late of the Coldstream Guards, was placed on the half-pay list in consequence of ill health, and at his own express desire? He asked that question in consequence of a statement made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) the other evening, that Colonel Crombie was compelled to resign his commission to make way for Lord Burghersh, and a son of Viscount Hardinge, and that he did not know he was put on the half-pay list until he saw his name in the Gazette.

said, in reply, that the statement of the hon. Member for Aylesbury was entirely incorrect. He could add nothing to the memorandum upon this subject which was read upon a former occasion by his hon. and gallant relative the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). From that memorandum it appeared that Colonel Crombie, having been advised that his health had suffered so much from an attack of illness at Varna as to unfit him to return to the Crimea, applied to be placed upon the half-pay list, and so far from its being the case that the first notice he had of the circumstance was the appearance of his name in the Gazette, he was actually expecting to see his name there during the whole of the month of January.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state and condition of the militia force in the United Kingdom, and to put a question to the Government on the subject. The House was aware that in consequence of a doubt existing as to whether a certain portion of the militia force was liable to be called on service for a longer period than fifty-six days in the year, the Government deemed it advisable to give permission to all who wished to return to their homes to do so. Unfortunately, a large portion of the force took advantage of that provision, and the result was that at the present moment the militia was in a state of great disorganisation, and was very much reduced. He did not know that the Government, under the circumstances, could have adopted any other course; but he believed that the present condition of the militia force was to be attributed to a neglect of duty on the part of the Government in not availing themselves of the powers entrusted to them by Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) introduced his Militia Bill, he said there were two modes by which the militia force could be raised—one by voluntary enlistment, the other by ballot. He proposed that the voluntary system should be tried in the first instance, but he never imagined that the voluntary system would be sufficient to maintain the militia at its full complement and in a state of efficiency during a time of war. The voluntary mode of enlistment was calculated to answer in time of peace, because it was unimportant whether the number maintained was 50,000 or 80,000; but in time of war it was of the greatest importance that the militia should be kept up to its full complement, because it was to the militia that we must very much look for the maintenance of the army in a state of efficiency. It must be very obvious, however, that voluntary enlistment for the militia in time of war would enter directly into competition with enlistment for the army. Two voluntary systems could not be successful if carried on at the same time, and in point of fact the enlistment for the militia had interfered very materially with the enlistment for the army. Hence the Government, as soon as war was declared, should have taken steps for raising the militia to its full complement by means of the ballot; but up to the present moment nothing had been done in that direction, although we had now been twelve months in a state of war. The result was, that the militia force was reduced to about 30,000 men, and, what was worse, he much feared that the deficiency in the army was still greater. He believed that at the present time the army was no less than 41,000 men below the complement voted by Parliament, and that, moreover, the daily or weekly returns of recruits, notwithstanding the denials of the Government to the contrary, would not give a greater number of men than the casualties which were constantly taking place in the ranks of the army. In a time of peace, the casualties amounted to from 20,000 to 25,000 men a year. In a time of war they amounted to 35,000 to 40,000 men. Did any one believe that that number of men could he raised by voluntary enlistment so long as the militia force was also raised upon the voluntary system? It was generally supposed, when the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton was selected by Her Majesty for the distinguished post he now occupied, that he was the fittest person in the country to carry on the war with energy, vigour, and efficiency. He confessed he was at a loss to discover in what that vigour and efficiency consisted. He thought that much more energy was displayed by the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen, than by the Administration of the noble Viscount. Under the present Government the militia force had crumbled to pieces, and the army been reduced to 41,000 men below its proper complement. What had the noble Viscount done for the purpose of raising the Foreign Legion? The Bill had been in force for five months, and yet, until within the last ten days, not a single step had been taken upon it. It was true that the noble Viscount told them, in his usual off-hand manner, that the language used in that House had displeased the Germans, who were consequently not willing to enlist; but that could not be the reason why the Bill had not been carried into effect, for he himself knew a very distinguished Swiss general who came over to England for the express purpose of offering the Government a very large body of Swiss troops, and better troops could not be had anywhere. That officer was detained here for weeks without an answer to his application, and at last he left the country, whether in consequence of his proposal having been rejected, or whether in disgust at the treatment he had received, it was impossible to say. Nor was there any good reason to suppose that the Germans were unwilling to enlist, else how did it happen that the noble Viscount had within the last ten days signed an agreement with a Brunswick general to raise and command a body of troops. What was the condition of the administrative departments at the present moment? For example, had any great improvement taken place in the War Office? The noble Lord the Member for the City of London was very vigilant in looking after the Duke of Newcastle. It was to be hoped he would be equally vigilant in looking after Lord Panmure. An example of the manner in which affairs were still conducted in the War Office occurred the other day. A large body of Guards were sent down to Portsmouth in a great hurry to be embarked on board a ship which was waiting there for their reception. When they arrived on the spot they found the ship half full of other troops. These troops were sent on shore, and the Guards hurried on board, and while the former were unable to get their baggage out of the ship, the latter found it impossible to get theirs into it. The result was, that the Guards were sent off without shoes—the most necessary article of clothing for a soldier—and were obliged to take with them their old regulation muskets instead of Minié rifles. When the attention of Lord Panmure was called to the case in another place, he said that he did not believe it possible, and in reality confessed that he knew nothing about the administration of his own department. Great allowances were to be made for Lord Panmure, because his health was such that he could not devote all his time to the business of his department; but it must be admitted that the War Office was not in a much better state than it was during the time of the Duke of Newcastle, and he would recommend the noble Lord the Member for the City of London to direct his particular attention to that subject. But to return to the militia, it might perhaps be said that if the ballot were established throughout the country it would cause great inconvenience. To be sure it would. It would be very inconvenient to the farmer to lose his labourers, and to the manufacturer to lose his workmen; but did they expect to carry on the war without inconvenience? Did they think that the Russians were carrying on the war without inconvenience? The people of England knew that war would be inconvenient, yet they determined to go to war, and they must take the consequences which such a state of things necessarily entailed. He was one of those who deprecated the objects of the war. He thought it might have been avoided without any sacrifice to the honour or interests of the country; but that was past—we were now at war—and there was no Member of that House more anxious and willing than he was to make sacrifices for carrying on the war with vigour and efficiency—none who lamented more than he did the sacrifice which England had made of her reputation and character by the manner in which the war had been hitherto conducted. He regretted that England should be descending in the scale of nations, and, above all, he deplored that she should no longer be trusting to her own resources, but should be looking for aid and assistance to the battalions of France. They were told day after day that France would send more men to the seat of war; they never heard that England would do so. Why? Because England had no more men to send—because, owing to the mismanagement of her resources, she could afford no more troops. He had thought it his duty to bring this subject under the notice of the House, because he believed that the just indignation of the people would not much longer be restrained, and that the country would not much longer permit its resources to be thus mismanaged and trifled with by the Government. He therefore wished to ask what measures the Government intended to take to place the militia force in a proper state of efficiency.

said, that the irregularity which the hon. Gentleman had committed in delivering a speech at that time was not the only mistake he had made, for he had fallen into several errors more or less important. The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that while France was sending out large reinforcements to the Crimea, no additional troops were being despatched from England. [Mr. H. BAILLIE: I did not say so.] He would beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that if he had made inquiries in the proper quarter, he would have found that within the last two months upwards of 10,000 troops had gone from this country, representing a force equal to three times the number of the enemy. The hon. Gentleman had also fallen into an error respecting the embarkation of the Guards. When the Alma was at Liverpool, the Admiralty officers there reported that she would be able to accommodate a certain number of troops; but when she arrived at Portsmouth, the local officers were of opinion that she ought not to take so large a number. Under these circumstances, a certain number of men belonging to the line were landed from the vessel, and a body of Guards taken on board. If the Government had persisted in sending out more men than the ship could conveniently accommodate, the result would inevitably have been great sickness and mortality on board, and he thought, therefore, they were right in the course they pursued. Again, the hon. Gentleman said that nothing whatever had been done with respect to the carrying out the Foreign Legion Act. That was not correct. Several officers had received commissions to raise troops under the Act; two or three of them had already proceeded to Germany for the purpose of enlisting men; and in a short space of time depôts would be in course of formation, both at Heligoland and in this country. With respect to the militia force, he admitted that the Government were bound to take every possible step to put it in an efficient state, and certainly the progress of the war proved more than ever our dependence upon that force. When we first sent troops from this country to the East the number of regiments of the line in this country was so much reduced that it became necessary to embody a certain portion of the militia to do that duty which had before been done by the line, and later on, when the garrisons in the Mediterranean were reduced below their usual strength, for the purpose of reinforcing the army in the Crimea, an appeal was made under the authority of an Act of Parliament to certain militia regiments to volunteer for foreign service; in consequence of which several regiments had volunteered, and two or three had already left this country for the purpose of reinforcing the garrisons of Gibraltar and Malta. It was, no doubt, true, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that a considerable inroad had been made on the effective strength of the militia in consequence of discussions which had recently taken place in reference to the Act of 1854; but the Government was not responsible for all that happened under that Act, nor was it, indeed, open to the Government to take any other course than that which they had adopted. The state of the case was this—the men who were embodied prior to the passing of the Act of 1854 offered their services upon the understanding that they were only liable to be called out for training for a period of from twenty-one to fifty-six days in the year, and they were liable to be called out for permanent duty only in the event of invasion, or threatened invasion. Considering the improbability of this event, there were no doubt many persons who joined the militia under the persuasion that they would not lose their civil employments by their military duties. The question then arose whether the Act of 1854 had a retrospective effect, and whether it applied to those who had joined the militia previous to its passing. The matter was referred to the law officers of the Crown, who gave a decided opinion that the Act did apply to those men—in fact, that it had a retrospective effect, and therefore if any militiaman said to the Government, "I refuse to continue on permanent duty; I have served my fifty-six days, and there is no fear of invasion; therefore I demand to be allowed to go home," the Government would have a complete answer for him. What the Government had the right of doing was perfectly clear, but it was a different question whether or not the Government should exercise their right. The House must allow that nothing was of more importance, with reference to the complete efficiency of the militia force, than that there should be the greatest possible confidence between it and the Government. It was highly desirable that the militiaman should not have it in his power to say that an undue advantage had been taken of him, and that, having enlisted on a certain understanding, the Government, availing themselves of the power granted to them by Parliament, had altered his position and called him out for permanent service, under perfectly different circumstances. A circular was therefore sent round to the commanding officers of different regiments, directing them to give their men the option of returning to their homes after fifty-six days' service, or else to re-attest themselves for continuous service after receiving a bounty of 1l. A great many men, no doubt, availed themselves of the circular and returned to their homes, and the militia regiments, though none of them had been broken up, had suffered a material diminution in their numbers. For the purpose of remedying their loss, the hon. Gentleman proposed that the Government should resort to the ballot, but the ballot would not be available for that purpose. It must be remembered that the men who had gone to their homes were still borne on the rolls of the regiment; and, when the time for their fifty-six days' training came round in the ensuing year, they would be called on to rejoin their regiments, consequently the only way in which the ballot could be resorted to in their case would be by first getting rid of them altogether, and then supplying their places by means of the ballot. If, however, it were determined to get rid of these men altogether, the first thing obviously for the Government to do would be to ascertain if their place could not be supplied by the same process by which they had been raised—namely, by voluntary enlistment—and, if that failed, then to resort to the ballot. Even counting the men who had gone to their homes, but who were still borne on the rolls of the regiment, there was no doubt that the strength of the militia regiments was considerably below the establishment. The Act of Parliament authorised the levy of 80,000 men in England and Wales, but at no time had there been more than from 45,000 to 50,000 men actually enrolled, and that number was considerably diminished in consequence of the number of men who had volunteered into the regular army. The present force of the militia in England and Wales under arms, not counting the men who had gone home, or the regiments which had been sent to the Mediterranean, was a little under 25,000 men, rank and file. One reason for not now resorting to the ballot in order to increase this force was the deficiency of barrack and hut accommodation. The present system of billeting the men in the towns where they were stationed gave the greatest dissatisfaction to the householders, and it was at the same time very demoralising to the men themselves. Out of the 25,000 men under arms at the present moment, only 6,000 were in garrison, the remaining 19,000 being in billets. Considering the impossibility of establishing discipline in the militia regiments while the men were in billets, and considering also the great number at present unprovided with barrack or hut accommodation, he considered that it would be very unwise to resort to the ballot just now for the purpose of raising the force beyond its present strength.

