said he begged to move that Lord Hotham be discharged from further attendance on, and that Mr. E. C. Egerton be added to the Committee on the London Writ.

said he wished there should be no misconception as to his anxiety to be relieved from further attendance on the Committee upon the London Writ. On Wednesday the House adopted the recommendation of the Committee, that the application of Baron de Rothschild to be heard by counsel should be granted. He was one of the majority of the Committee who felt that the application could not, with propriety, be refused, but he was unable to prevail on a majority to concur with him that, if it were desirable the case should be argued by counsel on the one side, it was contrary to reason, justice, and propriety, that it should not be argued, in like manner, on the other. It had been asked which was the other side, and who had an interest adverse to Baron de Rothschild? To that he replied, it was the interest of the House to take care no one should take part in its deliberations whose title to his seat was not unquestionable. It appeared to him also desirable, with or without any precedent, that some arrangement should be adopted similar to that in the other House with regard to extinct or dormant peerages, when the law officers of the Crown were always ordered to attend to see no claim was granted which was not clearly and satisfactorily made out by the evidence. He would not have shrunk from the responsibility of serving on the Committee had no counsel at all been ordered, as he should then have rested on the guidance of the legal Members of the Committee; but as it had been determined that the case of Baron de Rothschild should be stated to the Committee by counsel, he felt that his place ought to be filled by some gentleman of the legal profession, whose habits and education would guard him from the danger, on the one hand, of being led captive by the onesided arguments of an ingenious counsel, or, on the other, of being prejudiced by the impression that counsel was there to maintain, at all hazards, the claim of the individual in whose service he was retained. From those dangers he did not feel that he should be free, and as he might, therefore, do injustice to the case of Baron de Rothschild, he earnestly desired to be relieved from further attendance on the Committee.

said, he hoped the noble Lord would reconsider his decision, because, if he were right, he (Mr. Duncombe) ought to follow the noble Lord's example, for he also had voted in favour of hearing counsel in Baron de Rothschild's case. The Committee was composed of eleven Members; at present seven of those were lawyers, and they required an eighth to bewilder the other three. He did not understand why they might not have heard the legal Members on the Committee and then decided, though he would not say they would all have concurred. Surely, seven legal Members, including gentlemen of such high reputation as the Lord Advocate, the Attorney and Solicitor General, the right hon. the Member for Midhurst, and the right hon. and learned Member for the Dublin University, were sufficient, in a Committee of eleven, to decide a point of this kind. It would be very inconvenient if the noble Lord persisted in withdrawing at this point, because, after hearing counsel, in all probability the Committee would, a few hours afterwards, come to a decision, and it was not fair to the hon. Member, whoever he might be, to place him on the Committee, when he had heard neither the evidence nor the arguments. The Committee would sustain a great loss in the withdrawal of the noble Lord, and he therefore hoped the noble Lord would reconsider his decision.

said, he had no alternative but to yield, as the feeling of the House appeared to be adverse to his request. He was only anxious to perform the duty satisfactorily to himself and to the House.

said, he was glad the noble Lord had consented to remain on the Committee. He had been extremely anxious that the noble Lord should not retire, and he was perfectly confident the noble Lord would form as sound a judgment on the question as any Member of the House.

said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for War whether his attention had been called to a paragraph in The Times newspaper of the 12th instant, to the effect that the invalid soldiers at Chatham were very much discontented at portions of their pay being withheld from them; and what steps the Government intended to take in the matter? He would read the passage from The Times to which he had referred—

"Great discontent prevails among the invalids from the Crimea now in quarters at the Casemate, Barracks, Chatham, against the Government for not paying their arrears; some of them have not been paid since the 31st of August last; and a number of the men, since they came home, have been discharged without receiving the money due to them. The invalids now remaining feel that they will be treated in the same way, although they have made frequent applications to the officials of the invalid depôt. They are told that the returns from their regiments have not been received. They complain most earnestly, as they want the money. Some of the non-commissioned officers have wives and families to support, and have as much as 10l. due to them.

said, he had been told that the number of invalids at Chatham entitled to arrears of pay was very inconsiderable, since all who had left Scutari hospital since the 1st of April had had their pay. There were, no doubt, many invalids who arrived prior to the 1st of April in respect to whom some difficulties had occurred, but their claims were being gradually disposed of. It should, however, be remembered that those men had been receiving full pay ever since their arrival in England; it was, therefore, hardly true to say that there were any men who had not received pay since the month of August.

said, he wished to know whether any steps had been taken to forward to this country the pay lists of the army?

said, that at the present time the pay lists were transmitted with great regularity.

said, he begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was able to state whether he should require another Committee of Ways and Means, and, if so, on what day he should be prepared to move that the House resolve itself into one?

