said, he begged to move to include the following words—

"Any premises in such a filthy or unwholesome state as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any pool, ditch, gutter, watercourse, cesspool, and drains, or ash-pit so foul as to be a nuisance to, or injurious to the health of, any person; any animal, or any accumulation or deposit (within the limits of any town or street), so kept as to be a nuisance to or injurious to the health of any person."

>

said, he did not object, except to the words in parentheses.

said, he thought it would be best to strike out of the clause the word "offensive," and confine it to such nuisances as were "injurious to health."

said, that those latter words were by no means unsusceptible of doubt; for many people whose trades were dreadfully offensive, maintained that they were perfectly healthful.

said, that, nevertheless, the issue of injuriousness to health was clear and intelligible.

said, that one medical man maintained that them was no such thing as a nuisance injurious to health.

said, he would cite a passage from the medical evidence to support the observation of the noble Lord. One medical man asserted that bone-boilers' yards or horse-knackers' yards were not prejudicial to health. He proposed to strike out the word "offensive," and retain the words "nuisance, or injurious to health."

said, he would suggest that the words "nuisance" and "injury," were absolutely synonymous; the one being Latin, the other a French, version of the word "hurt" or "harm." Moreover it was rather unskilful in a clause defining the word "nuisance," to have the very same word to explain it.

said, either the word "offensive," or the word "nuisance," must be introduced.

said, the word "nuisance" was well enough if the Bill were to be confined to what concerned other people. It was true that where A complained of B for any "nuisance," the word "nuisance" had a legal meaning. But the Bill gave a power of inspection and prosecution on the ground that something was a supposed "nuisance," not to any one in particular, but to anybody; which might be to nobody at all. Take the case of thirty or forty great hogs; why, they would he charming to an agricultural eye or nose, associated with prospects of rich manure and visions of future corn. But an inspector of fastidious nostrils and high sanitary views might deem the pigs offensive, and insist upon their being summarily suppressed. Let the clause by all means be confined to what was injurious to health.

said, he doubted if the word "nuisance" would not be limited by the words "injurious to health." Surely anything injurious to health was now a nuisance; but a nuisance might be with out any injury to health.

said, if the word "offensive" were left out, it would be necessary to bring medical evidence in every case to support a prosecution, in order to show that the nuisance was injurious to health.

said, he thought that there ought to be no prosecution without medical evidence.

said, he quite agreed that in a Bill giving summary powers, there ought to be no power of prosecution without medical proof that there was injury to health.

said, it was not so at common law.

said, at common law a party had the benefit of trial by jury.

said, he begged to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Clerk to the Ordnance whether, of the fifty-six gentlemen who it was said were to be commissioned in the scientific corps in the course of the month, it was intended to give precedence to the thirty admitted to the practical class in March last, without examination, over the remaining twenty-six, all of whom entered as cadets at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, and many of them at the Ordnance School at Carshalton, and all of whom had passed through all the examinations of the theoretical course, which up to the present time was the absolutely necessary qualification by which commissions could be obtained at all, it being rumoured that one, if not more, of these thirty-six gentlemen had failed at the examination for admission to the academy, when others of the twenty-six cadets had succeeded; the reported sole reason for such precedence being, that the thirty gentlemen were between the ages of seventeen and nineteen, whereas the ages of the twenty-six cadets were something under seventeen years.

said, that the practical class at Woolwich was composed of two divisions; that the civil cadets had now, in their regular turn, become the senior division to be commissioned; that, under ordinary circumstances, this senior division alone would be commissioned in August, but that, owing to the pressing exigencies of affairs, the junior division would be commissioned at the same time. It was thought, however, that it would be unjust to the senior division not to commission that division the first. The matter was entirely under the control of the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance.

said, he wished to inquire of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether any further information could be laid before the House respecting the nature, supply, and cost of coal produced at Heraclia and other places on the south coast of the Black Sea?

said, that, by paying the labourers regularly, a course which had not been adopted for some time past, the quantity of coal produced had been increased from 30,000 to 60,000 tons, and that the quantity supplied was amply sufficient for the entire consumption of the British and French navies. The royalty paid to the Turkish Government was at the rate of 10s. per ton, and the cost of getting the coal and putting it on board was 15s. per ton, making the prime cost of the coal on board 25s. per ton. By an arrangement now making for laying down a tramway from the pit to the place of embarkation, it was expected that the cost of conveyance would be reduced by 5s. per ton, so that hereafter the cost would be reduced to 20s. per ton. The quality of the coal was good and suitable for all the purposes of steam vessels.

said, he begged to inquire whether the Ordnance school at Carshalton was to be maintained, and if so, whether more pupils were to be admitted, and whether the school was to be placed under the superintendence of the Horse Guards or the War Office; and, in the event of the school being discontinued, what course was to be taken with regard to the pupils now in the establishment?

replied, that it was not intended to keep up the Ordnance school permanently, but it was intended to keep it up for time sufficient to enable the education of the boys now in the school to be completed.

said, he wished to know whether it was intended by the Government to institute an inquiry into the conduct of the police in Hyde Park on Sunday last?

said, he was not aware that any special inquiry was called for into the conduct of the police. He had received several communications from gentlemen, from which it appeared that the conduct of the police was open to no great exception, and that they acted with forbearance and moderation. A specific complaint had appeared in a public paper, signed, very properly, by the person complaining, who gave his own address and the number and letter of the policeman. In that case, as in every other in which anything tangible and specific had been stated, an inquiry had been ordered, the result of which he had not ascertained. If that letter had been addressed to him in the first instance, a day or two would have been saved in the inquiry.

said, he would give the Government an opportunity of answering the question of the hon. and learned Member for Leominster (Mr. J. G. Phillimore), as he was about to present some petitions which prayed for immediate redress; and, by the rules of the House, petitions which required immediate redress were to be taken into consideration at the time. The first petition was from inhabitants of Mount Street and Park Street, Grosvenor Square, who expressed their horror and disgust at the brutal and violent conduct of the police in truncheoning the peaceably disposed persons who were attracted to Hyde Park on Sunday from motives of curiosity, or who assembled there to take their ordinary walk in the park. The petitioners prayed the House to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police, and to protect the public against a repetition of such frightful violence. He had also to present a petition from Francis Henry Mare, of Southampton Street, Strand, who stated that, being in bad health and afflicted with paralysis, he was in the habit of walking in Hyde Park on; Sunday, and that, being there on Sunday last, and standing by the rails opposite to Albert Gate, he received several violent blows from the staves of the police. He never struck a single policeman, but only held up his stick to ward off their blows, He was nevertheless carried off to Vine Street station, where he was confined all night in a filthy and ill-ventilated hole. Two respectable householders offered to become bail for him on Sunday afternoon, but the police refused to accept bail. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a searching investigation should be made into the conduct of the police in Hyde Park on Sunday, and that the orders given by the Home Office to the police should be laid before the House. He had another petition to present from another respectable person, who stated that his head and face were most dreadfully cut and bruised by the police on Sunday. The petitioner stated that he went to Hyde Park on Sunday, that some of the crowd hallooed to persons in carriages, "Let your horses rest!" The petitioner, who took no part in these cries, was, with others, brutally driven back from the iron railings by the police, who, having cleared a space of 100 yards in length and ten yards from the railings, nevertheless continued to strike the petitioner and others with their truncheons, with the intention of driving the people still further back, where it was impossible for them to go by reason of the crowd behind them. In this way men, women, and children, were alike struck by the police, who also beat the petitioner in the most brutal and shameful manner. The petitioner also stated that he saw one woman upon the ground with four or five policemen around her, she having been struck down by their truncheons. The petitioner stated that he did not go to Hyde Park to create a disturbance, but that if such conduct were to be repeated, and if the people should go armed, the most dreadful loss of life would follow. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for inquiry.

said, he rose to order. He considered it very inconvenient to get into a discussion upon petitions of this nature just presented without notice to the House. The exception which was provided for by the rules of the House for discussing petitions referred to cases only of petitions which required immediate and urgent remedy; they were the only cases which, could be discussed on presentation. He really did not see how the matter of which the petitioners complained showed an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy. He thought it would be better to give notice, and bring the matter before the House to-morrow.

said, he did not believe it would be better to take the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, or that there could be anything more requiring redress than the personal grievances of which these parties complained.