said, he thought the hon. Under Secretary for War had not answered his hon. Friend's (Mr. H. Bail-lie) question, which was, what means were the Government about to take for the purpose of putting the militia force on a more efficient footing? Every day complaints were being made by the commanding officers of militia regiments that, whether they wrote to the War Office or to the Commander in Chief, they could get no answer to their letters of any kind. If the War Office could not carry on the business of the militia, the Government ought to organise a regular staff, with an adjutant general, and a quarter-master general, to receive reports from the commanding officers of regiments, and to administer the department generally, under the control of the War Office. It was highly important that the militia should be put into a state of the highest possible efficiency, but at present, so far as he could learn, the whole administration of the force had got into a deadlock. The colonel of the Donegal Militia, he was informed—though he had written over and over again to the authorities in Dublin and to the War Office in England, complaining of the state of his regiment, that his men were sleeping four or five in a bed, and were in a condition disgraceful almost for pigs to be in—could get no answer of any kind to his representations. The whole force was paralysed, and, at the same time, the recruiting for the army had to a great extent been put an end to. If the Government had attended to the representations which were made to them some time go, it would have been perfectly possible for them to get pretty nearly all the militia to re-attest themselves for fresh service, by giving them a small bounty at once. When the men were made aware of the actual position in which they stood, in consequence of a discussion that took place elsewhere, they came forward and claimed their discharge, and then the Government tried to draw them back again into the service by offering them 1l. bounty. What was the result? Why, that every one of these militia regiments were thrown into a state of total disorganisation, the inhabitants of the different towns complained of the scenes of riot and insobriety which occurred, and the commanding officers lost all control over a body of men who, with proper discipline, might form a valuable reserve army. It would be in the recollection of all men connected with the military service of the country, that it had always been a very important question whether recruiting for the militia could be carried on without paralysing the recruiting for the army. There was no denying that to a certain extent the recruiting for the army had been paralysed, and at the same time he was of opinion that the pay of the militia had been inefficient. Unless something were done, and that quickly, the recruiting for the army would be altogether stopped. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) said that 10,000 men had left England within the last two months. He should be very glad to have a return of those men, for, speaking from memory, he was strongly impressed with the idea that that was an over-statement. He must repeat that the duty of the Government was at once to establish a militia staff to be in direct communication with the War Office. He felt sure that this was the only way in which the reports and complaints of the colonels of militia regiments could be properly attended to.

said, that one statement just made by the hon. Under Secretary for War corroborated the charge of apathy and inactivity preferred by the hon. Member (Mr. H. Baillie) against the Government. A special Session of Parliament was summoned early last December for the express purpose of passing the Foreign Enlistment Bill, and, five months having since elapsed, the House was now told that the Government hoped at some future time to be able to state that depôts were forming of the troops to be raised under that Act. No unforeseen difficulties that they had heard of had been encountered in the carrying out of that measure; and, therefore, if this announcement of the hon. Under Secretary was to be taken as a fair specimen of the energy and diligence of the Government in meeting the requirements of such a contest as that in which we were now engaged, there was but little hope of their seeing the war brought to either a speedy or a satisfactory termination. The House was entitled to ask from the Government an explanation of the apparently unaccountable delays that had occurred in the carrying out of an Act which they had themselves regarded as being of such vital importance.

said, he wished to state, in reference to the complaint that had been made of want of attention on the part of the War Office to the colonels of the militia, that the official communications which, as an officer of that force, he had occasion to address to those authorities, had been always met with the greatest promptitude and courtesy. The replies which he received certainly might not always have been perfectly satisfactory to him; but, as an independent Member of that House, and once sitting on the Opposition side, he felt it to be his duty to say that he had invariably found the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) and the present Under Secretary of the same department, most anxious to consider what was pointed out to them as likely to benefit the service. At the same time, it was questionable whether it would not have been more advantageous for the Government to adopt a somewhat different course than they had done in regard to the embodiment of the militia. When the opportunity of obtaining their discharge was held out to the men, and they found that they might go away in quest of work in the summer and return in the winter, they largely availed themselves of this privilege; whereas, if they had been merely told that some doubts existed as to the law under which they enrolled, and they had been offered 20s. each to obey it, the result might have been very different. With respect to the huts now being provided for the militia at Aldershot, if they were intended to be occupied permanently, certainly more attention to the comfort of the men ought to have been evinced than appeared to have been bestowed. The officers' quarters, for instance, were only nine feet by ten, and about eight feet high; such places would certainly be unsafe to occupy for any length of time.

said, he could confirm the testimony borne by the hon. Member who spoke last as to the conduct of the War Department towards the officers of the militia; for it was impossible for any one to experience greater courtesy or assistance than he had personally received as a colonel of militia from the authorities at the War Office.

said, that there could be no doubt that great delay had occurred in the conduct of the militia business in Ireland; and some commanding officers there certainly had had their communications left unanswered. One officer, to his knowledge, having sent a communication to the War Office, and obtained no reply, came over from Ireland in order to have a personal interview with the authorities on a matter relating to his regiment. He (Mr. Bellow) himself had the honour to hold a commission in the militia, and could state that a desire existed among the officers and men to know when it was the intention of the Government to send out these regiments. Great demoralisation had ensued from the billeting of the militia, and steps ought long before now to have been taken to provide them with proper barracks. In one county, where there were 1,200 men, there was only accommodation for forty. The commanding officer was desired to hire buildings in which to place the men, but he declined doing so, as the hire would have amounted to 430l. for only a short period. If it should be found, as it probably would, that the troops could not, consistently with their health, occupy the huts at Aldershot during the winter, and if those in Ireland could not remain in the encampment at the Curragh of Kildare later than October, great evil must ensue from the men being sent back to their own homes. When surrounded by their friends and relatives, militiamen were not so likely to long for that activity which was so congenial to the soldier, and which often induced them to volunteer for the line, as would be the case were they provided with comfortable barracks, and subjected to regular training and discipline. He begged, therefore, to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War whether it was the intention of the Government to build barracks, or what steps they had taken towards hiring buildings which these men could occupy, in order to prevent the painful necessity of sending them back again in the winter to the towns in which they were at present billeted? He wished also to know whether it was intended that all the militia sent to encamp on the Curragh should be Irish regiments? This was a matter of some importance, because the Irishmen of the south and west could not possibly be prevented from quarrelling with those from the north of Ireland. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but, remembering the two designations of Orangemen and Whiteboys applied to the Irishmen of the north and south, he was sure that if these men were sent to encamp together serious mischief might be apprehended.

said, that billeting fell very lightly on Edinburgh, a city of 120,000 souls; but on the smaller towns—Dalkeith, for instance, with only 5,000 inhabitants—the injury it inflicted was intense. A medical gentleman of that town had four militiamen billeted on him within three weeks, who turned out to be the most worthless, drunken characters imaginable; in fact, a perfect disgrace to his house. He (Mr. Cowan) had sent a communication, which he had received from the billet-master of Edinburgh, on the subject of billeting, to Lord Panmure; and he hoped, as that document was acknowledged to be valuable, that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War would direct his attention to it. The present system of militia accommodation in the small towns of Scotland was quite disgusting.

said, he wished to recall the attention of the House to the fact that no answer had been given by the Government to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. H. Baillie) as to whether the Government contemplated any, and what, measures for restoring the militia to a state of efficiency. From the very desponding and gloomy statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, it appeared that the militia was reduced to 25,000 men, and that the regular army was 40,000 men below the number voted by Parliament. The consequences of the unfortunate blunder which had taken place with regard to the militia seemed, therefore, to be that that force was now utterly inefficient. The people of England had never yet (to use an American phrase) "realised" to themselves the serious nature of the conflict into which they had to a certain degree dragged the Government. If this contest continued, and England was to maintain her position as a first-rate Power, very different measures must be taken to any which had yet been adopted, for all the exertions we had hitherto made were puny and insignificant, either considering the mighty contest in which we had embarked, or as contrasted with what this country had done during the last French war.

said, he thought that if there was any foundation for the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel), that the army was at this momoment 40,000 men below its estimated strength, the sooner the noble Viscount carried out the intentions which seemed to be indicated throughout his speech, the better for this country; for, if we endeavoured with so small a force to cope with the enormous military resources of Russia, we might just as well retire at once from such a contest. Connected with the information given to the House by the hon. Gentleman was a question he wished to put as to the proceedings of the agents who had been sent to Germany to enrol a Foreign Legion. He wanted to know if it was becoming the dignity of this country to enter into a sort of surreptitious war? Were the agents sent to Germany to enrol troops for us in communication with the authorities there, and had they, he should like to know, the sanction of the Sovereigns of the German States? Already, he believed, we had been subjected to some severe mortifications on this point. He had recently read that an attempt to enrol Americans for the purpose of fighting the battles of Great Britain was made in New York, but the office opened by the English agent was closed by the authorities there, and the enrolment was thus put an end to. Again, he had heard that in Prussia an order had been issued directing the attention of the inhabitants to the rules and regulations affecting the entry of Prussian subjects into the service of a foreign potentate, and this attempt on the part of English agents was likewise put an end to. Similar occurrences had, he understood, taken place in Hamburg, and also in Switzerland, so that, if this was the case, very few of the German States seemed disposed to allow the English agents to procure men. He wished likewise to know, therefore, whether these agents had been sent over to Germany (for it seemed the Government had abandoned their original idea to take the foreign emigrants as they passed through this country) with the sanction of the Sovereigns of the States in which they were stationed, or whether the Government was prepared to bear these Sovereigns harmless through any transactions which might occur between them and the Emperor of Russia in consequence of these proceedings? He thought it would be satisfactory to the country that the hon. Gentleman should distinctly inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government had been in communication with the Sovereigns of the countries in which they were endeavouring to raise recruits for the Foreign Legion.

said, he was of opinion that, as the original agreement was to enlist the men for a period of fifty-six days, Government could not have acted otherwise than they had done without committing a breach of faith with the militia. He rose, however, to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of War, whether the statement was true, that no militiamen would be reattested after the 26th ultimo?

said, he was sure the discussion had lasted quite long enough, but he wished to express his conviction, founded on several years' residence both in the north and south of Ireland, that it would be very inexpedient, without a large sprinkling of English regiments, to assemble a large number of Irish militia at the Curragh. In support of this conviction, he would relate a circumstance which happened to himself a short time ago. He was conversing with some gentlemen from his own county in the public coffee-room of an inn in the south of Ireland whilst two northern gentlemen were sitting at breakfast. A hope was expressed that if the militia was to be sent to the Curragh, a considerable leaven of English regiments would be placed between the northern and southern regiments. Some one observed, he thought that the southern militia would be great fools if they agreed to it, for if they did the English militia would take part with the northern regiments if a quarrel broke out, and the southern ones would stand no chance. One of the northern gentlemen jumped up with a very fierce air, and said, "Why, sir, the northern would not require one of them." The gentleman looked so fierce, that if he had been of a quarrelsome disposition, there would have been a very pretty quarrel ready made to his hands.