Sir, in answer to the question put to me by the right hon. Baronet, I beg to state that it will be necessary for a Supplementary Estimate for the Naval Department to be laid before the House before the end of the Session. It appears that on comparing the expenditure of the past quarter with the Vote for the entire year which has been agreed to by the House, there has been a considerable excess, and I apprehend that if the expenditure for the three remaining quarters shall exceed the Estimate as much as it has done in the past quarter, it will be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for a considerable amount to meet the excess. It will also probably be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate for the War Department; and if those Estimates should be agreed to by the House, it will then become necessary for me to submit to a Committee of Ways and Means the measures which I shall have to propose in order to meet that increase of expenditure.

Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I did not clearly comprehend his reply to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby). I understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that the public expenditure was so considerable that there was a probability of large Supplemental Estimates being laid upon the table; and that, in consequence, we shall, of course, be obliged to go into Committee of Ways and Means. Now, in reference to what we shall do in that Committee, I wish to make this inquiry—whether, when the right hon. Gentleman contracted for the last loan, he entered into an engagement with the contractor that no further sum should be raised this year in the same manner?

It is quite true, Sir, that when the last loan was contracted Her Majesty's Government did give an engagement that they would not raise, by way of loan, any further sum until all the instalments of the loan for 16,000,000l. were paid in. I do not, however, wish to convey that Her Majesty's Government entertain any intention of contracting a new loan for the services of the year—at all events, until the end of December next, in the manner in which that loan was contracted.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the arrangements were completed for instituting a Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the police, and, if so, what the tribunal would be, when it would be ready, and where it would sit?

said, it had been determined to appoint a Commission which would consist of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of the City of London; the Recorder of Manchester, Mr. R. B. Armstrong; and Mr. Henderson, the Recorder of Liverpool. Some delay had been occasioned in preparing the Commission by reason of its being of a formal nature. It was thought necessary that a Commission should be issued under the Great Seal to empower the Commissioners to take evidence on oath. The Commission was not quite completed, but would be so to-night, and the advertisements would appear in the morning papers, stating the time and place of their first meeting.

said, he was quite satisfied with the tribunal appointed, and he had no doubt those gentlemen would do their duty satisfactorily. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the parties complaining would have permission to appear by counsel, or would have to appear in their own persons, and, if so, would the police also have to appear in the same manner?

said, that all that would be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. Every facility would, of course, be given to the parties complaining for bringing forward their cases, and they would be heard in a manner most satisfactory for producing an impartial inquiry.

said, he understood, from the reply of the right hon. Baronet, that a Commission to Inquire into the conduct of the police was about, to be issued, and that it was proposed to introduce a clause into that Commission empowering the Commissioners to administer oaths. He (Sir F. Thesiger) wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the law officers of the Crown as to the power of the Crown to issue a Commission of that description with power to administer oaths, and whether an Act of Parliament was not necessary for that purpose?

said, he had not exactly consulted the law officers, but he had consulted precedent. There were many precedents of Commissions with similar powers, one, not long ago, with reference to some alleged proceedings in the gaol at Birmingham. He had communicated with the learned Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department upon the subject, and the precedents had been strictly followed.

said, that when he filled the office of Attorney General a Commission was issued by the Admiralty, in which was a clause empowering the Commissioners to administer oaths. That clause he struck out, considering the Crown had no power to create any new tribunal with power to administer oaths.

said, he wished to make an inquiry as to whether the Government intended to put an end to the system of billeting militia regiments upon private families in Scotland? He repeated the statement made on that occasion, as to the inconvenience suffered by the inhabitants of Dalkeith from this cause. The regiment to which he more particularly referred was commanded by the Duke of Buccleuch, who did all in his power to promote the welfare of his troops. An impression prevailed in the town of Dalkeith that his Grace had the power to remove the grievance of which they complained; but that was not the case. He hoped the Government would give their early attention to the matter, as this was not a time when they could afford to allow feelings of irritation to grow up in any class.