The hon. Member puts a very different interpretation upon the Standing Orders from that which I should put. I have no doubt that these persons complain of grievances, but the question is whether they are grievances of pressing necessity, demanding an urgent and immediate remedy. The courts of justice are open to these parties, and I think that these petitions do not come within the Standing Orders. I will also suggest that the hon. Member should give notice of his Motion.

I beg to suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) that to-morrow there is a Committee of Supply, and that it will be quite competent to him then to bring forward a Motion on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair says the courts of justice are open to these parties; but I say they are not open to them, and so they come here. [Cries of "Order!"] I am in order. I will take the sense of the House upon it; but there is no redress in courts of justice for these parties.

I understood that the statement of the hon. Gentleman appeared to show [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: You have not heard my case yet] that which puts the petitions out of order, because, if I understand him, he proposes to refer the matter to a Select Committee of this House. But is that the immediate remedy which the hon. Member proposes to himself by the presentation of these petitions? Suppose a Committee appointed to-morrow, and suppose it reported this day week, that would not be an immediate remedy—

I rise to order. I have not yet moved for any Committee.

The hon. Member is not at liberty to make a statement upon presenting a petition, unless there is something in the petition to show there is an urgent need for some immediate remedy. There is nothing in the petition to show this, and the hon. Member is, therefore, debarred from speaking upon the petition.

Then I had better move that the House do now adjourn; and I shall move it if the House will not hear me, for that will be a very good reason for adjourning. I did intend to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the illegal and ferocious conduct of the metropolitan police, and to report their opinion to the House. I am going to support these petitions satisfactorily by evidence, and I am quite sure, if this House do not attend to these petitions, before many days are over they will regret the decision to which they come. A most respectable family, the head of that family, and all that belong to him, are prepared to come forward, and to state that at about eight o'clock on Sunday evening they saw about forty policemen march down Park Street, as far as Reeve's Mews, four or five abreast; they then halted for a moment with their right hands behind them, under their coat-skirt, and, at a given word of command, they withdrew their right hands, having therein their truncheons, and, without any provocation or cause, began be labouring all within their reach; the man got separated from his wife, and sought refuge at the Grosvenor Hotel, within a few doors of his own residence. The persons assembled were, from their appearance and conduct, evidently highly respectable.

Sir, I rise to order. I will put it to you, whether it is not in accordance with the rules of the House that, when a Member makes a Motion, he should speak to that Motion? The Motion made is, that the House do now adjourn, and the hon. Gentleman is arguing, not for the adjournment of the House, but for the appointment of a Committee, which would be impossible if the House were to adjourn.

I rather think the noble Lord is mistaken. Anything may suggest the Motion that the House adjourn, and the hon. Member may therefore speak of anything which comes uppermost in his mind.

I am not surprised at the course pursued by the Government. ["Order!"] I am speaking to the Motion. I say the noble Lord the Prime Minister is entirely out of order in his interruption of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Finsbury. I maintain, Sir, not in opposition to authority, that the grounds he has laid before the House perfectly justify the course which he is pursuing in calling immediate attention to this subject. I, too, have received numerous communications from persons who complain of the most atrocious conduct of the police.

The question before the House is, that the House do now adjourn. If, when the rules of the House preclude an hon. Member from speaking on the presentation of a petition, he is to be allowed to move that the House adjourn for the purpose of making a speech which the rules of the House prevent, it will he a question for hon. Members to consider how far they will thus break down all authority and cause the rules of the House to be disregarded.

I will not for a moment, Sir, say a single word against your authority, entertaining as the House does, and deservedly so, the highest respect for your opinion; but I believe, only a few nights ago, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) brought a question before the House, and he was prevented addressing the House precisely in the same manner as the hon. Member for Finsbury. The noble Lord said he would move the adjournment of the House, and was allowed to proceed.

again rose, and was met with cries of "Spoke." I should have done before now—I should have finished this statement—if I had not been interrupted. I have only to say, I am here to discharge a public duty. As to breaking down the authorities of the House, I do not wish anything of the sort. I still believe I am within the rules of the House. I am requested, for the sake of my fellow-subjects, for the sake of property, and for the sake of the peace and tranquillity of this town on Sunday next, to make this statement to the House, and it will then be for the Home Office—which denies all these statements—which says that the police behaved most exemplarily, to see that security is given to the peaceful inhabitants of London. If the House is satisfied that all the statements in the petitions are true, I need not read evidence in corroboration of them, but, as they are doubted by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I must repeat that, should this Committee be appointed, I can bring evidence in support of all these allegations, not by a set of pickpockets, as they are represented, but by many peaceful subjects of Her Majesty, resident in the most respectable part of the west end of the town. There is another case, of a man standing talking to some neighbours, when without the slightest intimation from the police, he received a blow from the clinched fist of a policeman behind the ear, and on his turning round, another policeman gave him a similar blow on the other side, under the ear, and, on his retreating towards his home in Mount Street, he saw a policeman strike a person down with his truncheon, and, while the poor fellow was lying insensible on the ground, another policeman who came up attempted to kick him on the head, but missed his mark, and only kicked off his hat. He heard the policeman say, with an ironical air, "Now go to the hospital and get your wounds dressed, and if you don't go directly I'll give you three times as much as you've already got." Many of the inhabitants of Mount Street saw a poor fellow, apparently very respectable, being carried to the station-house by the police, bleeding from what appeared to be a wound behind the ear, his wife following and crying, and on her making some observation to one of the policemen he gave her a dreadful blow on the breast, causing the poor woman to groan. Surely such proceeding as this is worthy the attention of the House and the Home Office, and I say the House shall not proceed to public business until it is considered. Another gentleman, resident in Mount Street, says he was in the centre of Hyde Park. He saw one poor fellow leaning against the iron hurdles, with his head cut open, and on turning to look at him he saw the police striking with their bludgeons all persons, whether in retreat or passing by. One person he observed, who wore a white hat, running away from the police, and the policeman in pursuit of him struck him across the ancle, with a view, he supposes, of felling him; one poor youth, without any provocation, was most brutally struck with great violence across the loins, and he observed that most of the blows were aimed at those parts of the body most likely to produce permanent injury. Here is the case of a poor man, a wounded soldier, who has just returned from the Crimea. I have his address, and he is ready to come forward. He was wounded in the Crimea, in the breast and leg, and he received very severe blows on Sunday last in Hyde Park, where he was present only as a spectator, which caused the leg wound to break open again, although he repeatedly called out that he was a cripple and could not get away in obedience to the orders of the police. I have another letter in confirmation of all this, which shows the necessity of coming to this House for redress, and calling on the authorities of the Home Office to do something to prevent the peace of this town from being further violated. This is from a gentleman whose veracity I suppose will be little doubted. It is signed by Henry Harcourt Aubrey, Colonel, late of the Royal Horse Guards Blue, dated from 76, Stanley Street, Eccleston Square, and addressed to a Committee of working men, who are trying to get up evidence against the police if they can—to punish them if they can—but there's the difficulty, and they cannot do it without investigating the whole matter. This gentleman volunteers his evidence, and he says—

"I beg to inform you that I was present both Sundays, and never in the whole course of my life witnessed greater brutality displayed by a body of ruffians and cowards than by the police in Hyde Park on Sunday, the 1st of July last, and I shall have great pleasure (if you will afford me the opportunity) to detail some of the scenes I witnessed; and still greater pleasure if, by such information, these savages (for I cannot call them men) may be brought to justice."