said, if he correctly understood the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), he suggested that Government, to make up the proper force of the militia, should have recourse to the ballot. His hon. Friend (Mr. F. Peel) had replied that Government did not think that they had as yet exhausted all the means of voluntary enlistment, and in confirmation of that statement he (Sir G. Grey) would read a paper which his hon. Friend had just sent for. In this paper it appeared that within the last month no less than 5,412 men had been added to the ranks of the militia, including 500 who had availed themselves of the permission given in the circular, but who had since returned and had been reattested. The whole number discharged under the circular which had been sent out from the War Office was 8,336. The deficiency, therefore, was in great measure supplied by the number which had since joined. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Baillie) also suggested a separate militia staff to ensure its efficiency. Now, the embodied militia formed a part of the military force of the country within the United Kingdom, and were subject to the military authorities, and did not require a separate establishment. With respect to the charges brought against the War Office by the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) he need not say a word. They had had the testimony borne from several quarters totally unconnected with Government with respect to the attention given by the War Office to the communications of militia officers. Before the business of the militia was transferred from the Home Office to the War Office he had received various communications complaining of the great inconvenience as well as injury done to the discipline of the men by keeping them in billets. He had entirely concurred in that opinion, and when the business of the Militia Department was transferred to the War Office, he had pointed out the importance of meeting the wishes of the officers, and of providing barrack accommodation to the fullest extent. The only reason for billeting the men was the want of barracks. He might inform the House that several regiments not yet embodied would have been embodied but for the difficulty of finding barrack accommodation. At the present moment there were in the United Kingdom 42,381 militiamen, but only 25,000 were under arms. With respect to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Granby), he might say that every facility had been given for the reattestation of the men, and that nearly 500 men had been restored to the ranks after having left them. With respect to the foreign enlistment, the question raised by the hon. Member below the gangway (Mr. Otway) was totally opposite to the charge brought by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), who said that Government were not doing enough to obtain recruits for the Foreign Legion. He thought that the difficulty had been over and over again explained. The ardour exhibited throughout the Continent to join the cause of the allied powers in the present war, which had led Her Majesty's Government to form an expectation that there would be no difficulty in raising a Foreign Legion, was much damped and checked by the tone of the debates which had taken place in Parliament, and by the discredit which was then thrown upon what were termed mercenary corps. In addition to this, the refusal of the House of Commons to allow half-pay to officers had presented great obstacles to Government, and had induced many who had made offers to form corps for the Foreign Legion to withdraw them. The Government had formed a depôt at Heligoland, so that any foreigners who chose to enlist could come there without any violation of the laws of any foreign country, and they would find there the means of being attested.

said, he wished to ask if the right hon. Baronet had heard of a rumour that a large number of Germans were expected to arrive to-morrow unexpectedly.

said, he had not heard the rumour, but Her Majesty's Government would be very happy to receive them, if they were recruits for the Foreign Legion.

said, he wished to take the opportunity of bringing under the attention of the Government a subject which he thought of considerable importance in connection with the prosecution of the war. There were in the Government prisons of England some 10,000 convicts under sentence of transportation for long periods, and an addition was made to this number at the rate of about 4,000 a year. There were also nearly 2,000 convicts turned out upon the country every year with what were rather significantly called "orders of licence," and, however willing these men might be to work, they were almost invariably unable to obtain employment. He thought the present war afforded an opportunity of solving the difficulty which had occurred with reference to the disposal of men of this class. These convicts had, while in prison, become accustomed to an almost military discipline, many of them were capable of great physical labour, and they were by no means the worst criminals in the country, but were, perhaps, the least degraded of any class of criminals. They were, by all accounts, not habitual thieves, but men of ungoverned temper driven by violent impulse into various outrages. He need scarcely remind the House, on the other hand, that our gallant soldiers in the Crimea were compelled to undertake most severe labour of all kinds, which he considered they ought not to be called upon to perform. The choicest troops of England were forced to perform fatigue duties, such as never ought to be thrown upon them, and even the Guards had been required to clean out cesspools. When ablebodied men were turned out of our prisons, at the rate of 150 a month, with, so called "orders of licence" but without the means of employment, and when our soldiers were overtasked with labour unfit for the troops, but which these convicts were well able to perform, he wished to ask why the convicts who were considered eligible for orders of licence might not have the option of enlisting for a limited time, in commutation of the remainder of their sentences, for the particular description of service to which he had referred? He would not enter into details as to the organisation of such a body, but he would suggest that their dress or uniform should not be military; that they should be embodied distinctly as a labour corps; that they should be paid, as in prison, for taskwork; that a portion of their pay should be kept back until their terms of service had expired; that they should receive gratuities for good conduct in the same manner as in prison; and that they should have one commissioned officer to each company, and sergeants selected from the warders under whose supervision they were placed while in prison. He believed that 1,500 men of this description would be at once available, who might be formed into ten or twelve companies of 120 men each. He had consulted several gentlemen on this subject, whose opinions were entitled to great weight, including officers of the convict department, governors of various prisons, and some of the inspectors of prisons, and they all had expressed their approval of the suggestion, one of the gentlemen to whom he referred having stated his readiness to take the command of the corps. He (Mr. Adderley) had also mentioned the matter to some of the leading military authorities, including Lord Hardinge, Sir John Burgoyne, and Lord Panmure, and they deemed the proposition one which deserved consideration. Indeed he had been informed by Lord Panmure that he would submit the proposition to Lord Raglan for his opinion. The only misgiving in the minds of the military authorities was as to the way in which men embodied in such a service might be looked upon by our soldiers in the Crimea. It was said it was doubtful whether our army would look upon them with great dislike and disgust, or whether they would be very well satisfied with the aid they derived from such a body. Even if the army should look upon such a body of men with some disgust, he did not think any bad result could be anticipated, while, if the army found them an available and useful body of servants, who undertook hard work to the relief of the soldiers, he thought the plan would be regarded with satisfaction. He would remind the House that in the French army a similar body had been organised for some time past, and had been found of very material service. He saw by what took place yesterday in another place that an additional number of navvies were to be sent out to the Crimea; but he thought it was very doubtful whether this scheme would be successful, and there were many reasons why navvies were not so likely to be serviceable as the class of persons to whom he had been referring. They would have high pay, they were not so well disciplined as the convicts, and would not be so easily brought under military control. The discipline which convicts underwent would make them a good force for the kind of service required; but the navvies had received no training, and there was nothing in their habits and customs that could render them at all a satisfactory body for the Commander in Chief to deal with. High military authority was already expressed against such civilian adjuncts to the army. He understood that it was not intended to arm these navvies, though they were to be employed in the trenches; and therefore the soldiers, in addition to their other duties, would have imposed upon them the task of guarding the navvies. In every respect he thought convicts would be superior to this class, and he believed that had their services been employed twelve months ago many valuable lives would have been saved. If it was determined that convicts were not to be employed in any way, it would become a serious question what was to be done with them—the country is at this moment in terror of their mode of being turned loose—and perhaps the House might yet have to regret that so good an opportunity as the present, of trying an experiment that might turn out to be a permanent resource for the country, had not been taken advantage of.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) had not submitted his proposition on an occasion when it might have been more deliberately discussed. He regretted also the remarks which had fallen from an hon. Gentleman with respect to the state of feeling which it was said existed between the south and the north of Ireland. Even if a bad feeling did exist there, he thought that it ought not to have been alluded to in that House. The very mention of such a thing was bad. He knew a good deal of his fellow-countrymen, and he could say for the southern portion of the inhabitants of Ireland, that they had not that aversion to the northern districts which was imputed to them by the hon. Gentleman. He confidently believed that when his fellow-countrymen were called upon to act in defence of their country, their only thought would be how they could best defend her honour and interests. If the men would only follow the example of their officers, he was sure that such would be their conduct. He had the honour of being attached to an Irish militia regiment, the majority of whose officers differed from him both in politics and religion, and yet there never had arisen the slightest difference between them. The difficulty of recruiting for the militia was becoming more difficult every day, and several remedies had been proposed to lessen the difficulty. He believed that that would be materially effected by paying the larger portion of the bounty to the recruits as soon as they joined the service, instead of doling it out as now in small instalments. In the first place, that system of doles made the men fancy that tricks had been played with them, and they gave a bad report of the service to their friends who were thereby prejudiced against the militia. From the experience which he had had of the militia, he believed that the very best plan that the Government could adopt with regard to the payment of the bounty was, to pay the whole of it to the recruit as soon as he entered the service. Eight out of every ten of the militiamen that had come from his district sent their bounty at once to their parents and friends, whereas, when only doles were given to them from time to time, they spent it in the drunken habits which they learned from the bad example of ill-conducted men who entered into the service, and their parents and friends were thus deprived of the benefit of their bounty. With regard to the very important point as to militiamen volunteering into the line, he must say that he thought the difficulty of obtaining such volunteers was owing to the disorganised state of the militia regiments during the eight or ten days in which the men had to consider whether they would volunteer into the army. Lord Panmure had strongly deprecated the break-up of their discipline during these eight or ten days, which he said was without doubt very mischievous to the service. And yet that system still continued. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) must speak with diffidence on this subject, as he had had only three months' experience in the militia; but as far as he could judge, nothing was more calculated to do mischief to the service than that break-up of organisation in the militia regiments at the end of their period of service, when the young men were to be seen reeling through the streets in a state of drunkenness.

said, he most cordially approved of the hon. Member's (Mr. J. O'Connell's) deprecation of the differences which were alleged to exist between the men of the south and west, and those of the north of Ireland. It would certainly be a great disgrace to them if such differences existed; but he had not seen any such differences. He was happy to say that he was acquainted with some Irish militia regiments in which were Protestants and Roman Catholics from various districts of Ireland, who lived together in the most perfect harmony, as if they came from the same town. He had not the slightest fear of such disputes as had been alluded to by an hon. Gentleman. The avoidance of such disputes depended upon the officers, and he was sure that they would not encourage them. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) had spoken of two militia officers who had quarrelled at an inn, but he omitted to state at what hour of the night that quarrel took place. With regard to the question of the payment of the bounty, he concurred with the hon. Member for Clonmel in thinking that its payment in doles tended to diminish enlistment. He must also complain of the manner in which the embarkation of troops and stores was still conducted. The other day when a troop of artillery was embarked, it was found after the guns were on board, that the horses could not be taken in, and if the horses were taken, their harness could not be. These things occurred every day, and yet there could not be a more useful or efficient department than the Board of Ordnance, if properly worked. He did not impute to the Government a want of anxiety with respect to the management of the war, but accidents had occurred with respect to it which proper care and foresight must have prevented. He likewise considered that the whole system of recruiting for our army was bad. We were enlisting boys of sixteen and eighteen years of age, who were totally unfit for active service in the Crimea—and yet they were sent out to fight against the veterans of Russia. But when they reached the Crimea they were sent to the hospital and to their graves. The work in the trenches soon terminated their existence. He had spoken to officers who had returned from the Crimea, and they assured him that those young men and boys were a nuisance instead of a service to the army, and that it would be far better to send out a few efficient men than multitudes of undisciplined and inexperienced boys. We could not at this moment procure men who were sufficiently trained to undergo a campaign in the Crimea. They might talk of enlisting a foreign legion, but the men forming such a legion would have to be drilled and disciplined for some time in this country before they could be fit to join the army in the Crimea. It was said you have got a Turkish legion; but every one who was acquainted with Turkey, and with the habits of the Albanians, must know that they would never make good soldiers, and that they were nothing but rubbish. The Osmanli would not enlist into our service—it would be repugnant to his habits to do so. He saw no probability of our army being efficiently recruited under the present system. Until better pay was given to our cavalry, we certainly need not expect to obtain an efficient cavalry force. Some measure must be taken by the Government to increase the pay of the cavalry, if they wished to carry on the war with vigour. He did not think that the army could be recruited from the convict prisons, as had been proposed by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). That hon. Gentleman had no doubt quoted high authorities in support of his proposition, but he (Colonel Dunne) wished to know what officer would employ convicts with armies either in the Crimea or elsewhere? It would be necessary to employ a large force to prevent convicts from deserting. Suppose convicts were employed in the trenches, did any one suppose that they would not desert to the enemy on the first opportunity that might present itself, and then our plans would be revealed to our foes. Nothing but the constant terror of the bullet or bayonet would prevent such men from deserting and betraying us. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the Government would not agree to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman.

said, the desultory debate which had taken place upon this subject was a good illustration of the extreme inconvenience of Members bringing important matters under the consideration of the House on the Motion for its adjournment until Monday. He would confine himself to two or three observations, as the subject had not been brought before the House in a formal manner. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) seemed to have overlooked the fact that there were two classes of convicts—namely, those who were undergoing penal servitude for a period of two, three, or four years, and who, during the whole period of the term for which they had been sentenced, were either undergoing punishment in prison, or employed in the public works of this country, and those who had been sentenced to transportation, but whose sentences could not be carried into immediate effect. After they had passed a portion of their term of punishment in prison, letters of licence were given to them, which corresponded with the tickets of leave granted in the colonies. The convicts referred to by the hon. Gentleman belonged to the former class, who were sentenced to short periods of penal servitude; and he (Sir G. Grey) thought it would be most dangerous to hold out to them any hope that after they had undergone eighteen months of penal servitude, they should, irrespective of the crimes of which they had been convicted, and of the length of servitude to which they had been sentenced, have the opportunity of enlisting into the service of the army. Irrespective of any considerations as to the effect which such enlistment would have upon the army, he thought that the holding out of such an inducement would greatly diminish the terror which punishment exercised over the evilly disposed members of the community. If the proposition of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect, the sentences of the Judges would be considered to be only nominal, as the party sentenced would feel that, if he only observed the prison rules—no matter how long the period he was sentenced to—for eighteen months, he would have an opportunity of enlisting into the army. With regard, however, to the other class, who, after having undergone a considerable portion of their sentence, had obtained letters of licence, he thought the case was very different. That class of persons, when they had obtained letters of licence, would be permitted to return to society, and to work for an honest living. He thought it would be desirable to encourage them to enter upon an honest occupation, and if nothing had been publicly said on this subject, it might have bee desirable secretly to facilitate the employment of some of those convicts, mixed up with other persons, in works connected with the military operations; but it would be a dangerous proceeding, on account of the feelings it would excite, to make a distinct corps of them, and necessarily a military corps, because they must form part of the army, be disciplined under the Mutiny Act, and officered by gentlemen holding Her Majesty's commission. Such a proposition Lord Panmure had informed him could not be entertained. With respect to the employment of that useful class of persons commonly called "navvies," of course the same objection did not exist. Their labours in the construction of the railway in the Crimea had shown them to be a most efficient body of men, and they would be found serviceable, no doubt, in relieving the army from work not wholly of a military character.