said, he would beg, before the noble Lord replied to the question just put, to direct his attention to the circumstance that although a great number of men, including a detachment of the Guards, as well as militia, were now assembled at Aldershot, some of them for two months, others for one, the Board of Ordnance had not as yet settled upon a piece of ground for the purposes of ball practice. Many of these men might be called upon at a moment's notice to leave for service in the Crimea, and yet up to that moment they had had no opportunity of exercising themselves in that practice for which the camp was mainly formed. He also wished to know whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the circumstance that many counties—and he referred especially to the Welsh counties—had not as yet furnished their quota to the militia, and whether any measures were in contemplation to provide against such shortcomings?

said, that he would call the attention of his noble Friend at the head of the War Department to the circumstance of the want of space for ball practice at Aldershot, but at the same time he would remind his hon. and gallant Friend, that in order to provide for an effective ball practice, a considerable range was required, probably from 800 to 1,000 yards, and it was not easy to procure a range of that extent free from the passage of men and animals. With respect to the militia, it was true that in the Welsh and Cornish mining districts, where wages were high, and the profits upon labour considerable, there was a deficiency of men volunteering for the militia; but it was thought better to submit to the inconvenience than to break through the rule which had been established. At all events, until an emergency arose the Government would content themselves with the voluntary enlistment, and not have recourse to the ballot. With respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan), he was aware that the liability cast upon private houses in Scotland to give accommodation to soldiers billeted upon them was the cause of great inconvenience, but that inconvenience arose from the manner in which at the end of the last war barrack accommodation had been restricted. He had talked the matter over with his noble Friend at the head of the War Department, who had himself perceived the inconvenience, and was in communication with the Duke of Buccleuch respecting it. One way of removing the difficulty was to erect huts, but that would be a very expensive operation, while to remove the troops out of Scotland would impose the same burden upon the people of England. He was quite sure, however, that in case any misconduct on the part of the troops were reported to the authorities, immediate steps would be taken to punish the delinquents and prevent a repetition of the offence.

said, that there was more cause for complaint in Inverness-shire than in any other county, because Fort George, Fort William, and Fort Augustus, situated in that county, would afford excellent barrack accommodation. He trusted that the Ordnance Department would turn their attention to the subject, with a view to relieve the inhabitants from the burden now cast on them.

said, the circumstance of recruits not having been so readily procured in the mining districts was owing to three facts. First, the efforts of the Peace Society in those localities; the high wages received there, and which it was not natural men could be expected to abandon for the miserable pittance offered by the Government as a bounty; and lastly, to the confusion with respect to the embodiment of the militia produced by what took place last year.

said, that the militia of the county of Radnor, which he had the honour to represent, had furnished a very considerable number of men to the line.

said, he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of Clause 15; but in case it should be adopted, he would move to add the proviso of which he had given notice. The clause was in the Bill when it went before the Select Committee, and the noble Lord himself (Lord Palmerston), then a Member of the Committee, moved the rejection of such clause, and the cogent reasons which he gave for such rejection were held to be so good that the clause was struck out by the Committee. Now, he asked the noble Lord, upon the ground of that consistency which he said last night would induce him to support the reintroduction of the 14th clause into the Bill, to support him in his Motion for the rejection of the 15th clause. The clause in effect gave power to the tenant to hold possession of the land after his tenancy had expired, in spite of his landlord, until his claim for compensation was satisfied. Now that, he submitted, was the first step to fixity of tenure in favour of the tenant. If the noble Lord did not consent to the omission of the clause he would move the following proviso—

"Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for any such defendant, during the time for which the execution of any such writ shall have been so stayed, to commence, execute, or complete any improvements under the provisions of this Act: provided further, that no such writ shall in anywise be stayed or suspended if the plaintiff shall give such reasonable security for the satisfaction of the said claim to compensation as to the Court shall seem proper and just."