I am also in possession of information, which it is my duty to lay before this House, and before the head of the Home Office, that there is the greatest exasperation on the part of the working classes. The noble Lord's Bill is gone, but that, in my opinion, is insignificant, unless something is done to meet the case. I pledge my word to the House, I fully believe something must be done. If you grant this Committee—if you institute inquiry which shall really bring to punishment those parties who have thus offended, and treated peaceable inhabitants in the manner described—I shall be satisfied, and the people will be satisfied also. But they will not be satisfied to have it hushed up, and to be told that the Bill is withdrawn, and therefore they must go home. True it is that the Bill is withdrawn, but who is compromised by that? This House! ["Hear, hear!"] This House is compromised by the manner in which the Bill is withdrawn. They will say you have conceded to tumult that which you before refused. Yet that is insignificant compared to the manner in which the people have been treated. A former House of Commons did not refuse to entertain the question when there was a brutal massacre at Manchester, in 1819. True, no Committee was appointed. The Government was always too strong. The Government may be too strong for me on this occasion. The House may be too strong for me. The noble Lord at the head of the Government may argue that this is not the proper tribunal, but how are we to get at the truth? You must do something if you want to prevent mischief next Sunday. I am told that these parties are determined to go to Hyde Park on that day, and if they are molested they will go there armed, and if they had been armed last Sunday, can any man say there would not have been great loss of life? What can you do? You must find some means of satisfying them, or else you must close the park. I think the best thing to do is to close the park on Sunday next. I have put this House in possession of the case. I have stated a few of the allegations which the petition contains. I am ready to prove those allegations by the evidence of most respectable persons of all ranks and of all parties. Some inquiry must be made, and the people will not be satisfied with a Government inquiry or by the Police Commissioners' own report. I should like to see the report of the Police Commissioners upon the first day's disturbance, which the right hon. Gentleman said he had received. I want to know what the Government are prepared to do? At all events, I have done my duty. The House is in possession of the case, and I believe—indeed, I am confident—I can bring evidence to substantiate everything which I have stated, and I would remind the House that the peace, the safety of life and property in this town depend much on the manner in which it receives these petitions. I shall move for a Committee of inquiry, hut the Motion I have to make is that the House do now adjourn.

Sir, as the adjournment of the House is the only question before us, I need not enter now into a discussion of the conduct of the police on Sunday last, nor upon the sweeping allegations made by the hon. Gentleman as to that conduct. I wish, however, to correct one misrepresentation which my hon. Friend made when he said I denied all those statements. I could not deny them, for the statements which he has now made I have heard for the first time. The hon. Gentleman said he thought it his duty to acquaint me with those statements, and I only wish he had laid those statements before me. I would then have instituted an inquiry, which at present, of course, I have not been able to do. The allegations which have been made are of a sweeping and general character. The House is aware that every policeman has the letter of his division embroidered on his dress, and has also a distinctive number by which he may be identified, the object of those marks being, in the event of misconduct on the part of any individual policeman, that he may be easily recognised, and I think it impossible, if all these statements arc correct, and made by parties who were present, who apparently had ample means of observation, that they could not have identified some of the men to whom misconduct is imputed. I know many statements have been made; but I, on behalf of the police, protest against the sweeping and general charges made this evening without one tittle of evidence to support them. If the hon. Gentleman thinks it right to move for a Committee of inquiry I shall be willing to listen to the grounds upon which he asks for it, and I cannot now say what opinion I shall form, because I do not know the grounds upon which such a Motion can be supported. I will also say, with regard to the threat which the hon. Gentleman has held out, that the people will go armed into the park on Sunday next—I believe he does the greatest possible wrong to the character and temper of the great body of the inhabitants of this metropolis in believing they would act in such a manner as he assumes they will. It is the privilege of the inhabitants of London to visit the parks—the hon. Gentleman says it is their right—and no doubt it is their right, but qualified in this way—they have no right to go there to molest other people who have an equal right with themselves. If they do go with that intention it will be the duty of the Government, and of the police acting under their authority, to protect the peaceable and well-disposed from I any annoyance from those who may go with the intention of creating tumult, and to prevent such persons as I have just mentioned from molesting others in the quiet enjoyment of the parks, which it is the undoubted right and privilege of all to enjoy.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary says he cannot inquire into vague charges. Now, the charge I brought forward was specific in time, name, place, and circumstance. I do not know what more he would have to form a specific charge. I charged an inspector, who has no number on his coat, and therefore does not come within the category described by the right hon. Gentleman. I described the disturbance, the place, the time—Monday last, the hour 10 o'clock, and the name of the man who was struck. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give this poor man—poor not in pocket, but I call him so because he has been shamefully used—to give him assistance, in order to bring under the hands of justice the man who, under the guise of authority, has done an unauthorised act. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give this man any assistance to find the inspector of police. I do not think that is a vague or sweeping charge against the police. I might bring accusations against right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords who bring Bills into this House which are only the offspring of their own bigotry, and will not in any way contribute to the good government of the country or the happiness of the people.

The observation I made use of had no reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, I admit, was specific enough, but to the statements of the hon. Member for Finsbury. [Mr. DUNCOMBE: I gave the names.] As to the petition presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he had sent me that statement the matter would by this time have been in course of inquiry. I am not now in possession of all the facts of that case. I heard the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman on presenting that petition, and I must request him to send me a statement in writing or a copy of the petition, otherwise it will be impossible for me to act.

Sir, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) has alluded so pointedly to the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) and to myself, I beg to say it was not through bigotry that I supported the Bill in question. I beg to say I was one of, unhappily, a small minority who voted in favour of opening the British Museum and the National Gallery on Sundays to those who believed conscientiously they could go there. I voted for the Sunday Trading Bill, not through bigotry, but at the request of a great number of tradesmen in humble circumstances, in order to secure for as many persons as possible in the metropolis, without entailing undue inconvenience upon any one, the Sunday as a day of rest, to be kept holy by those who recognised that course as a duty—to be kept as a holiday and day of recreation by those who felt inclined to do so. I beg to say, further, that since the Bill has been, withdrawn I have received representations from working men and humble tradesmen thanking us for our endeavours, and complaining of the utter misrepresentations to which the measure has been exposed, and earnestly hoping that some time or other they may be relieved from their present amount of slavery, which inflicts great hardship and suffering on them. I thought I had made it pretty clear in the early stages of the Bill upon what grounds I supported the measure. I said, I supported it on economical and sanitary grounds—on religious and irreligious grounds. I did not see why men should be compelled to give seven days' labour for six days' pay. I disclaimed being identified with that party who believe that men can be made either religious or sober by Act of Parliament. I hope in future that the hon. and learned Gentleman will address his remarks to those—I do not know whether he was one of them—who voted for keeping our national museums closed on Sundays, and not to me who voted for opening them.

I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) that, having presented a petition of gravity, why not move that it be printed? and he can then found upon it such Motion as he pleases.