Before any other hon. Member rises to speak, I think it right to state that Orders of the Day have precedence of Motions on Friday, and that for the last three hours the House has been discussing questions founded on a Motion which must be withdrawn, inasmuch as the House must meet to-morrow, as there is then to be a Royal Assent by Commission.

said, the Board of Ordnance were in no degree responsible for anything that had occurred in regard to the embarkation of the artillery force. It was true, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) that the Candia was appointed to take out a certain number of artillery horses, and when she arrived at Woolwich the horses, men, and, in fact, everything was ready for embarkation. The captain of the Candia, however, gave it as his decided opinion that if the number of horses were placed on the deck of the Candia that had been appointed to be placed there, it would be attended with considerable danger, and therefore, he strongly recommended that nothing of the sort should be done. He thought the artillery officers exercised a wise discretion in communicating that danger to the Transport Board, but the Ordnance had not the slightest responsibility in the matter. Adverting to another point which had been touched upon, namely, the tents sent out to the Crimea, he could state that 2,000 had already been sent out, while 1,000 were now ready for embarkation, but at the request of the Commander in Chief, they were single tents, in order to save weight.

said, that, in resuming the discussion on this measure it was advisable that he should remind the House that the Bill before them consisted of three distinct parts, and with regard to the last part of it, relating to the consideration of the different Acts having reference to leasing powers, no great difference of opinion existed. The other portions related to the question of compensation to tenants for improvements, that part being again divided into two distinct parts, one relating to compensation for prospective improvements; and the other, and, in his opinion, the most objectionable, to compensation for retrospective improvements. In 1852 he had stated his willingness to consider favourably the question of future improvements; but he had never consented, and never would consent, to the retrospective clauses, having always regarded such clauses as a gross violation of the rights of property and of existing contracts. He wished shortly to call the attention of the House to the position in which the Government stood with reference to their Bill. It would be recollected that when the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) brought forward his Bill in 1852, he declared that he would not have brought it forward if he had thought it interfered with the rights of property. That Bill was the one known as Mr. Sharman Crawford's, but at the period in question he had pointed out that the hon. and learned Member had proposed to add to that Bill two clauses of a most objectionable character, and essentially destructive of property. These clauses related to what was called perpetuity of tenure, and to the compulsory valuation of land. If these clauses had become law they would have converted every man's fee simple in Ireland into a mere rent charge on the property at the good will and pleasure of the tenant. As the Members of the Government had acted on the silent system with regard to the present Bill, he must assume that they were favourable to it, and to the objectionable retrospective clauses. After the declaration made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and also that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, it was impossible they could sit on the Treasury bench unless they were prepared to support the measure. A conference had been held on this subject almost immediately after the election of 1852, attended by a large number of the Irish Members, and at that conference the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) moved that they were prepared—

"To hold themselves perfectly independent of, and in opposition to, every Government which would not make it part of its policy and a Cabinet question to give to the tenantry of Ireland a measure fully embodying the principle of Mr. Sharman Crawford's measure."

The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) on that occasion likewise said—

"I stand here prepared to sacrifice all expectations of power, place, or pension—to fling to the winds all considerations of advantage and emolument—provided I can successfully aid in carrying out to its fullest fruition this great project, worthy of the nation."

The hon. and learned Gentleman, he must admit, said, that he would not pledge himself to support Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill in all its details, but that he would support its principle. So the matter stood till 1852, when the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) introduced his four Bills on the subject, one of which was greatly analogous to the present Bill relating to leasing powers. He admitted that in one of the Bills the right hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced clauses that were retrospective, as well as clauses that were prospective. He, however, did not vindicate that course. In fact he had never voted for a single clause having a retrospective effect. Those Bills, with the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, were referred to a Select Committee, and the first step taken by that Committee was to reject the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, on the ground that it was a Bill subversive of the rights of property. The Landlord and Tenant Bill, the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and the Leasing Powers Bill had been referred to the consideration of the other House; and more than one of their Lordships had given expression to their opinions with respect to certain provisions contained in those Bills. Upon the 28th of February, 1854, Lord Campbell, upon the question that the House should go into Committee on the Bills, had stated that he considered—

"The retrospective clauses contained in them entrenched upon the rights of property. That a person might have bought land under the In cumbered Estates Act with a Parliamentary title, and with no claim upon it which was not set out in the conveyance."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi. 30.]

The noble and learned Lord had followed up these observations by stating that the effect of such clauses would be to drive capital from Ireland, and had characterised them as "nugatory, unjust, and absurd." He found also that the present Lord Chancellor had, upon the occasion in question, observed that he looked with trepidation upon the retrospective legislation proposed in the Bills. Notwithstanding the many objections which had been urged against them, however, the Bills had been referred to a Select Committee of the other House of Parliament, and the Leasing Powers Bill, subject to a protest from Lord St. Leonards. They had subsequently passed, with certain modifications, in the shape of a clause providing that in the cases in which a tenant had erected houses upon the farm which he occupied, he should have a right to obtain from the landlord compensation for the fixtures which they might happen to contain upon his giving up possession. In his opinion the fixture clause was a nugatory boon to the tenant; but be that as it might, the other House of Parliament had rejected altogether the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and had given their assent, with the modifications to which he had just alluded, to the other two Bills. These two measures, thus passed by the House of Lords, had been sent down to the House of Commons, but no step whatever had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) to procure the enactment of the Bill which he had in the preceding Session introduced. And what was the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken with reference to the question of tenant right during the present Session? One would have supposed that the course he would naturally have adopted would have been to take the two Bills which had last Session received the assent of the other House of Parliament, and to endeavour to pass them into law. But, instead of adopting that course, the hon. and learned Gentleman had appropriated almost word for word the Leasing Powers Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, and had, besides, taken the Bill, not that which the House of Lords had approved of, but that which had been rejected by a Committee of that House, composed of several Members connected with both the late and the present Government. Now, Her Majesty's Ministers had been over and over again entreated to state what course they meant to pursue with reference to the Bill of the hon. and learned Serjeant; and that was a question to which he trusted they would receive an answer that evening. To the clauses of that Bill up to the 14th—which were of a prospective character—he entertained no very decided objection, but to the clauses from 14 to 17—which were retrospective in their nature—he was entirely opposed. To the clauses after Clause 17 he should be prepared to give a favourable consideration; but to the retrospective clauses of the Bill he could never give his assent. The 14th section of the Bill set forth, that if any tenant, or those from whom he derived at any time before the passing of the Act, should have executed any improvements of the description named in the Bill, thus adding to its letting value for agricultural purposes, such tenant would be entitled to compensation. Another portion of the Bill provided, that every tenant in Ireland, no matter what might be the nature of his tenure, or what contract he might have entered into with his landlord, might, within twelve calendar months, prefer a claim for compensation for improvements to the assistant barrister, who was bound to ascertain the amount and nature of such a claim. Now, was it, he (Mr. George) should ask, desirable that those tenants who held land upon leases perhaps 100 years old, and with respect to which a solemn contract had been entered into with their landlords, should have it in their power to entail endless lawsuits upon him within the next twelve months? The consequence of the enactment of such a provision would be that there would be a vast amount of litigation, of swearing and counter-swearing, such as had never been witnessed in Ireland before. Independent altogether of the wrong which they would inflict by sanctioning the violation of solemn contracts, the retrospective clauses in the Bill before the House would lead to the worst possible social results, and would tend to drive the landlords of Ireland from their estates by the hardships and inconvenience which they must eventually entail, and he thought that any lawyer would be scouted who ventured to maintain such principles. He should, therefore, hope that Her Majesty's Government would communicate satisfaction to the mind of every man who possessed property in Ireland, by stating that the clauses to which he referred would not receive their support. He thought it was the more desirable that they should give that assurance, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, in asking for leave to introduce his Bill, had held out a threat to the Government, to the effect that if they wished to secure his support, and the support of those with whom he acted, they must be cautious as to the course which they should take with reference to the measure. Now considering the distinguished position which the noble Lord at the head of the Government occupied, and remembering also that he possessed property in the country which was intended to be subjected to this species of legislation, let him not be restrained by any unworthy fear of losing the support of any political party, but, while displaying a perfect readiness to give every legitimate encouragement to improvement by conceding a fair and reasonable amount of compensation to tenants for their prospective outlays, boldly and at once declare his own fixed determination and that of his Government to be no parties to the unjust principle of transferring the property of one man to another which was involved in the 14th clause of this measure. The hon. and learned Serjeant had mixed his most objectionable enactments with several good ones, apparently in order that in the scramble he might carry the whole; and, probably, he was also desirous of prejudicing the great Conservative party in Ireland by representing them as unwilling to serve the tenantry of that country. His (Mr. George's) withers were, however, unwrung on this question, because he had always advocated fair and equitable compensation for prospective improvements, and he also approved of the consolidation of the heterogeneous mass of existing statutes dealing with the relations of landlord and tenant. He must also solemnly protest against the time which had been chosen for reopening this question. Ireland had now rallied, he was most happy to say, from the misery and depression in which she had been sunk, her prosperity had returned, peace prevailed among her people, and crime had been largely diminished. Her population would, therefore, be much better employed in their industrial pursuits than in the agitation of a question which the hon. and learned Member had raised by a sort of side-wind and mixed up with several measures of a totally different character. And here he (Mr. George) must, in as strong language as the forms of that House would allow, condemn one part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) the other night, in which that right hon. Gentleman, who was about to proceed to Ireland to take an active part in its Government, described the normal relation between landlord and tenant in that country as one of mutual hostility, and animadverted on the injustice inflicted on the tenantry by their landlords. If such were the deliberate opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, he certainly must visit Ireland before he could properly understand its real state. He denied in the most solemn manner the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and believed there never was a period in the history of Ireland in which the relations between landlord and tenant were so friendly as at present. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman had been longer in Ireland he would see reason to change his opinion, which was hurtful to the feelings of ninety-nine out of every hundred Irish landlords. He should certainly not support the second reading of this Bill; and desired it to be understood that he did so, not because it contained a Leasing Powers Bill, nor because it made compensation for prospective improvements in Ireland, but because there were interpolated into it several clauses which were subversive of property and of solemn contracts which had been entered into.