said, he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was not quite correct in his statement with regard to the clause, for it had never been before the Select Committee at all. It was introduced into the Bill by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in consequence of a proviso which that right hon. and learned Gentleman had made, and by means of which proviso he had succeeded in defeating a Motion which he (Mr. Scully) had brought forward for the express purpose of placing the tenant in certain cases in the position of a species of mortgagee.

said, he had heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, something which he did not know before. There certainly was a clause of the same kind as the present introduced by him (Mr. Napier) into the Leasing Powers Bill, which was struck out by the Select Committee at the instance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He (Mr. Napier) concurred in the view taken of it by the noble Lord, and he consented to its omission. There was some such clause in the Tenants' Compensation Bill, which, for the same reasons, was struck out. He would support the Motion for the omission of the clause.

said, he had not a good recollection of what had passed when the Bill was before the Select Committee. It was possible that he might have taken the course attributed to him by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But if he did so, he felt that his better judgment urged him to think row that that was a proper arrangement which the clause proposed. He thought it would not be fair or just, if the tenant were to obtain compensation, that he should be turned out of occupation before he obtained such compensation for his improvements. He thought that the tenant should be allowed to remain in occupation until that compensation was given to him. As well as he recollected, the objection he took to the clause referred to before the Select Committee was, that that clause proposed to give extended occupation in lieu of his claim for compensation.

said, that the clause rejected by the Select Committee at the instance of the noble Lord, was in words precisely the same as the present.

said, it was in his power to prove the incorrectness of the observation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had the identical clause before him which had been originally framed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it exactly bore out the statement of the noble Lord—namely, that the noble Lord's objection to it was that it provided that the tenant was to remain in occupation for what was termed a compensating period of occupation. [Mr. NAPIER: But there were two clauses.] He was talking of the clause in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Tenants' Compensation Bill, as it had been originally introduced by him. The original clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman bore the construction which the noble Lord had put upon it.

said, that his Tenants' Compensation Bill was rejected in the gross. It was afterwards refashioned when it came again before the House. The Leasing Powers Bill, however, was considered by the Select Committee clause by clause; and it contained a similar clause to that now under consideration, which was rejected.

said, he would submit that the Committee had better discuss the merits of the proviso before them, rather than to consider what had passed before the Select Committee upon another Bill.

said, he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman. This should not be regarded as an historical question, but they should consider it as a question of principle. He could only say, if such a clause had been introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), or any other hon. Gentleman, they had been making themselves parties to a proposed infringement of the rights of property in a most unprecedented way. The present clause proposed an entirely new principle—namely, that if the tenant at the expiration of his lease, notwithstanding his landlord had recovered by ejectment, and had obtained judgment, though not execution, made any claim for compensation, he might still retain possession until his claim was settled. Under the clause there might be further proceedings carried on in the shape of conflicting affidavits between the landlord and tenant. Now if the new principle were to be admitted, what, he asked, became of the certainty of the tenure of land? Who was to know when his lease expired or ended when such a principle was introduced? As to the menace of the noble Lord to reintroduce the 14th clause, he (Mr. Malins) took it that that question was finally settled, and it could not be done. He contended that the clause involved an abominable interference with the rights of property. After what the noble Lord had just stated about his better judgment in respect to the clause now under consideration, he (Mr. Malins) could not help thinking that the noble Lord did not improve in wisdom as he advanced in years, but that he was a much wiser man some two or three years ago when he rejected such a principle as that which was sought to be introduced. He wanted to know what compensation the landlords were to receive for being kept out of possession of their property under the clause? He warned English landlords that if they acceded to the principle involved in the 15th clause they must be prepared to consent to the same principle as regards every tenant in the country.

said he wished to call attention to the absurdity of assenting to the clause now before the Committee. By the 10th clause the tenant was not allowed to establish his claim until he was put out of possession; but by the 15th clause it appeared that he was not to be put out of possession until he established his claim. There was another inconsistency in the Bill—namely, a landlord proceeds to evict his tenant; the tenant says he has a money claim against him for improvements. The claim is a personal one. Well, the landlord dies; and his son comes into possession of the property. By such a measure they were going to keep the son out of his own estate, in order to give the tenant security for a debt which was not due from the son or heir but from another. Now, that was the most monstrous proposition he had ever heard made in or out of Parliament.