Sir, my answer is, this matter requires immediate inquiry, and I think, when the rule of the House was framed, an opening was left expressly for cases of this kind. I maintain our time has not been wasted by the observations I have made, or by the petitions I have presented. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State says my accusations are general and sweeping in their character. They are no more vague than the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). I have given you a petition with the names and addresses of persons residing in Mount Street and the neighbourhood of Grosvenor Square, and, if an opportunity is given, I have no doubt of, being able to prove the statements they have made.

said, he would beg to remind the House that they had been engaged upon what might fairly be called an English "row." He did not say that they were not entitled to indulge in a "row," and it was not the character of his countrymen to wish to stop it, but he must call their attention to the fact that Englishmen were quite as ready to get up a "row" as his countrymen were. He would only add that he was in the park, and could give some evidence, but would abstain from doing so at present.

complained that through the noise going on it was really quite impossible to say what was taking place.

stated that the question before the Committee was the postponement of Clause 12.

said, he would move that after "time" be inserted the words "within twenty years." The object of the Amendment was to limit the period during which a tenant could demand compensation.

opposed the Amendment.

said, he must complain of the introduction of such a limitation as that which had been just carried upon a division. If a farmhouse happened to have been erected twenty-one years ago, and had been maintained in proper repair by the tenant at a yearly outlay, that man was now not to be allowed a shilling for his improvement, simply because he had had the misfortune to make it twelve months too soon. The real way to get at the compensation to which the tenant was entitled was, in his opinion, to look at the value of the holding at the time the tenant was dispossessed. He considered that the clause now before the Committee was the very essence of the Bill, and he would rather that the Bill should not pass than that the clause should be mutilated. He considered it was most desirable that, if possible, for the future all matters between tenants and landlords should be regulated by contracts; but, with respect to the past, it was a very different thing. The tenants had for a number of years been accustomed to make their own improvements, and this was the ground on which they now sought to obtain compensation for them. With respect to this question, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had only proposed that which had been approved by Mr. Burke and by the Devon Commission; and any restriction as to time would prevent tenants from receiving the compensation justly due to them, and this Bill, instead of being a Tenants' Improvements Compensation Bill, would be a Tenants' Improvement Confiscation Bill. The alterations proposed by the Government would render the Bill worse than useless, and convert it into a shape that would give satisfaction to no party; and it was certainly to have been expected that they would assign their reasons for limiting that compensation to improving tenants, which preceding Administrations had not sought to restrict.

said, that the Government had been perfectly prepared to give explanations as to every Amendment they had to propose, but as the Committee had chosen to go to a division before they had had an opportunity of offering their explanations, the Government surely could not be held responsible on that account. He had been asked to assign his reasons for proposing to limit the claim to compensation. Now, it would be recollected that, on the second reading of the Bill, he distinctly stated the grounds and conditions upon which the Government would take up the measure; and that he then sketched to the House the Amendments which he proposed to insert. The only omission with which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Serjeant Shee) could tax him was, with not having then stated the period of twenty years as the limit that he would propose. Now, although he certainly had not, on the second reading, defined this specific period, he, nevertheless, then explained generally that he considered there must be such a limit as to time, in regard to the improvements for which the tenant should be entitled to compensation, as would enable them to obtain clear and distinct evidence as to their nature and value. Now, it must fairly be confessed, that the precise limit of twenty years was necessarily in a great degree arbitrary, and that no reason could be given for fixing upon that period more than upon twenty-five or thirty years; but then, if twenty-five years had been chosen, it might as justly have been asked why should no compensation he allowed for improvements made twenty-six years ago, as it was now asked why it should not be granted for those effected twenty-one years since? But, further, it was said, "Why should there be a limit placed at all?" Well, such a limitation, he maintained, was justifiable both upon principle and policy, because, without it, there would be no satisfactory means of judging between the past and present condition of the holding, so that uncertainty and, consequently, endless litigation would ensue as to the value of particular improvements. It would, therefore, be prudent to shut the door to disputes, by fixing a limit as to time, and, in the specific period which they had selected, the Government had been guided by what they considered would be fair and just both to the tenant and his landlord, and what they thought would rally round I them the greatest amount of public support, whether in that House or out of it. They had endeavoured to reconcile the conflicting views of those who opposed any limit to retrospective compensation, and those who were hostile to any such compensation whatever, and he hoped the Committee would adopt the proposition they had felt it their duty to make.

said, he thought that the Government had not dealt fairly with him in the course they had taken. He had introduced the Bill, which was the very identical measure (with the exception of a few words) that the late Government had passed through that House. Its principles received the assent of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), of the Solicitor General for England, and of the noble Lord the Prime Minister; and he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) was invited on the second reading to allow the Government to take charge of the measure. [Mr. HORSMAN was here understood to dissent.] He (Mr. Serjeant Shee) was only now speaking of what took place publicly in that House. To induce him to give up the Bill to the Government, the Secretary for Ireland sketched the Amendments which he deemed necessary, the most important one of which referred to retrospective compensation. It was absurd to think that he would have consented to allow the Government to take charge of the Bill if he had had the least idea that they intended thus to limit the compensation to houses built within the last twenty years; and he had great cause to complain of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, for not having told him openly at first what was the nature of their proposed Amendment. He thought the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had done more to obtain justice for the people of Ireland than any man who had preceded or followed him. He certainly did pity the Irish law officers for their share in the matter. Remembering all he had heard them say on this subject, and all he had known them to do, he deeply regretted, for the honour of the profession to which they belonged, that for the sake of place they should have been parties to mutilating the Bill in the manner it had been done. If ever the people of Ireland should raise a pillar on which to record the names of those by whom they had been betrayed, the names of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen would stand high on the list. Remembering how often they had pledged themselves to throw to the winds every prospect of place rather than not secure for the tenantry of Ireland that full measure of justice to which they were entitled, he could not but express his wonder and amazement that they should have consented to such a proposition as this. The least the Government could do now was to restore to him the Bill which, by a contrivance, they had induced him to give up to them. The alteration which they now proposed would completely destroy all the good which the Bill was originally calculated to work. Out of the number of holdings into which the land of Ireland was divided, those under fifty acres were 485,349, those under thirty acres were 432,778, and those under fifteen acres were 293,000. Those fifteen-acre holdings were almost all of them, of the vast majority of them, in the best circumstanced counties in Ireland, and the latter clauses of the Bill, unless they protected the tenants by suitable compensation clauses, would offer a direct encouragement to speculators in land to get rid of small tenants. He would call attention to the right mode of treating those tenants, and then the Committee would see how much it differed from the mode adopted in the Bill as it now stood. He held in his hand an address to the tenants of the Southborough estate from the Directors of the Presbyterian Widows' Fund, and it would be found that the directors were disposed to treat the tenants justly and fairly, thus showing their desire to adopt his recommendation, and affording a strong argument to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would be doing an injustice by the Amendment he proposed. They stated in that address that farms could easily be pointed out for which a respectable occupying tenant would probably pay double or treble the rent rather than give them up, and they hoped the instances that had been given of respect for industry and good conduct would inspire confidence, stimulate exertion, and make every tenant feel that he was labouring for himself and his family. They also stated that the valuation of the land should be made upon the honourable principle of "live, and let live," and they actually declared that they would in no case raise the rent on account of the tenant's improvements. He had before him the cases of some twenty or thirty tenants on one estate in the north of Ireland, showing a state of things precisely the same as was stated by the directors of that property. That was the state of things existing in almost all the counties of Ulster, except Donegal, and they were putting it into the power of an embarrassed, vindictive, or foolish man, to get rid of his tenants, and throw his land into large farms. He had been most anxious that the Bill should pass, and he had not the least wish to raise obstructions in the way of the present Ministers, whom he desired to see remaining in office as long as the war lasted; but the noble Lord at the head of the Government would do infinitely better to abandon the Bill altogether than to pass it mutilated by these Amendments. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would restate the reasons which induced him in a former Session to object to any limitation of the retrospective clause rather than have a limitation which would give rise to all sorts of uncertainty, and much dissatisfaction.