said, that he laboured under considerable diffidence in addressing the House on this subject, because he felt that he was not qualified to discuss it either on its social or economical grounds. The House had heard the strong appeal made by the last speaker, who had told them that the measure before them was so inconsistent with the principles of justice and equity that—to use the hon. Member's choice expression—any lawyer would be scouted who ventured to maintain the principles. Now, he (the Solicitor General) would venture to say, pace tanti viri—that the principles of this measure, both in the prospective and retrospective clauses, were consistent with equity and justice; and, on these grounds, he should ask the House to assent to the second reading of the Bill. He should, after what had been said, hardly have ventured to appeal to the House if he could not have asked them to agree with his conclusions, which were supported by the opinion of Sir William Grant, no mean judge of equity and justice; by Lord Eldon, no weak conservative of the rights of property; by Lord Redesdale; and by the universal consent of all writers and expositors of equity and natural justice. If in the social condition of a country in which land was let, deprived of all the necessary accessories for the cultivation and improvement thereof, the land parted from the landlord in that condition, was it expected that the tenant should employ it profitably? He supposed the answer would be that the tenant was to employ it profitably and reasonably, and for this it was essential there should be certain accessories to be supplied by the tenant. There was then an expectation on the one side, and a belief entertained by the other, that the one would supply to the land all that was requisite for its beneficial occupation, and that so supplying it he would be permitted to use it for the purposes of such beneficial occupation. He should now endeavour to show the House, on the highest legal authorities in this country, that if one party, knowing that another entertained a particular impression, belief, or expectation, leading him to lay out money on the improvement of land, stood by and permitted that expenditure to be made, without correcting this impression, and warning the party that he was not to entertain this natural belief, the individual so standing by would not be allowed to dispossess the person whom he had encouraged by his silence to lay out money in improving the land, and would not be allowed to enter into the enjoyment of the profits of the tenant's labour and the results of his expenditure. Well, was not that the principle involved in this Bill? Was it not the fact in Ireland that in nineteen cases out of twenty a landlord expected the tenant would do something for the improvement of the land, and stood by while it was done; and then was it not consistent with justice for the law to assume a tacit understanding on his part that the tenant was to enjoy the results of these improvements? Such doctrines as these had been the A B C of equity in this country for a considerable time, and if parties proceeding against their tenants in Ireland could be compelled to proceed in a court of equity, they would be met at once by the legal apophthegm that "he who seeks equity must do equity," and they would not be allowed to dispossess the tenant until they had given him satisfaction for the expenditure he had incurred. He would call their attention to the language of Sir William Grant in a case very nearly resembling that embodied in the principle of this Bill:—

"If a landlord enters into an arrangement with the tenant relative to improvements,"—

the House should remember that such an arrangement might be either express or implied, might be made either by contract or by looking on and permitting a thing to be done upon a certain evident understanding and belief which you do not take the pains to remove—

"If a landlord enters into an arrangement with a tenant relative to improvements, and completely sanctions them, &c., I doubt whether that does not fasten an equity upon the landlord, precluding him, when these improvements are made under his authority, from saying there is an end of the lease. Such an arrangement, though without a specific agreement, would imply one, as it would be so contrary to good faith to encourage a tenant in so positive and direct a manner to proceed in particular improvements, and then deny him all benefit, that I think equity would interfere, and hold it an implied term, that the tenant should have the fair benefit from the improvements thus made with the concurrence of his landlord."

Lord Eldon was still more explicit:—

"This Court will not permit a man, knowingly, though but passively, to encourage another to lay out money under an erroneous opinion of title, and the circumstance of looking on is in many cases as strong as using terms of encouragement,—a lessor knowing and permitting those acts, which the lessee would not have done, and the other must conceive he would not have done, but upon an expectation that the lessor would not throw an objection in the way of his enjoyment."

So that a contract was produced in the eye of this great Judge, this great master of equity and natural justice, if the lessor permitted, without warning, that to be done which he knew the tenant could not be expected to do unless he entertained the belief that his enjoyment would not be interfered with. This, in Lord Eldon's opinion, created a right in equity against the landlord. He went on to say:—

"Taking the repairs to be substantial and proved, the case fails in a material point, that, in order to give a person a larger interest in the property than he derives under the instrument making his title, it must be shown that with the knowledge of the person under whom he claims he conceived he had that larger interest, and was putting himself to a considerable expense, unreasonable compared with the smaller interest, and which the other party observed, and must have supposed to have been incurred under the idea that he intended to give that larger interest, or to refrain from disturbing the other in the enjoyment."

These passages and decisions might be cited not unfavourably against the opinion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George). Some hon. Gentlemen might think that these Bills were founded upon some novel principle, upon some new, strange, and unheard-of rule required by the necessities of Ireland, but not sanctioned by the English system of jurisprudence, and not to be found in any of the ordinary systems of the administration of justice. So far from that being the case, however, it would be found that the principles of this Bill were in strict accordance with the rules established in that great exemplar of jurisprudence and equity, the civic law of Rome, and it had been adopted in many of the systems of jurisprudence of European nations. With regard to the application of the retrospective clause there was no doubt some difficulty, but that difficulty, he submitted, was much less in the present case than generally existed where the Legislature was called upon to pass a statute having a retrospective operation. It was undoubtedly a general principle of equity that you should be bound by any of those contingencies which, at the time of acquiring your property, you had reasonable ground to presume existed. Now, whoever had purchased land during the last five, six, seven, or eight years—for in the year 1845 the principles he was now advocating were to their full extent brought forward by the present Earl of Derby, as a Member of the Conservative Government of Sir Robert Peel—must have done so with the perfect knowledge of the agitation upon this particular question, that these demands were generally made on behalf of the tenantry of Ireland; that it was a matter then pending, and (if he might adopt a legal expression) at that time sub judice; and therefore such purchasers were by no means without a fair intimation that some such principle as was now under discussion would ultimately be adopted by the Legislature. If a man bought lands at the time they were in the occupation of a tenant, and he found that the rent paid by the tenant was very inadequate to the actual value of the land, and that it had upon it commodious buildings, good roads, and other facilities, would not any intelligent person at once come to the conclusion that, taking into consideration the small amount of rent paid, the various improvements must have been made by the tenant and not by the landlord? Undoubtedly, if a man had let land within the last ten or twelve years, since this agitation commenced, and he was so circumstanced that he must know that any prudent man would expect to be compensated for his improvements, and if he sought in a court of equity to defeat the tenant, he would be met with the argument that the tenant had considered he had a claim to be compensated for his improvements, and the House would observe that the Bill before it always placed these parties in this situation, for the equity of the Bill did not arise until the landlord sought to charge the tenant. The moment the landlord sought to enter into the enjoyment of the fruits of the tenant's labour the equity of the Bill arose. The tenant was not the aggressive party, for his claim only arose on the landlord seeking to charge him with his improvements. They were the shield with which he defended himself, and not the sword of aggression with which he attacked the landlord. On these grounds he considered that the Bill was founded upon principles of equity and justice, and therefore deserved the support of the House.

said, he could not allow the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to pass without entering his solemn protest against the doctrines he had enunciated, for, unless he (Mr. Malins) had spent all his life in vain, he was justified in saying they were opposed to every principle established in the courts of equity. But he was the more astonished when he heard the hon. and learned Gentleman quote the opinions of Sir William Grant and Lord Eldon in favour of those principles, for he was convinced that if those learned Judges could have heard their authority cited in favour of such doctrines they would have started with amazement and affright from their graves. He must confess that nothing could more surprise him than to hear his hon. and learned Friend, himself a distinguished equity advocate, state that natural justice required that where a landlord had permitted his tenant to expend money in improving his property he should be prevented from recovering possession at the expiration of the lease, and cite the opinion of those eminent Judges as his authority. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: No, no!] What, then, he asked, were they discussing—a definite question, or an uncertain theory? When he spoke of landlords and tenants, he spoke of persons having some knowledge of each other's rights; the landlord knew when his property would fall in, and the tenant when he would have to give it up; and for his hon. and learned Friend to say that, because a tenant, having a full knowledge of this circumstance, laid out money in improvements without the consent of his landlord, the landlord would be deprived of his right of entry, was opposed to every principle of common justice, and compelled him to express his astonishment at hearing such a doctrine advocated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to attempt to propound any such erratic doctrine in a measure for England, and warned the House against paying the slightest attention to it. The particular case alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and from which he quoted the opinions of Sir William Grant and Lord Eldon, was one of a peculiar character, where a landlord had knowingly allowed a tenant to spend money on improvements under an erroneous impression of his right, and afterwards sought to reap the benefit of those improvements. That it was which these eminent Judges held to be against natural justice, and not for a landlord under ordinary circumstances to enter on his property on the expiration of the lease. But the principle of the Tenants' Compensation Bill was, that if a tenant made improvements without the consent of his landlord, he thereby acquired the right to an indefinite possession till the landlord should have compensated him for his improvements. The cases which his hon. and learned Friend had cited were decided upon the principle of natural justice, and referred, as he had previously stated, to the case in which a landlord, knowing that his tenant was under a misapprehension as to the term of his lease, permitted him to expend his money in improvements, and in those cases equity would interfere for the relief of the tenant. He would proceed to consider how the principle of the Bill affected the case of mortgagor and mortgagee. In Ireland, when the interest was in arrear, a receiver was appointed, but in England that was not the case. In England, the legal title being in the mortgagee, the law allowed him to enter into possession of the property, subject to the equity of redemption appertaining to the mortgagor—that was, until he was paid the money due to him, when the property again became vested in the mortgagor. In that case the courts of equity allowed the mortgagee, while in possession, to expend money to a moderate extent in lasting improvements, and repayment of that money had to be made by the mortgagor, but the rule of law was that a mortgagee might not improve the mortgagor out of his estate; that was to say, that he was not permitted to expend such a sum as the mortgagor could not repay, but the principle of the present Bill would totally upset that state of things. The present Bill enunciated a principle for the first time heard in this country. It laid down the rule that the landlord could no longer assume possession of his property at the expiration of any lease which he might have granted; in short it established the principle that a lease should no longer mean a term of years, but that it should imply the indefinite period until the landlord had repaid the tenant the money which he had laid out on the estate without his consent. Now, he wanted to know why the relation between landlord and tenant should not be allowed, like all other business relations between man and man, to rest upon contract. The law in England had always recognised that principle; and why, if the tenant chose to expend money in improvements, should not the law say to him, "Take care that you obtain a lease of such a duration as to make it worth your while to make improvements; or, if you have not made such a lease, take care that you enter into a contract with your landlord for the repayment of the money you expend?" It appeared to him that by consenting to the present Bill the House would be, without any necessity, interfering to protect those who were well able to protect themselves, and would be introducing a principle fraught with danger. If such a principle were applicable to Ireland it certainly was to England, and he would challenge his hon. and learned Friend to lay upon the table of that House an English Bill involving such a principle. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George) had principally addressed himself to the retrospective action of the Bill, and most certainly he was of opinion that the operation of the Bill would in that respect be most unfair. He would warn the landed proprietors whom he had the honour to address to pause before they gave their assent to such a principle, which would set all contract between landlord and tenant at nought. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had said that agitation upon this subject had been going on for about ten years, and that persons who had let or purchased property had therefore been prepared for a measure like the present. He had never heard such a doctrine as that of purchasing under notice of agitation. Such a doctrine as that laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman was, he thought, repugnant to natural justice and dangerous to the rights of society, and he blushed for the day on which he heard such a principle propounded, and propounded by an English lawyer, that lawyer being one of the legal advisers of the Crown.