said, he was afraid that they were discussing a question which did not then properly arise, instead of the proviso proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald). He must avow himself to be in favour of the clause, but he did not think it convenient that it should be then discussed. He was also in favour of the proviso pro- posed by the hon. and learned Member, because he thought it perfectly reasonable that the landlord should get possession of his property, if he gave security for the payment of the tenant's claim against him.

said, he was not aware of any opposition to the proviso. If he were to offer an opinion, he would say he thought it wholly unnecessary. If, however, the proviso tended to make the meaning of the clause clearer, he had no objection to it.

said, the clause proposed to give compensation to the outgoing tenant, but required the tenant to bring his action within two years after the expiration of his tenancy. He therefore begged to propose as an Amendment, that the tenant should bring his action within one year instead of two; and he intended further to propose that the tenant, on giving up possession, should fairly state to the landlord any claim that he might have to make.

said, the hon. and learned Member must be well aware that under the existing law the tenant had six years to make a claim against the landlord for crops he had left standing. There was no reason, he considered, for limiting that right under the present Bill.

said, that the Government did not intend to adopt the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He understood him to assent to the principle of the clause, and if the right of the tenant was once admitted he did not see any good grounds for limiting the time for making the claim.

said, he was surprised that Irish landlords should be found to object to the clause. The intention of the clause was, that the outgoing tenant should not exhaust the land before he quitted it, and the clause was, in fact, as much a landlord's as a tenant's clause.

said, he did not think the difference between one and two years a matter of such importance as to justify him in dividing the Committee upon it.

said, he considered the clause one of the most complicated and impracticable pieces of legislation that could be conceived. It would be the means of giving rise to every possible objection that was now urged against tenant-right in this country. It went to adopt the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex, which was generally admitted to be injurious, instead of that of Lincolnshire, which was universally acknowledged to be beneficial alike to the owner and occupier of the land, and was so described in their Report by the Agricultural Committee which sat in the year 1847. If the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex were introduced into Ireland, it would be the curse of that country, by bringing half-dressings and half-fallows into consideration.

said, the hon. Baronet was mistaken as to the tenant-right of Surrey and Sussex. The English teuant-right was a custom established by mutual agreement between the landlord and tenant; and no such custom would have existed had not its benefit been the result of experience. The existence of that custom was a proof of its advantage. Such a custom never had existed in Ireland.

said, he would propose to omit in line 27, the words "two years" and substitute "one year," which, he thought, was a sufficient period during which the tenant should be entitled to claim remuneration for the preparation of the land.

said, he considered that the tenant should only be allowed to make his claim for one year. Under the clause, as it at present stood, for the outgoing tenant would have the power of claiming of the tenant in possession compensation for two years' preparation of the land, which was most unjust, and it was impossible that such a claim could be rightly tested.

said, he hoped that the Government would not accede to the Amendment. It was very desirable that the system of three or four course husbandry should be introduced more largely into Ireland, and the Bill as it stood would tend to promote that system, while the proposed Amendment would have the contrary effect.

said, that as the periods varied very much in which the full value of manuring the land could be derived, it was considered fair that the period of two years should be fixed, and he trusted that the right hon. Member would therefore not press his Amendment. Under the Bill only reasonable compensation would be given, and if any difference arose between the landlord and tenant, the question would be decided by the assistant barrister.

said, if compensation were given for two years, the landlord would be laughed at for a fool by the tenant. The tenant ought to make the land, not the landlord, pay him.

explained that reasonable compensation was only to be given, and that if any differences occurred the tenant would have the right of appeal to the sessions.

said, he must point out the absurdity of sending the tenant of a three acre field first to the assistant barrister, and next to the quarter sessions, in case he could not agree as to the compensation he was to receive from his landlord. Really for a statesman in the position of the right hon. Gentleman to display so much ignorance of Ireland and Irish questions, made him quite ashamed of the connection the right hon. Gentleman had with Irish affairs.