said, he had not the slightest objection to comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His reasons for the opinion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred were the same as those which influenced the Select Committee in recommending—and it would be found in the latter part of the Bill—that where compensation was made with regard to improvements on the soil, there should be no limitation of time. He thought before, and he still thought, that the two parts of the Bill should be consistent in that respect. The clause applied only to improvements on the soil; and the principle was unquestionably a just one, that when a tenant was in possession of his farm, paying his rent, and performing all the conditions and covenants by which he was bound, if he were dispossessed by the mere power of the landlord, he was entitled to the value of any improvements he had made up to the time of his dispossession—not taking an arbitrary period of time as the standard of value, but the actual value at the time of dispossession, having regard to the period of possession, and other circumstances. That was the view by which he had been guided upon the question of compensation. The select Committee had come to the same conclusion, holding that the best period of fixing the value was at the time of dispossession, and he had never heard any satisfactory answer to the reasons which led them to come to that decision. He adhered still to the opinion that the value of the improvements made on the farm, as well as the actual value of the premises, which might be constructed—provided for in the 42nd Clause—things visible and tangible—ought to be fixed on that principle. His great object had always been to do what was just, and at the same time what was practicable on that matter. He had deferred very much to the views of others in endeavouring to arrive at a sound conclusion, but he would never, for the mere sake of popularity, give an opinion that he did not consider favourable to a right settlement of the question. He did not quarrel with the proposal of the Government, who had taken twenty years as the period of possession, but his opinion was in favour of the principle of actual value at the time of dispossession, as it was a consistent and intelligible one. He did not, however, think there was any great difference be-between them.

said, the great difficulty in the clause was the endeavour to legislate upon the same system for the past as for the future. There had been very great improvements made by tenants under his own eyes, without any expenditure on the part of the landlords; but if the principle of the clause were to be applied to the past, it would do the greatest injustice to those who had made those improvements. No doubt, an honest landlord would give his tenants compensation for such improvements at present; but in a few years that desire would he forgotten, and the number giving such compensation would be very small indeed. The mistake was, that there were not two distinct schedules in the Bill—one referring to the future, the other to the past. Legislation on the subject of improvements was inevitably retrospective. A large expenditure of labour, which was the capital of the tenant, had been given to those improvements—in some cases the acreage had been doubled by the labour of the tenant. The law, therefore, would be either retrospective justice, or retrospective robbery as regarded those persons. He, therefore, pressed upon the Committee the impropriety of dealing with the past upon the same principle as they proposed to deal with the future. If they adopted that principle they would inflict a lasting injustice upon the tenantry of Ireland.

said, he had listened with anxiety to what had fallen from the Secretary for Ireland, in order to ascertain his reason for insisting upon a limitation of twenty years; but the right hon. Gentleman had treated the question sometimes as one of principle, sometimes as one of policy, and he believed that the real ground of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was official cowardice. The Government were at that moment endeavouring to please Irish Members upon both sides of the House, and the result was, that they were emasculating this measure to such an extent, that even the author of it was obliged to state that it would not satisfy the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he fixed the particular period of twenty years because he wanted evidence; but was it not easy to obtain evidence to prove who had erected the solid buildings which stood upon a farm? He would appeal to the two Irish law officers who had sat in solemn conclave at Dublin with other Irish Members to consider the question, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman, who knew nothing whatever of Ireland, and whose every step since he had taken office had been a blunder, from one absurdity to another. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General for Ireland had solemnly declared that they would never take office until they were able to obtain a fair and ample measure for the settlement of the question, and he put it to them to say whether the Bill, after the alterations it had undergone, could be regarded as satisfactory? He was of opinion that it would excite an universal feeling of indignation throughout Ireland, and the Government would again have to turn their attention to such matters as the suppression of monster meetings. Could it have been supposed that the most important Amendment in the Bill would have been proposed without a word of explanation, and that an attempt would have been made to smuggle it through the House? He denounced this mode of proceeding as most unfair to the House and the public. There was no distinction between the circumstances of the south or west of Ireland and those of the north. It was downright robbery and confiscation to say that tenants who had made improvements within a term beyond that fixed by the Bill, were to be deprived of all claim to compensation. A vast quantity of property was now passing from old to new landlords in Ireland, and the interest of the tenant ought to be regarded before that of the proprietor. The amount of money sent last year from the poor Irish exiles in America was 1,730,000l., and not less than 150,000 persons left Ireland for the United States and other parts of the world. The Government, instead of going about the Continent to raise a Foreign Legion, would do well to rely more on the Irish people, and not drive them from their country and the ranks of their Queen. Their great object ought to be to induce the tenant to invest every available shilling, whether in the form of money or labour, in the soil; encouraging him to do so by just prospects of compensation. As it was, the only class which would profit by the Bill would be jobbing land agents and plundering attorneys. He charged the Government with having brought upon us a direful series of miseries and disasters by their in competency in administration, and especially by their misconduct of the war. The Government might say they could not hope to pass the Bill through the other House, but he believed the Bill as brought in by the hon. and learned Serjeant would insure the tranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, and that the Irish landlords themselves would, in a few years, be convinced that the hon. and learned Serjeant was the best friend they ever had.

said, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to the real question before it. The words "twenty years" were adopted in the 14th Clause almost without discussion; and the real question before the Committee was to leave out the words "any of the classes," and insert "within seven years before the passing of this Act shall have executed improvements," &c. He (Mr. Butt) could understand the adoption of the principle of twenty years, as it was one running through many Acts of Parliament and was adopted as the limits of evidence. But they had applied that principle in a wrong direction; for the tenant was more likely to lose evidence than the landlord, and the hardship would, therefore, be proportionably greater. The clause had nothing to do with compensating periods, and the only question raised was, what length of possession should destroy evidence. He admitted that twenty years was not an unfair term; but he thought the onus of proof should not be thrown upon the tenant.

said, it was open to the Committee to decide how the principle of twenty years should be applied; whether to roads and fences, or whether to farm buildings? They had decided upon the term of twenty years, but not as to the class of improvements to which that term should apply. With respect to the retrospective principle, the onus of proof was to rest with the tenant; if he could bring no proof, of course he could make out no case of compensation. In the Bill, a large number of proofs were required to be made out, some of which were of an almost impossible character. He thought, if the retrospective principle was to be admitted at all, there should be no limits placed on it.

said, he wished to move the omission, after line 25, of certain words which provided that, in giving the tenant compensation for improvements, due regard should be had to the length of time during which he might have enjoyed such improvements.

said, he thought that it was immaterial to retain the words objected to, and he would therefore assent to the Amendment.

said, he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, for he believed that it was very material, that the clause should remain as it stood at present.

said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington that the question was one that ought not to be treated lightly. It was most important, in giving a tenant compensation for improvements made before the passing of the Bill that due regard should be had to the length of time during which such improvements had been enjoyed.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that three hon. Members who had voted in the majority were not in the House when the question was put. (Cries of "Name!") The right hon. Gentleman, the principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, was one of the Gentlemen in question.

said, he hardly knew what was to be understood as being within the House. He was in the lobby immediately adjoining the House when the doors were opened, and if that was not within the House he was quite willing that his vote should be struck off.

said, the question was whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the question put?

said, he had heard the Chairman putting the question, but, as he happened to be in conversation with the Solicitor General at the time, if he were called upon to state what the question was he could not say.

said, he should move that the vote of the right hon. Gentleman be struck off.

said, that if an hon. Member was within the House it should be assumed that he heard the question put, but if he was not within the House then he was not entitled to vote.

said, he thought that within the four walls of the House should be presumed to be "within the House," and not the lobbies.

said, he wished to ask how it would be possible to make the objection if it were irregular to discuss the question after the division was over?