said, he trusted that the present Bill would not be treated as a party question. He hoped that it would rather be considered upon a broad basis, and not as it affected county and county, one class or another. It had been objected that this was not an appropriate time for bringing forward such a measure; but to him it seemed peculiarly so. This was a period of profound peace in Ireland; but experience ought to have taught us that such a peace was not always permanent, and that we ought to take advantage of it for social reforms, which, in a state of agitation, were almost impossible. One of the main causes of the unfortunate condition of Ireland was the relation between landlord and tenant, and he thought the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Shee) an excellent remedy. Let them compare the case of a poor tenant who went into the occupation of land in Ireland with one similarly placed in England. In Ireland he went into the occupation of a farm without agricultural dwellings and drains, or roads, or fences. He could only improve the farm by the expenditure of his little capital. He looked around and saw those who had invested their capital deprived of the benefit of it, and he said he would not be guilty of such imprudence. He would keep his capital in his pocket, and pay a rent proportioned to the improved value of the farm. But if he did expend his capital, the result would be that the benefit would go not to him, but to his landlord. How would the case be in England? He would find the farm as a farm ought to be, and no expenditure was needed. The law for England and Ireland was the same, but the custom unfortunately was different. The custom of England was created by public opinion; whereas in Ireland there was no public opinion, rightly so called, that public opinion which is based upon unanimity of feelings and interests between class and class, who were not in Ireland, as here, interwoven into one great whole. The Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would effect in Ireland—would operate by law—that which in England existed by custom. The custom of England was, that the tenant should be entitled to the undiminished capital employed on the farm at the end of the period. With regard to landlords, it was his firm belief that they would derive incalculable benefits; they would have a better rent—a better tenantry—a surer rent-roll; tenants would invest their capital instead of hoarding—they now only wanted confidence. Industry would be thus promoted, the whole face of the country would be changed, and the condition of the labourer materially benefited by obtaining ample employment. He would be loath to place his advocacy of this measure on a mere class interest—he believed it would benefit the whole community. He had spoken hitherto only of the direct benefits of the measure, but the indirect benefits would be greater still, and this time of Irish prosperity was the very time of all others to attempt to legislate upon this subject. Who were those who opposed the measure? Amongst its opponents he regretted to see some excellent men and humane landlords; but they were men who fancied that others were as humane and as just as themselves, and who were not aware of the condition of the great body of the people; next, a class of men who were the destruction of the country, who used their territorial rights for political purposes. This evil existed to a fearful extent—and he believed that one of the many grounds of such men's opposition to this Bill was based upon the fear of a diminution of their political influence. He begged the Government to remember that now was the time for pushing forward this measure, not with a mere formal, but with a sincere, hearty, and earnest support. Let them concede in time, and let not the people of Ireland be agitated year after year by this question, which was at the bottom of all the evils affecting the social relations of Ireland. The Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny was certainly not all he could desire, but it contained all that he could see a hope of being carried to a practical issue. Upon these grounds he gave to the Bill a cordial support. He did so not actuated by mere party or political considerations, but to promote what he believed to be the best interests of Ireland. Feeling strongly that the measure would be productive of the most beneficial results, that the fears expressed of its operation were groundless, that the accusation of Socialism against it was unjust, and that it was more dangerous to perpetuate injustice than to make even a serious change in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should give his support to the second reading.

said, he had very great objections to the retrospective clause, which was so worded as to be without any limitation whatever. Under the 14th clause, the man actually in possession of the property might be called upon to refund a large sum on account of improvements which might have been effected in the days of his ancestor in the twentieth degree. With that exception, however, he approved of the objects of the Bill, and should give his vote in favour of the second reading. When he considered the evils occasioned by the tenure of land in the sister country, and the manner in which the privileges and influence conferred by property had been abused, he thought they were bound to depart in some degree from the strict rights of the question. But to a clause such as he had mentioned he could never give his consent, and if sanctioned by the House, he thought they would show great ignorance of the principles of jurisprudence.

said, that as far as he understood the measure, it neither emanated from those by whom it professed to have been recommended, nor was it intended for the benefit of those to whom it purported to afford relief. He considered that this Bill, and all other measures of a similar kind, were got up by a certain section, for the purpose of political agitation. He believed the sole effect of the retrospective clause, if it was carried out, would be to transfer a certain amount of property from the pockets of the Irish landlords to those of the Irish tenants; and the clause to which the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore) had referred, seemed to him designed for the sole purpose of robbing both landlords and tenants, and transferring the amounts of which they were to be plundered to the pockets of country attorneys.

said, he must beg the indulgence of the House while he briefly explained the views and intentions of the Government with respect to this measure. He was somewhat surprised to find how forgetful the Gentlemen who had spoken on the other side seemed to be as to what had taken place in previous Sessions with respect to this Bill. To listen to the expressions of indignation at the monstrous proposition which it would appear from them was now, for the first time, submitted to an astonished House, one would think that the question of retrospective compensation to the tenants of Ireland had never been heard of before that evening. It surely was not necessary to remind the House that the Bill now under discussion was, in terms, in clauses, and in language, almost precisely the Bill which the present House of Commons passed only two years ago, which was introduced, not by any hon. Gentleman on that (the Ministerial) side of the House given to change, but by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland of the Government of Lord Derby, who carried the retrospective principle much further than any one had advocated that night? That Bill was referred to a Committee upstairs, from which it came down amended, passed the House, and was sent to the House of Lords, where, late in the Session, it passed the second reading, by which the principle of retrospective compensation was recognised. The Bill, however, failed to become law, in consequence of the late period of the Session when it arrived at this stage. Now, what, in these circumstances, was the position of Government with regard to this Bill? In a former Session they endeavoured to legislate on this question, but were unsuccessful; and when, in consequence of their not taking up the matter again, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) brought in the present Bill, were they to refuse it their support, especially when they considered that it was the identical Bill they had themselves approved, and to the principle of which the House had given its deliberate assent? The Government could not, in such circumstances, withhold their sanction from the measure, and, accordingly, it received their most cordial support. It was now twenty years since a Bill was introduced upon this subject by Mr. Sharman Crawford. Ten years afterwards another Tenant Compensation Bill was brought in by one of the largest proprietors and most exemplary landlords in Ireland—Lord Derby, then a Member of Sir Robert Peel's Government—and he was the first high authority who advocated the principle of retrospective compensation. That was in 1845, and it was the first occasion on which the retrospective compensation principle was brought before Parliament. Then, in 1852, the Attorney General for Ireland of Lord Derby's Government brought in three Bills to give compensation to tenants. On that occasion a division took place on the retrospective clause, which was affirmed by a majority of two to one. Not only was the then Attorney General (Mr. Napier) in favour of the retrospective clause, but he wished it to go back to an absolutely unlimited period. These Bills went to the House of Lords and passed the second reading, but, as he had previously mentioned, it was too late in the Session to proceed with them through the other stages. In the following year the initiative was taken by the House of Lords, where two of these Bills were carried, but circumstances occurred by which their progress into law was again stopped. The hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny then came forward with the present measure, and after all that had passed, he did not see how the House could withhold from it its sanction. The hon. and learned Gentleman took two Bills that had been brought in by one Administration—that of Lord Derby—and then taken up by another—that of Lord Aberdeen—and to which the House had also given its sanction; he combined the two Bills into one, and he now asked the House to consent to its being read a second time. In these circumstances—both the Government and Parliament having sanctioned the principle of the measure, and committed themselves to a settlement of the question at no distant period—he repeated that he did not see how they could refuse to read the Bill a second time. In the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman there was a prospective and a retrospective clause. With regard to the prospective clause, he apprehended there was no difference of opinion. It was provided that whatever contracts and arrangements were made between landlord and tenant, those contracts and arrangements would shut out the operation of the Bill. It, therefore, was the interest, both of landlord and tenant of Ireland, to make those arrangements between themselves which were invariably made between landlord and tenant in England and Scotland. He then came to the retrospective portion of the Bill, and there could not be a doubt that the advocacy of that clause was attended with considerable difficulties. No one denied it. But, at the same time, he was rather suprised that a Gentleman so learned and acute as the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) should have met the cases cited by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General as he had done. His hon. and learned Friend stated that the principle of retrospective compensation was in conformity with the natural law of justice and with the practice of the court of equity; but, said his hon. and learned Friend, "I don't ask you to believe that upon my statement; I will give you the authority of two of the most eminent Judges that ever presided on the bench;" and he then mentioned the names and cited the opinions of Sir Wm. Grant and Lord Eldon. But what said the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford? He exclaimed, how astonished would those two learned Judges be, could they be told that the Solicitor General had said that they maintained the doctrine that a man who held under a lease, and was evicted by his landlord, was entitled to compensation? But my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General said nothing of the kind; the judgment to which he referred related solely to tenants at will, and not to tenants holding under lease. Tenants in Ireland holding under lease were extremely rare; nine-tenths were tenants at will. You must look, also, when considering this part of the question, at the condition of Ireland, at the relation between landlord and tenant there, and to all the circumstances which preceded and which caused those derangements which were admitted to exist in that country. If he were told by the opponents of this measure that this legislation was an exceptional legislation, he would reply that the whole of their legislation, as regarded landlord and tenant in Ireland in previous years, had been exceptional. What was at the bottom of all the evils that were felt to exist in Ireland? It was that the proportionate number of landlords in Ireland to the acreage of Ireland was far smaller than in any other country in the world. What again was the cause of that? They must look back to past legislation to answer that question. What could be more exceptional than that legislation by which, merely on account of their religious faith, you debarred seven-eighths of the population of Ireland from the right of being possessors of land? That was a fact which they must not lose sight of when they considered what was the present condition of Ireland. If the state of society in Ireland had proceeded from the operation of natural causes, then they must legislate for it in conformity with the common rules of legislation; but if the difficulties they had met with proceeded from their exceptional legislation, then by exceptional legislation they must provide a remedy. Ireland was purely an agricultural country. What made it so? Was it not your exceptional legislation? Was it not your policy deliberately and intentionally to destroy the manufactures of Ireland in order to serve England? Was it not by that law that you compelled the population of Ireland to depend for its subsistence upon the land? And did you not by another species of legislation deliver over that land to be a monopoly in the hands of a certain few? You thus began by placing society in Ireland on a wrong basis; you placed the relation of landlord and tenant upon a wrong basis, and made the many depend for their subsistence upon the few. What was the result? Tenants were compelled to compete for the land, but landlords were not compelled to compete for tenants; so that the two parties were placed upon an unequal footing. It would be idle and most unjust to say, that the landlord took advantage of this state of things. The landlord under such circumstances did what, according to human nature, every man would have done. The race in the competition for land gave him such opportunities of advantage to himself, that, without any design, he gradually and unconsciously became absolved from all those obligations which landlords in other countries were placed under. It was not necessary for him to build a house or raise a wall, his estate might be a wilderness, still there was a legion of poor miserable beings competing with one another for the high privilege of earning a scanty subsistence upon the land. He would for a moment refer to a statement of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. George), that he (Mr. Horsman) on a former occasion had accused the landlords of Ireland of being guilty of great oppression and injustice towards their tenants. No such expression ever fell from him, and no such sentiment was ever entertained by him. But to return. They must remember, too, that the land cultivated by these competitors was cultivated without capital; while the system of competition engendered imprudence and embarrassment on the part of the landlord, so that the question was not whether assistance ought to be given as a matter of duty on the part of the landlord, but it became one of ability merely. Thus they had in Ireland an embarrassed proprietary and an impoverished tenantry. The result of all this was a total disorganisation of society in Ireland, in which neither life nor property was secure; where there was no encouragement for industry, no motive for exertion, no reward for enterprise. He was speaking of a state of things which existed previously to the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, when the tithe war was raging, when the peasant was armed against the proprietor, and when agrarian outrages took place in every district. It was then they had the Arms Act, the Sunset Act, Crime and Outrage Acts, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, districts proclaimed, martial law, and predatory depredators ravaging the whole country. These things had happily passed away, and a change had come over the condition of Ireland. The habits and feelings of the population had improved; the proprietors were exerting themselves in the performance of their duty in a manner which did them great honour. There had scarcely been an instance of a change in any country so sudden, so blessed, and so hopeful as that which had taken place within the last few years in Ireland. That change had opened to them an opportunity and had thrown upon them a responsibility which they could not lay aside, of enacting a measure for establishing, strengthening, and rendering permanent that happy state of things. Sorry, indeed, should he be if any party feeling were allowed for a moment unhappily to interfere. He thought that, as expectations had been raised in Ireland by past proceedings, it was their duty to arrive, if they could, at a settlement of the question. He believed that the majority of the House were disposed to assist in that object, and the Government were also most anxious by every means in their power, consistently with their own opinions, to give every aid in effecting a settlement on this subject. Now the present Bill was, in his mind, liable to certain objections, not very serious, but which, at the same time, unless removed by Amendments, would not justify him in voting for the final passing of the measure. Many appeals had been made to the Government to take up this measure as a Government measure, and they had been told that it was too important a measure to be carried through the House by an individual Member of the House. In some respects that was true, in so far as the Government had greater facilities in appointing days for public business than individual Members, but he could not but feel that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had brought to this question a vast amount of information and had bestowed on it great pains. The hon. and learned Member introduced it to the House, supported by his great knowledge, ability, and high professional character, and if any individual Member of the House was fitted to carry the measure through, he knew no one in whose hands the Bill could be more safely trusted than in those of the hon. and learned Member. At the same time, he felt that, if the Government were really in earnest in the support of this measure, and if they could really adopt the principle of it, the settlement of the question was so important that it formed a very fair ground of appeal to them to adopt the measure, if they could, and make it their own. Still they only ought to do so on two conditions—first, that the measure should be in such a shape that they could honestly and heartily approve of it; and secondly, that there should exist a fair prospect of carrying it to a successful issue. He would now state the grounds of objection he had to the Bill. There were certain classes of subjects in respect to which the Bill proposed to give compensation. Now, he held, not on his own authority, but on the highest legal authority, that the classes of subject for which compensation could fairly be asked were improvements visible, tangible, and material, in respect to which evidence could be fairly given, and of the value of which there could be no mistake. The Bill which passed that House, and was carried up to the House of Lords, contained three classes of improvement for which compensation was given—improvements in buildings, in roads, and boundary fences. In the present Bill there were, besides those three classes of improvements for which compensation was given, a fourth class—namely, that of reclaiming waste land, and to the insertion of that he had an objection. Again, by the 14th clause, compensation was to be given for every improvement made before the passing of this Bill. Now he attached considerable importance to the objection urged by the hon. Member for Wexford as to the amount of litigation which might arise if they allowed a man to claim compensation for any improvement, the origin of which ran back to any period of time beyond that which any one in his own experience could recollect. If they passed the Bill in that shape, he felt that the advantages which would flow from it in some respects would be more than counterbalanced by the amount of insecurity, embarrassment, and litigation to which the clause in its present form would give rise; and, therefore, he would suggest that there should be a certain period beyond which the claim for compensation should not turn back, so that the evidence of improvement might at least not be entirely removed from the reach of those who needed it. He should also suggest that the amount of compensation should be limited to a certain sum—say, so many years' rent. There was another class of subjects for which he thought compensation should not be given. He held that a tenant who did not pay his rent was guilty of a breach of contract, and he did not think that compensation should in any case be given to a man who was evicted, because he was guilty of a breach of contract. The Bill in this respect, therefore, would require amendment. Having stated these as the general grounds on which he thought that there ought to be some limitations inserted in the Bill as it now stood, he was prepared to say, that with those limitations the Government would then be prepared to give to the Bill their support. He was quite aware that when he proposed certain limitations of this kind, he laid himself open to the charge that he was making the Bill less liberal, and even less liberal, he might be told, than that which the late Attorney General for Ireland proposed to the House when he was a Member of Lord Derby's Government. He could only say in answer, that what the Government wished to do on this occasion was, to carry the measure to a successful issue, and not to gain popularity by making concessions which they knew would render it impossible for the Bill to be carried out. If it were the object of Government only to please the majority of their own supporters, with whom they entirely sympathised on these questions, it would be much easier for them to say that they would take the Bill as it stood, and adopt it as a Government measure. But if they had done so, they would have been acting an unworthy part, because they would have been taking up a Bill which they knew they had no chance of passing, because in its present shape it ought not to pass. He thought that the application of the principle of compensation, to so large an extent as the present Bill would permit, was highly objectionable, and he could not honestly and conscientiously support it. They must also remember that there were two parties concerned in this transaction. It must not be forgotten that the proprietors of Ireland had the law on their side. They were asked to make great concessions, and they might say that the improvements were made by tenants who were perfectly cognisant of the law and who knew they had no security in making them; and in many instances the improvements were made without their (the proprietors') consent or knowledge, and in some instances embarrassed them in making alterations they desired. It must be borne in mind, likewise, that the proprietor would take his view of the question as well as the tenant, and it must not be expected that the proprietor was to make every concession, and that no concession was to proceed from the party who was to obtain an advantage. Again, while establishing the principle of this measure, they should endeavour to fence and guard its application so as to avoid temptation to litigation. The Government felt that a settlement of this question was most desirable, and they were ready to assist in the settlement of it, not in a shape which would be, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin said, "a sham and a delusion," but just and equitable between all parties. If the House should be generally of opinion that this Bill should be received into the hands of the Government with those limitations which they thought would be likely to insure its success not only in this, but in the other House; and if both sides of the House would agree not to treat this, as a party question—for it never had yet been considered as a party question since the Government of Lord Derby had introduced a Bill with a retrospective compensation clause, and the Government of Lord Aberdeen had taken it up—they might now, he thought, approach a successful settlement of the question. But he could not answer what would be the result if it should be treated as a party question, and if those who had formerly supported this measure should now turn round and oppose it for party reasons. On them, at least, would rest the responsibility if this attempt to close this much-agitated controversy should prove a failure.

said, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, in the remarks he had just made, had omitted two material elements in his consideration of the question. The present Government were supported in that House by a number of Irish Members, who obtained their seats because they entered into an undertaking with their constituents to support no Government but one who undertook to make a Landlord and Tenants' Bill, involving the principles of Sharman Crawford's measure a Cabinet question. He now asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to make their election between their promises to their constituents and their allegiance to the Government. There was another element still more important. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) found, when forming his Government, that it was desirable to take into it certain Members representing the Irish constituencies. He accordingly appointed to office the two hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite—the Attorney and Solicitor Generals for Ireland—and subsequently gave the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies to the hon. Member for the county of Carlow (Mr. J. Ball.) The hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) was one of a party of Irish Members, amounting to forty and upwards, who assembled together in Dublin, and came to a resolution to refuse their support, and to stand in opposition to any Government who did not make a Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the basis proposed by Sharman Crawford, a Cabinet measure. Now, he (Mr. Duffy) wanted to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, if he were now prepared to endorse the statement of his right hon. colleague the Chief Secretary, or was he prepared to throw up his office. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies stood in the same position; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Keogh) did not simply stand in that position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, on the most public occasions, made a declaration, and sealed it with a solemn oath, that he would support no Government who did not make a Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the basis of Sharman Crawford's Bill, a Cabinet measure. He wanted to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, if he were content with the limitation now proposed, or whether he was going to dissolve his connection with a Government who declined to make a Landlord and Tenant Bill, on the basis of Sharman Crawford's Bill, a Cabinet measure. If those hon. and learned Gentlemen had come to the conclusion that those pledges were to mean nothing, they would find it very difficult to maintain before an Irish audience, or before those who were witnesses of the undertaking, that character which it would be satisfactory for the Members of that House to maintain. The measure submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) fell so far short of the wishes of the Irish people that he (Mr. Duffy) was resolved that his support of it should depend upon the fact that the Government would make it a Cabinet measure, and carry it through this Session, and that no legerdemain should be again practised by which the measure would pass from their sight as if it had vanished through a trap-door never to be seen afterwards. He was sorry to see an hon. and learned English Member make himself the advocate in that House of a party opposed to any reform on this question, because, if he had the selection of a jury before whom he would desire to represent the case of the Irish tenants with the certainty of a favourable verdict, it would be composed of an assembly of English landlords who did, without compulsion, what they sought to make the Irish landlords do by law. There were millions of Irish people in that country, and there was not one of them who would not prefer living in Ireland if the country were made fit to live in. The adoption of the alteration which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) had proposed would make the measure a complete farce, and were that course to be taken, he (Mr. Duffy) would infinitely prefer that the landlord and tenant question should be left as it was; and if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny should further curtail his Bill, he (Mr. Duffy) would decline to vote, pro or con, on the question.

said, he would only trouble the House with a few observations at that late hour—eleven o'clock. He thought that, if any hon. Gentleman travelled in Ireland, he would come to only one conclusion, that there was something wrong in the system of tenure. Whether this was the fault of landlords or tenants he would not say, but any one who compared the cultivation of the land in that country with other countries, at all events, would say somebody was to blame. He thought blame attached to both parties—both landlords and tenants. But he thought it would best serve the cause of the latter by not endeavouring to recriminate either on the one side or the other. No doubt faults existed on both sides, in many instances, and it was now desirable that some fair and equitable decision should be come to. On looking at the Bill, he asked himself whether it was calculated to settle the question at issue, and he came to the conclusion that it would not be anything like a boon to landlords or tenants as described by hon. Members. With regard to the north of Ireland—a part of the country where considerable improvements had been made by small farmers at their own expense—he thought the Bill would scarcely affect it; for neither this Bill nor any other Bill would be received as a substitute for that which tenants there already possessed. It was also absurd to think that it would be of any great practical benefit to the small farmer in the south of Ireland, and with regard to the class of large farmers in the south, he had no hesitation in saying that an eligible tenant ought to get from a landlord infinitely more favourable terms than this Bill would give him. He should, however, support the Bill; for the latter portion of it contained most valuable powers for making and carrying out voluntary arrangements. If any Irish tenant came to him and asked him if he would be justified, in prudence, in laying out his capital on the improvements mentioned in the schedule of this Bill, he would recommend him to go to his landlord, and make the best arrangements he could under the latter clauses of the Bill; but he would add, also, that he should think he was a foolish man to lay out his capital on those things at all, because the landlord ought to do it. He saw a daily tendency in Ireland to a better state of things. The landlords were beginning to see that it was their interest as well as their duty to make these improvements on their estates, and he believed any tenant who laid out his capital on that species of improvement would be doing an imprudent thing. Reserving to himself the right of supporting any alteration he should deem desirable in Committee, he was, on the whole, disposed to give his hearty support to the second reading of the Bill in the hope that the question would be satisfactorily settled this Session.

said, he sincerely regretted that the Government should have permitted one of its members—the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for England—to embarrass the whole question by propounding a doctrine which he would not able to repeat in any Court in Westminster Hall without subjecting himself to a castigation that he would never forget. The House was considering a Bill the object of which was to settle a great social question, by giving strength to covenants between different free agents, and the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor General went to the destruction of the principle of all covenants. The purchasers under the Encumbered Estates Act had hitherto held their land, as they thought securely, under a Parliamentary title, but by the doctrine of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, they were now told that a Parliamentary title meant nothing. He would not further allude to the hon. and learned Gentleman's monstrous proposition, but he trusted the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not again allow the subordinates of his administration to render difficult the settlement of important questions. The other night he had come down prepared to vote for the Government proposition relative to copyright, but the Solicitor General, after making a speech in its favour, gave up the clause in the last sentence of his speech. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland on any future occasion not to go back into history, not to remind the people of Ireland how they used to live in discord, but to address himself to the present more cheering aspect of a united and friendly people, and bury the past in oblivion. He would beseech the right hon. Gentleman not to resuscitate the past evils and discords of Ireland in his future speeches, but to look to Ireland as it happily now was. It surely could not be the right hon. Gentleman's ambition to bring back and perpetuate the social state which he had deplored. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time without division. No one had yet moved an Amendment to this Bill, and he would remind the House that this was the third Session in which the question had been brought before Parliament, and that almost all the clauses had received the sanction of the House on former occasions. Public attention in Ireland had been roused. The people looked to that House for a settlement of this subject, and he hoped that the House would not, by rejecting the second reading, render it impossible for any legislation to take place this year. The people of Ireland who were waiting anxiously for the result of this debate, at present put confidence in the House. But if they found that Parliament refused to entertain this subject in a spirit of justice, the time might come when their patience would be exhausted, and the solution of this question would be rendered tenfold more difficult than it was at the present time. The Amendments which had been suggested in the Bill by the Government removed the objections that might be taken to many of its provisions, and, therefore, hoping that the measure would be allowed to pass through its present stage without a division, he should yet reserve to himself the full right in Committee of recommending such alterations in the details as he might think necessary.

said, he considered that the Bill related wholly to Ireland. In that country, when a tenant took land, he was obliged to erect farm buildings upon it at his own expense. When his lease expired there of course arose the question which was now before the House, whether or not he was to receive compensation from the landlord for those buildings which he had erected, and which he must leave on the premises. At the expiration of the lease the land was become more valuable, and no renewal of the lease would be given except at a higher rent. No law at present in existence compelled the landlord to give to the tenant the compensation to which he was entitled; and this had caused, and was causing, the most alarming emigration of the Irish agricultural population. He gave his most hearty support to the measure.

said, there was nothing novel in the principle of this Bill; it already existed in the tenant right of Ulster. If this Bill were bad, it would be a serious restriction on the tenant rights of that province. At present the tenant there could sell his rights for the highest sum he could get for them. As for the landlords of Ireland, there were some as good as any to be found elsewhere; but there were also middling and very indifferent landlords. This Bill appeared to be intended to bring those middling and inferior landlords into the good practices of the better class; and it would have the further effect of relieving a good landlord from the reproach of his bad neighbours.