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins) called attention to the fact before the Chairman announced the numbers.

said, the fact was as his hon. Friend had stated.

said, he was willing to admit he was not in the House, and that his vote should be struck off, but hoped it would be understood that in future no Member could vote unless he was actually in the House when the question was put.

said, that a vote could not be challenged after the doors were unlocked.

said, there were means, of course, of ascertaining whether the doors were unlocked or not by examining witnesses at the bar. But one thing was certain, that the objection was taken, by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) before the doors could possibly be unlocked. The single vote was of no importance on the present occasion, but there were certain rules—the result of the experience of those who had preceded them in that House—to which they ought always to adhere. There might be occasions when a single vote might be of the utmost importance—the Act of Settlement, for instance, was carried only by a majority of one—and therefore it was desirable to adhere strictly to the rule.

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the important points were—first, what were the rules of the House; and, next, had those rules been departed from? He thought it was unadvisable to carry to a conclusion the debate which had arisen, and would suggest that it would be better by common consent to refer the matter with reference to future proceedings to that high authority to whose decisions they were accustomed to yield.

said, that it had been decided last year that a Member behind the chair was actually in the House.

said, he apprehended there were two points—first, whether his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) was within the House when the question was put; and, next, whether a Member who was within the House when the question was put must necessarily have heard the question which was put?

said, he thought the matter was become one of some gravity. They were now advanced into July, and every one desired that business should be conducted as rapidly as possible, but if the principle was to be laid down that no one should vote unless he heard the question which was put, there would be little prospect of that speedy conclusion of the Session in which they had been indulging. He could not agree with the noble Lord that there were two points under discussion. There was only one question—Was the right hon. Member, whose vote was impugned, within the House or not when the question was put? It could not be allowed to become a matter of controversy whether every Member who voted heard the question put.

said, he accepted the solution of the right hon. Gentleman to the second question. The only question which remained was, whether the spot in which his right hon. Friend was when the question was put was within the House or not?

said, he would refer to the process of "counting the House," in which the Speaker only noticed those Members who were within the doors of the House itself.

said, he was willing to allow his vote to be struck off, if it could be done without deciding hastily upon the question which had been raised. He did not dispute that a Member in order to vote, must be within the folding doors of the House; but he thought, before laying down a general rule, it would be better to take Mr. Speaker's opinion. He (Sir G. Grey) had been of opinion that any Member who was within the precincts of the House was entitled to vote.

said, he also thought it would be best to take Mr. Speaker's opinion. He did not concur that Members who had been outside the door when the question was put were not entitled to vote. If the doors had been locked, any Member found in the gallery might be compelled to vote, of which he had known several instances.

said, he would withdraw his former Motion, and move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again forthwith, in order that Mr. Speaker might take the Chair and explain the rule to the House.

said, that the old rule was that nobody could vote who was not within the four walls. In the old House nobody could doubt what was meant by "the four walls," but the present difficulty arose from the double wall caused by the division lobbies. By the strict rule nobody could vote who wan not within the four walls limiting the room in which they were.

said, he thought it probable that, if the hon. and learned Member would wait a little time, the question would be satisfactorily settled.

said, that he understood the opinion of Mr. Speaker was that the Committee should proceed, and that when the Chairman left the Chair he should report the circumstance to him, and he would then state the rule.

said, he could confirm the statement of the noble Lord. He had that moment left Mr. Speaker, who informed the Gentlemen who had waited upon him in consequence of the present discussion, that the vote, if an improper one, might be struck off even on the following day.

said, that under those circumstances, he would not persist in his Motion.

We reserve to ourselves, however, the right to strike off the votes of any other hon. Members given under similar circumstances.

said, that the Attorney General and Solicitor General were in the same predicament.

said, he would now move an Amendment in line 29 limiting the amount of compensation to a sum not exceeding four years of the net rent paid by the tenant for his holding.

said he should oppose the Amendment, and would suggest, as the term "rent" was a very uncertain one, that the words to be introduced, if any such were necessary, should be "four years' net value of the land," instead of "four years' net rent."

said, he also opposed the Amendment, because, taking in connection with the alterations which had been already made in the Bill, its effect would be to deprive the tenants of all compensation whatever.

said, he should move its omission. In his opinion the clause was a wanton violation of principles which even the most despotic Governments held to be sacred; and although the present Bill was confined to Ireland, the principle involved in the present clause was well worthy of the attention of English Members. In opposing the clause he was actuated by the desire of preventing the addition to the Statute Book of an absurdity, resembling too many others by which it was disgraced. In his opinion, no law ought to interfere with private judgment, for if such a principle was once admitted, where would it stop? It might even extend to compelling Irish merchants to take the opinion of Parliament as to the employment of their capital. What could be a greater violation of the principles of justice than, after inviting persons to make a purchase, to come down upon them and compel them to pay an additional sum. The proposal was one which, after all, would be of no great advantage to the tenant, and that he would impress upon hon. Gentlemen for whose precarious support the Government had consented to adopt the present Bill. If a great principle must be violated, let it be done for a great object. (Laughter.) He repeated that opinion, for it was founded upon a maxim of Burke, that, if you murder, rob also; and, if a great principle of justice was to be violated, it should only be done for a great public object. All retrospective legislation, except in cases where persons had unwittingly incurred penalties, was, in his opinion, unjust; but if the present clause were agreed to, the tendency of it would be to prevent the wholesome system of voluntary agreement which was daily being brought more into operation between landlords and tenants in Ireland. It would instil the principle of not depending upon voluntary contract, but upon an Act of the Legislature. Whether he looked to the codes of other nations or to our own law, he could find no precedent for a provision so unjustifiable as that contained in the present clause—a provision which, under the name of law, violated all law; which, professing to be for the benefit of the tenant, would exeite dissension between him and his landlord; which professed to advance the cause of civilisation, but which destroyed the rights of property upon which civilisation itself depended for its advancement.

said, he felt he should not be doing justice to his constituents, who had sent him to that House to defend their property, if he did not support the clause. He believed that the Bill without the clause would be worse than useless. He thought that there were two points to be considered—first, whether it was just that the tenant should have the benefit of improvements made with his own capital, or by his own labour; and, secondly, if just that he should, ought he to be debarred from that benefit—and he used the word "debarred" advisedly—because he was a poor man? With regard to the first point there was no difference of opinion, nor could much exist with regard to the second. If a Bill were passed saying that for all improvements made after the year 1855 the tenant should be allowed compensation it would be equivalent to giving to landlords all improvements which had been made by tenants before that year, and would, in point of fact, be a mere act of confiscation. How could they expect the tenants of Ireland to he well affected towards the Government of this country if they did not fulfil one of the primary duties of a Government towards them? He hoped the Committee would decide in this case upon considerations of equity and justice, and that they would not be influenced by any rhetoric whatever to disregard the claim of the tenants to compensation for their own property.