Sir, as there seems to be so general an agreement as to the second reading of this Bill—["No, no!"] I did not say the agreement was unanimous. But I say, as the great majority of this House appear disposed to agree to it, I do hope the House will determine to pass the second reading this evening without further debate. The course which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take with regard to this Bill has been fully and completely explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland; on that point, therefore, I have nothing to add to the statement which he has made. I differ from those who urge that this is not a proper time for settling this question; I think, on the contrary, that the present moment is one peculiarly favourable for the settlement of it. It is a question which has agitated the public mind in Ireland for many years past—which has given rise to great animosity, if I may so speak, at all events to strong differences of opinion, between different parties. The present moment is, as has been stated, one in which these differences do not run so high as they have done at former periods. It is a moment of general contentment and prosperity in Ireland; and I think that is precisely the time at which you will find the minds of men most disposed to come to a reasonable accommodation upon a question of great national and social interest. Sir, it is perfectly true that this Bill contemplates a condition of things in Ireland different from that which exists in England and in Scotland. But that difference arises not from the fault of landlords or of tenants. I acquit both classes of the blame of bringing about the condition of things which we are seeking to remedy. I concur entirely in what was stated by the hon. Member who has just sat down. Nay, I go further, Sir, than he did. He said there were good landlords in Ireland. I say there are better landlords there than in almost any other country, landlords who do more for their tenants than the landlords of England do, or are required to do. There are, of course, exceptions; there are those who, from their limited means, are unable to afford to their tenants the same amount of assistance that their richer neighbours afford; but I repudiate entirely the wholesale accusations which are made against the landlords of Ireland. Well, on the other hand, people reproach the tenantry of Ireland with being wanting in industry, and with being improvident. That charge is equally unfounded. The tenantry of Ireland, when they receive encouragement, and have reason to believe that their exertions will meet with a due reward, are as much inclined to industrious exertion as the tenantry of any part of the world. Sir, the evils of Ireland are to be traced to the history of Ireland. What is that history? Why, it is the history of civil war; of rebellion; of confiscation; of wholesale and violent transfers of land from class to class; of penal laws; of the exclusion of the largest class of the nation from the ordinary privileges of social existence—of the domination of a small minority professing one religion over a large majority professing another; of laws which aggravated those animosities which political and social inequalities were of course of themselves calculated to produce. Well, Sir, those times are fortunately past; those animosities are, I hope, for ever extinguished, together with the differences which created them, and which have been swept away. But there still remain some effects, even though the causes have ceased to exist, and those effects belong to the condition of things which this Bill is calculated and intended to remedy. In Ireland, up to about half a century ago, from the very circumstances under which the great proprietors derived their titles, land was not held and occupied in the way that it is in England and Scotland. It was let in large bulks by the owners to persons who sub-let it to others; and, perhaps, two or three gradations interposed between the owner and the actual occupier of the soil. But what was the tenure on which the land was occupied? Land was let upon leases of preposterous length; leases, for example, of sixty-one years and three lives. Well, what was then the position of the landlord and the tenant? The landlord was a stranger on his own estate. He had no control over those who occupied the land. He did not even know them—he felt no interest in them—and they had no sympathy with, or affection for, him. In this state of things there was no person who was interested in the improvement of the estate. Why should the owner improve the land? It was taken away from him by a long lease, and no improvement he could make would produce any advantage for him. Why should the middleman improve the land? He had only a temporary tenure, and no improvement, therefore, that might be made would produce any advantage for him. Why should the occupying tenant improve the land? He had no inducement to do so, because he held at the will of the middleman. There was no party, therefore, connected with the cultivation of the land who had a strong interest in the soil. Well, then, when these long leases expired, the landlords, disgusted with the old practice, went to the other extreme; they would not give leases, or, if they were willing to give leases at all, the tenants, accustomed from their childhood to hear of nothing but leases of sixty-one years and two or three lives, refused to ask those leases which in England and Scotland are sufficient to secure improvements. To offer them a fourteen years' lease, or even a twenty-one years' lease, was to offer them what they did not think worthy of their acceptance. Well, then, that generated the state of things which had hitherto prevailed, under which the landlord has done very little for the improvement of the land—I refer to the erection of buildings, and the setting up of boundary fences, contemplated in this Bill—all such things being left to the tenant. Now, so far as the prospective part of this Bill goes, nobody seems to object to its provisions; the part of it which is objected to is the retrospective clause. Well, Sir, one cannot deny that, as a general rule, it is undesirable to interfere between landlord and tenant, as it is to interfere between any other two parties in society who make bargains together. The best arrangement, undoubtedly, is in general to leave parties free to make what engagements they please; and on general principle it is, I admit, objectionable to pass a retrospective clause altering the relative position of those who have acted on a certain understanding. But, on the other hand, I think that, looking at the position of Ireland, considering that land is there frequently held at will—that tenants, in order to a due and profitable cultivation, have been obliged to make outlays which in other countries are made by the landlords, I think an exception, coupled with the conditions proposed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman), may in this case fairly and properly be made. Now let us see generally how that would work. The enactment, combined with the restrictions and conditions proposed by my right hon. Friend, would give a tenant who was turned out a claim for compensation for any visible and tangible improvement by which he had added to the letting value of the property. Why should the landlord turn him out? He would do so for one of two reasons, either because he had had a quarrel with the tenant, and wished to get rid of one who had become disagreeable to him, or because, seeing that the tenant had improved the value of the land, he thought that after ejecting him he would secure to himself the benefit of his improvements, and let the land to another person at an increased rent. The latter proceeding would be an unworthy one, it is a proceeding to which no honourable landlord would resort, and to which assuredly no landlord whatever ought to be allowed to resort. With regard to the first cause which I have mentioned, even supposing the landlord had had some difference with his tenant, if buildings had been raised which added to the value of the farm, an honourable man would say, "I will turn you out, but I will pay you for the buildings; though I dislike you, I will not apply the capital which you have invested to my own profit." I think, therefore, that, accompanied with the conditions to which I have referred, even the retrospective clause is one which this House might safely pass. Well, then, if this Bill is accompanied with the other Bill which on a former occasion accompanied its progress in Parliament, I do think those Bills will go far to settle entirely those unfortunate differences which have so long agitated certain parts of Ireland. It does not appear to me that they would in any case inflict individual injury, while they would quell the angry feeling which existed in Ireland on this subject. And if these Bills should lead to the establishment of an improved relation between landlord and tenant—if they should lead to the introduction in Ireland of the system which prevails in England, under which the landlord invests his capital in his own property, and makes improvements which are estimated to increase the letting value of his farms—if the result should be to do away with preposterously long leases, and to introduce a state of things in which farms would be let for terms of moderate duration, I think a great improvement would be effected in the social condition of the country. I am, therefore, disposed not only to support the second reading of the Bill to-night, but in the event of the Amendments suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland being adopted, to give my best assistance in its passage through this House, and I should hope that, with the assistance of the Government in another place, the Bill might be passed into a law during the present Session.

said, that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had argued as if the retrospective clause were a part of this Bill. He could not agree in that view, but thought that the principle of the Bill was that the existing law of landlord and tenant did not afford sufficient protection to tenants who might make improvements on their farms. In voting for the second reading of the Bill, therefore, he did not consider that he was pledged to anything further than the affirmation of that principle. He could not see that the insertion of a retrospective clause should justify the rejection of the second reading. It could not be forgotten that when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) introduced a Bill having the same object in view, it had such a retrospective clause, and yet that Bill passed a second reading. If in the one case the House agreed to a second reading with such a clause, it might be said that hon. Members were equally bound on the other. After what had occurred—after looking at the question as it affected landlord and tenant in Ireland—after considering what Lord Derby had done in 1845, and subsequently by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin—he thought it impossible to maintain that legislative interference was not required. There was no ground, then, for resisting the second reading. He was anxious, however, that his vote should not be misunderstood. In voting for the second reading he did not pledge himself with respect to the retrospective clause. After the opinions which at the last election hon. Gentlemen had expressed with regard to the settlement of this question—he had himself said he was favourable to a consideration of it—he thought that if the House were to refuse a second reading to the Bill, they would only add to the mischief which had already arisen. He was ready to go into Committee on the Bill, and if there he found that the subject could not be treated with justice he could refuse his assent to the third reading.

said, he considered the present Bill as far less objectionable than that brought in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier); but he had opposed that measure at the time, and was therefore perfectly consistent in opposing the one now before the House. He had been perfectly astonished to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman bringing in a retrospective clause, after he had assured him that he never would do so. He (Colonel Dunne) thought that Lord Derby's Government, of which he had been a Member, had acted upon this question with insincerity to those who supported them, and the right hon. Member the Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Horsman) had taunted them on that point with much justice. He admitted the difficulties of the question, but after seeing the temper of the House he would not divide the House on the present occasion, but he would reserve any opposition which he had for the consideration of the Bill in Committee.

said, he was anxious that it should be clearly understood with respect to the 14th clause whether it would interfere with improvements under existing contracts. He should oppose the retrospective clause.

said, they were specially exempted.

was proceeding to reply, when

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had no right to reply, no Amendments having been made to the second reading.

said, in explanation, that he desired nothing better than that Her Majesty's Government should reduce their intentions and wishes to clauses upon which he should be in a position to express an opinion when he saw them.

said, he should move the adjournment of the debate. He considered that it was most injudicious to interfere with existing contracts. There was only one exception made for the whole of Ireland, and that was grounded upon the fact that the landlords of Ireland were too cruel and hardhearted to be trusted to deal fairly by their tenants. No reason had been shown why the House should agree to the policy of the 14th clause. Every one spoke of the great utility of the Bill when this clause was expunged—but no notice had been given whether it was the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) to expunge it. If he refused to do so, in what position would the House be after it had assented to the second reading of the Bill? The clause could not be condemned in stronger terms than those of the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury. He (Mr. Grogan) meant to give the hon. and learned Gentleman an opportunity of stating his intentions, for he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that he had already moved the adjournment of the debate.

said, with the permission of the House he would substitute the last Amendment for that which he had I previously moved.

said, he understood that the House were agreed as to the propriety of reading the Bill a second time, and leaving the 14th clause open to any objection that might be raised to it in Committee.

said, if he was to understand that the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) left the 14th clause an open question for the Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman would receive no further opposition from him (Mr. Whiteside). He wished, however, to state that the doctrine of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, speaking on the part of the Government, was the most extraordinary doctrine in reference to property that had ever fallen from the lips of a Law Officer of the Crown. He begged to remind the House that 20,000,000l. of property had been purchased in Ireland on the faith of a Parliamentary title, and that title depended upon the fact that every purchase was concluded between the purchaser, the owner, and the tenant. If it were intended to reopen these purchases they might as well establish a law of confiscation.

said, he was not prepared to enter into any compromise on the subject of the proposed elimination of the 14th clause from the Bill, which he believed to be the very essence of the Bill, but he would have no objection to consider the subject in Committee.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) ought to know, though, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside) did not know, the difference between the case he (the Solicitor General) had put to the House, and the case which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford represented him to have put. The case the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford represented him to have put was the case of an express contract between landlord and tenant; but those who had done him (the Solicitor General) the honour to attend to what he said, knew very well that he stated the law applicable to a case where there was no express contract, but where the landlord had looked quietly on and had been tacitly a consenting party.

said, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General complained that he had not correctly represented what had fallen from him, because he had in the cases which he had cited referred to imputed contracts. He had not understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to be referring to that subject, and, if he did do so, it was clear that he was speaking on a subject not then under the consideration of the House. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to apply those cases to the present Bill, and he thought that, in that case, he had shown that they were not applicable, and, if they were not applied to the Bill, then the hon. and learned Gentleman had been speaking to a subject not before the House.

said, he wished to point out the inequality in the proposed reduction of the duty on the different classes of sugar at the conclusion of the war, he should move to substitute the figures 12s. 3d. for 12s. 9d. in the second column of the schedule attached to the clause.

opposed the amendment, and explained the principle upon which the reduction was made.

said, he considered that the change proposed by the Government would be injurious to the sugar producers and consumers, and to all classes connected with the sugar trade.

said, he understood the proposition of the Government was to reduce the duties by one-third, but unless they were prepared to vote that 4s. 6d. was a third of 15s., he did not know how they could support the schedule in its present form.

said, as the Committee had decided by a majority of more than two to one that 4s. 6d. was the third of 15s., he thought it was useless to press the amendment of which he had given notice. At the same time he believed the two "drops" in sugar would be attended with very vexatious consequences, both to dealers and consumers.

said, he also considered that the change would be productive of much inconvenience.