said, he still retained the opinion that the clause was opposed to all the rights of property, and was fraught with dangers of every kind. It was said that there was a distinction between the case of the landlords and tenants in Ireland, and the case of landlords and tenants in England; but he could understand no such distinction. The laws of the two countries were the same, and the two classes had in each case to appeal to the same tribunals. By the law, as it at present stood, the owners of property were only bound by certain written contracts, and on the faith of that law English capital to a large amount had recently been invested in the purchase of land in Ireland [Cries of "No, no!"] He believed that those gentlemen who cried "No, no!" must he very oblivious of what had of late years taken place in the Irish Encumbered Estates Court. But it made no difference in his argument whether the capital recently invested in the purchase of land in Ireland was English or Irish. There could be no doubt that property to a vast amount had of late years changed hands in Ireland. It should be assumed that the purchasers of that property had examined the leases on which it was held, in order that they might ascertain on what terms they were to hold it; and if that Bill were passed, a new obligation would he introduced into every lease against the landlord, and without his consent. Such a principle would be fraught with danger to all property, for if it were adopted in Ireland, there could be no reason why it should not be extended to England. It was a sacred principle in the English as well as in all other laws that there must be two parties to a contract, and if you threw upon the landlord an obligation to make to the tenant a compensation which he had never engaged to take upon himself, you violated the rights of property. He should like to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether be was fully cognizant of and sanctioned such a principle as that there should be forced upon the landlord of England and Ireland—for he would not look upon this solely as an Irish question—an obligation into which he had never entered, and which, if he had thought it would be cast upon him, would have induced him never to grant the lease? If the principle were a good one, he did not object to their making this a prospective Bill, which would then be applicable, unless the parties by contract provided to the contrary; but he did object strongly to its retrospective action. He begged, in conclusion, to impress on the minds of English landlords that, if they were misled by the idea that this was merely a question of Irish legislation, and that one principle could be acted on with regard to Ireland and another with regard to England—if they were misled by this idea, they would only have themselves to blame, if, next year a Bill should be introduced, throwing upon them the same obligations which they now attempted to place upon the landlords of Ireland.

said, that the present clause was similar to that which was contained in the Bill of 1853, with this difference, that the Amendments introduced by the Government in the present clause rendered it milder and more limited in its form. He was, under these circumstances, surprised to find that hon. Members who had voted in favour of the clause in the Bill of 1853 had changed their opinions, and now opposed it. With respect to the retrospective operation of the clause, he felt convinced that, as a mere question of justice, more could be said in favour of its retrospective than of its prospective effects, and that it would only by law do that which was already done by every just landlord in Ireland.

said, the hon. Member had expressed his surprise that hon. Members who supported the clause in 1853 should oppose it now; he would, however, frankly state the reason—it was because in 1853 large meetings were held in Ireland with respect to this question, but that now there were none.

said, he thought that the question most to be considered with regard to a clause of this kind was, whether it would meet the cases of the bonâ fide tenant and of the fraudulent tenant? There was a part of the clause to which he had always been opposed, and that was the proviso at the end of it, requiring that every tenant who might by any possibility have a claim against his landlord should register his claim within twelve months after the passing of the Bill. The effect of that would be to make Ireland one scene of hostility and litigation. If they passed the clause, could they expect that it would be passed by the other House; especially as their Lordships had rejected it on a former occasion, and had last week passed the General Consolidation Bill, in which they had adopted the fixture clauses providing for all the cases of buildings within twenty-one years, which were included in the present clause?

said, he was surprised to find the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, attempting by a sort of special pleading to wriggle out of the support of a clause which was much milder in its character than the corresponding provision of the measure which he had himself introduced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's clause was retrospective without limit as to time, whereas the present one contained such a limit, and, in addition, protected the landlord by requiring the tenant to give him notice, within, twelve months after the passing of the Bill, of his intention to claim compensation. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the insertion of that very necessary proviso the excuse for his now opposing the clause altogether. Now, no doubt, retrospective legislation was unsound in principle, but the exceptional circumstances of Ireland, in one important part of which tenant-right prevailed, justified its adoption, on the present occasion, fenced as it was by such safeguards as would effectually prevent its working any injustice. Moreover, without this clause, the Bill would be valueless. He had been exposed to taunt and insult on account of his conduct in regard to this question. It was true that he had supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill in 1853, and he had never since altered any opinion that he then expressed. His votes on this subject, he admitted, might have been different, but he would tell the Committee why they were so. In 1853 they passed a Bill more liberal than the present one, but it was rejected by the other House; and therefore it was much better that they should content themselves with proposing a measure which, although somewhat limited in its benefits, was likely to become law, than to prolong a struggle in behalf of a more extensive Bill, which they could have no reasonable prospect of carrying for an indefinite period.

said, it was his intention to support the clause, and he wished to state his reasons for doing so. The Committee should remember that that House passed a Bill in 1853, containing a wider clause than the one under discussion; and in the same year the other House, which was said to have a greater respect for the rights of property, carried a general Landlord and Tenant Bill, comprising a retrospective fixture clause, providing that any house built or other improvement made twenty-one years before the passing of the Bill might, at the expiration of the lease, be wholly removed by the tenant, unless the landlord paid him for it according to a valuation. Therefore, when the present clause was denounced as a violation of property and of the principles of justice, it should be borne in mind that the same character would equally attach to provisions which had already obtained the deliberate sanction of both branches of the Legislature. The argument of the injustice which the clause would do to purchasers of estates in the Encumbered Estates Court had weighed much with him; but, on mature consideration, he had come to the conclusion that it was not an argument which ought to prevail in opposition to the clause. The proviso was certainly objectionable, and he was of opinion that it ought to be amended as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Sergeant Shee), so that the notice should not require to be delivered in within the twelve months, unless the landlord demanded it in writing.

said, I he must deny that the present was a question which concerned land only. If that precedent were once made, every species of property, whether agricultural or commercial, would be affected by it. The principle on which the Bill was justified, if once admitted, must be extended to all kinds of property, and Parliament must interfere to remedy all grievances connected with property of every kind—such, for instance, as the exemption from poor rates possessed by funded property. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had attempted to induce the Committee to consent to the clause by arguing that the privilege given to the tenant was so fenced round, that it could not do any possible harm; but what was the meaning of that? Simply, that the largest sacrifice of principle was made, and the least possible good derived from it. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked, too, of the present measure being a settlement of the question; but it was his opinion, that he was very much mistaken if he thought so. Not a party in Ireland interested in the subject was satisfied with the Bill. From the north to the south, there was a universal cry of opposition to the Bill, which the hon. and learned Gentleman affected to call a settlement of the question. It would actually put the tenants in the north in a worse position than they were at present; for, in future, instead of enjoying the rights or privileges which custom now conferred on them, the landlords would insist on confining them to the strict letter of the Act of Parliament. So that the Bill, while in the south it took away the property of the landlord and gave it to the tenant, in the north it took away the property of the tenant and gave it to the landlord. The noble Lord at the head of the Government admitted, that this was exceptional legislation, arguing, however, that it was necessary. But why was it necessary? Because, all legislation for Ireland for many years past had been exceptional. The evil was that everything connected with Ireland was made exceptional, and therefore he urged the House to insist on the maintenance of those honest principles in accordance with which alone legislation could safely proceed.

said, it was his belief that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not surely go on with the Bill now. A farce was a very good thing now and then, but such an utter farce as proceeding with the Bill after the last division would ho discreditable to the Government of the noble Lord. He had considerable doubts whether the noble Lord ever meant to pass the Bill in any shape, because, remembering that the noble Lord, when Home Secretary, assented to a really good Bill, he could not understand how the noble Lord could be sincere then, and likewise sincere now. He therefore entreated the noble Lord not to pass the Bill in its present shape, after the very little good which the noble Lord was willing to leave in it had been taken out. It had been stated by the Solicitor General for Ireland that his motive for mutilating the Bill was, because it would have no chance of passing in another place without such mutilations. That was the hon. and learned Gentleman's reason for voting in direct opposition to the course he took last year. Now, he (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had no such distrust of the House of Lords. He had never known an instance of any reform, political, commercial, or financial, which the House of Lords had not been willing to entertain, and, finally, if it were a real improvement on the existing law, to adopt; and he had not the slightest doubt that, if the Bill had been properly submitted to the House of Lords by Lord Aberdeen's Government, it would have obtained a better position than it had obtained in the House of Commons during the present year. But he firmly believed that no honest attempt was made to pass it. He trusted the noble Lord would do the people of Ireland the justice not to mock them with a Bill which could be of no possible utility to anybody in that country.

I must say, Sir, the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman is somewhat extraordinary and eccentric. The hon. and learned Gentleman brings a Bill into this House. He then earnestly entreats me to take charge of his own offspring, promising every support to carry it through the House; and in every stage of the Bill, from that moment to this, the hon. and learned Gentleman has opposed everything that we suggested with regard to it. All the obstacles that we have experienced in our endeavours to frame the Bill in such a manner as to make it likely that it would pass into a law have been brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that at the utmost length; and, when he says the Bill fails for want of explanation, I am sure that is a plea which cannot be applied to his suggestions, for they have not been negatived from any want of explanation on his part. This Bill has been discussed in all its parts, and if I am asked what the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes I am utterly at a loss to say. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish the question to be settled or does he not? Will he have the goodness to answer that question? Does he wish the Bill to be sent to the Upper House in a shape in which it is likely to pass into a law, with concessions on the part of those who hold extreme opinions whether for or against the measure, so that it may be made satisfactory to the majority of the people of Ireland? Or does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to retain a grievance which may be the subject of a hustings' speech? Does he wish to represent to the much-injured tenants of Ireland how we have prevented them obtaining any redress; and, while he has been the instrument of that wrong, that he may also have the merit of standing forth on the hustings as their champion? What we intend to do in the meantime with the Bill is to fix it for Thursday next, and then the House will be prepared to say what ought to be done regarding it.

The noble Lord, Sir, has put a question to me which I shall answer. The noble Lord wants to know whether I wish to keep this question unsettled, so that I may be enabled to stand on the hustings as the champion of the Irish tenantry. I am astonished that the noble Lord, considering his own conduct on this measure, should have the presumption to make a charge of that kind against me. I brought in a Bill last year, at the instigation of the majority of the representatives of Ireland, which was referred to a Select Committee, and considered by them with great care. They brought in a Report, and afterwards the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and a Member of the Government who acted under him, brought down a Bill to this House. The noble Lord, in his heart, disapproved the Bill. He did not go upon the hustings, for he kept his place, and his office, and his salary. The noble Lord had declared distinctly in the Committee that he disapproved the Bill, and when the Committee went against him he left it, and never appeared again, leaving his subordinate (Sir John Young, the then Secretary for Ireland) to do what he would not do himself. Yet he kept his place, as, indeed, he has hardly been out of place for forty years. Indeed, there is hardly any humiliation of any kind that he has not subjected himself to in order to keep in place. And then, when an independent Member of this House adopts the very Bill which his Government approved, and introduced, and carried by large majorities, all the Members of the Cabinet voting for it except himself—he keeping his place, not with standing—he has now the presumption to stand up in his place and taunt the man who brought in the Bill, and who, by so doing, has lost nearly all his popularity in Ireland by what he has done; he has the presumption to attack that man for having an unworthy object in view upon the hustings. I feel perfectly safe with respect to the noble Lord, and I think he will be a little more careful before he attacks me again. The noble Lord lives in a glass house. He has found his way to a high place in this House and in the Government; but there are many men of his rank who would not arrive there by the same means. I am as free from imputation as the noble Lord can be, and I will only further remind him that he is among the last men in this House in a position to throw stones at others.

Sir, I shall be guilty of the presumption of attacking the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman whenever I think proper. There are few Members who are more open to change than the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown himself to be. As to the course which I took last year with respect to the Bill to which he alludes, it was perfectly plain and undisguised. I said in the Committee that I disapproved, on principle, the foundation on which the Bill rested. I repeated that statement in my place in this House, and observed that, disapproving in the abstract the principle on which a part of the Bill was founded. I nevertheless thought that, in the existing condition of Ireland, some concession of principle should be made—that there were circumstances connected with the tenantry of Ireland that rendered it necessary to make some sacrifice of abstract principle, in order to remedy practical evils. I say again, Sir, that I cannot understand how any man who sincerely desires to have this question settled should insist on inserting in the Bill provisions that he must know would prevent it from passing in the House of Lords, and which have prevented part of it from receiving the sanction of this House.

stated, that he was anxious to submit for the decision of the Speaker a question which had arisen upon the Proceedings in the Committee which had just reported. When the numbers were announced at the Table by the Tellers, his attention was called by the learned Member for Wallingford to the fact that three Members, among whom was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had voted in the majority, though not in the House when the Question was put; the right hon. Baronet stated that he was in the Lobby beyond the folding doors, at the back of the Chair; and the Question which he had to submit for the Speaker's decision was, whether a Member under such circumstances was entitled to have his vote recorded, or whether he is disqualified from voting, being considered not to be in the House. Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER said That to entitle a Member to vote he must have been in the House and within the folding-doors, and must have heard the Question put.

said, he should of course submit willingly to the right hon. Gentleman's decision, and his vote would not be allowed in the division, but he thought it was desirable to call the attention of the House to the consequences of that decision, so that the question might not be again raised when its settlement might have an effect upon an important division. The folding doors at the back of the Chair, and also at the front of the Chair, at the other end of the House, were always open. The question was always put immediately on the outer door being shut by the Serjeant-at-arms after the Members coming from the lobby had entered it, and the folding doors at the end of the House being kept open, it was almost impossible, when there was a full House, for Members who had just entered from the lobby to get beyond them. The consequence was, that the space between the outer door and the folding doors was crowded when the question was put. This point having been raised, he would suggest that it might be desirable, in future, to have the folding doors at both ends of the House closed during divisions.

Strictly speaking, when the question is put, every Member ought to be in his place—no Member should be standing upon the floor. It is the duty of the Serjeant-at-arms to clear the lobby of Members, and those Members who do not wish to vote have the liberty of retiring to the room beyond the lobby. All Members who are in the lobby ought to come into the House and vote, but they ought not to be allowed to vote unless they are within the walls of the House—inside the folding doors.

said, he was one of those whose votes had been challenged, and he acknowledged that, after the decision of Mr. Speaker, it must be struck out; but he would point out that there was not sufficient room in the House for all the Members. He congratulated his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Malins) on the great grievance he had discovered. He (the Attorney General) was engaged with his hon. and learned Colleague the Solicitor General in arduous studies in the lobby before the division took place, and he was a little too late to get in before the question was put. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Member for Wallingford), with a vigilance which showed his extreme anxiety for the observance of the forms of the House, even in a case in which it could not be of the slightest importance, and actuated, no doubt, by a high sense of public duty, thought proper to interfere. He would therefore venture to suggest, in consequence of the decision which had been come to, that some steps ought to be taken for enlarging the boundaries of the House.

The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that after strangers have been ordered to withdraw all the seats below the gallery are at the disposal of Members of Parliament. If the rule were observed, that no Member was to be allowed in the lobby after the glass was turned, no confusion would arise, because every Member would be in his place within the walls of the House when the question was put.

said, the decision which had been given by Mr. Speaker rendered it unnecessary for him to put another question with reference to the presence of Members in the lobby during a division. The only other question, therefore, upon which he would ask for a decision for his guidance upon future occasions was, within what time after a division had taken place was it competent for a Member to challenge a vote?

If it has been discocovered that a Member was not present when the question was put, the vote of that Member may be challenged before the numbers are declared, or after the division is over.

said, the course he had taken had at any rate had the effect of causing rules to be laid down for the guidance of the House in such distinct terms that it would be impossible for any Member, henceforth, to mistake them, and he was sure every hon. Member felt obliged to Mr. Speaker for the decisions he had given.