said, he wished now to propose the addition of the following proviso:—"Provided always that no such tenant shall be entitled so to recover, unless at or before the time of giving up possession, or within one week afterwards, he shall have served the landlord with a notice containing the particulars of his claim for such remuneration, unless it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Court before which such claim shall be heard that the landlord has waived the necessity of such notice." It appeared to him that unless the proviso which he wished to introduce were adopted, the landlord would be exposed to the greatest hardship. On the other hand, there would be no hardship on the tenant, as this was not a case in which he could be taken by surprise, and he was entitled to six months' notice. The best way of settling those matters was by equitable adjustment, one person coming on behalf of the landlord, and another on behalf of the tenant, but this could not be done if a period of two years were allowed to elapse. He was only anxious that the Bill should pass for the happiness and peace of Ireland, and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen to adopt the Amendment in justice to the landlord.

said, he thought that the proviso was unreasonable, because it required the tenant, who might be suddenly called upon to give up his possession, to know the law, and to serve the landlord with the "particulars of his claim" within a week. If the period proposed were within six months, instead of one week, he should not object to it. He was ready to consent to any reasonable term of notice, and would take care that nothing contained in the Bill should interfere with any agreement between the parties.

said, he would suggest that the period of notice should be three weeks or a month, so as to enable both parties to ascertain the correct value of the improvements.

said, he thought the fairest period would be three months.

said, he would rather withdraw his Amendment than adopt three months, in the course of which time the entire condition and aspect of the farm might be changed. But taking a short period, such as a week, would admit of an immediate survey being made, ensuring accurate ascertainment and adjustment. He was ready to accede to one month, but the great object was to prevent dishonest and vexatious claims being brought.

said, he was inclined to think that the best mode of settlement would be by having two arbitrators to act for the landlord and tenant, or the outgoing and incoming tenant, whose decision should be binding. He would, therefore, propose a clause to that effect, providing that the survey of two arbitrators should be held, and their decision, or that of their umpire, given within a month.

said, it was the opinion of the Government that a notice should be served within some limited period, and on the bringing up the Report he would propose a clause limiting the period to two months.

said, he thought that, in order to prevent litigation, not only should a notice be served, but also the amount claimed should be specified at the time when the tenant terminated his occupation. He would, therefore, propose to add to the clause a proviso enacting that a proper valuation of the several matters for which remuneration was claimed should be settled by arbitrators, one on the part of the tenant, and another on the part of the landlord, within one month after the tenant gave up possession.

said, he objected to the proposed arbitration as likely to lead to inconvenience, in the event of the arbitrators disagreeing, and conceived that the clause just given notice of on the part of the Government would meet the object which hon. Gentlemen had in view.

said, he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Coleraine (Lord Naas) would not press his Motion. Independent of the proviso which the noble Lord proposed to insert, it would be competent by the Bill for the landlord and tenant to have recourse to arbitration for the settlement of any differences which might arise between them.

said, he should oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of inducing the landlord to evict a tenant the moment he heard that it was his intention to carry out any improvements.

said, he would now move that, in line 6, the words "commence and execute" be omitted, and the words "commenced and executed" inserted in their place.

said, that in consequence of the adoption of the last Amendment, if a tenant complying with the provisions of the measure commenced improvements, and his landlord proceeded to evict him, should the words now under consideration remain in the clause the tenant would not be entitled to recover compensation for the improvements he might have effected. He considered that if the tenant had legally commenced improvements he should be entitled to recover their full value.

said, that the object of the clause would be entirely defeated by the proposed Amendment, for if it were adopted the tenant would not be entitled to compensation, unless he had actually executed the improvements of which he had given notice.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, for it seemed very likely that they would proceed smoothly with the remaining clauses.

said, when the hon. Member for Lambeth moved that the Chairman report progress, he (Mr. Butt) was about to make a Motion which would materially shorten discussion, namely, to omit the whole of the remaining clauses. He would do that on the ground that the whole of the remaining clauses related to the leasing powers, and those leasing powers were provided for by a separate Bill now before the House. If the Motion for reporting progress was not carried, he would move the omission of the clauses relating to leases.

said, he considered the whole of the discussion that evening as so much waste of time. The retrospective clause, which was a deliberate proposal to transfer a certain sum of money from the pockets of Irish landlords to the pockets of their tenants, had been thoroughly, and he hoped finally, disposed of. With respect to the prospective clauses, no Irish landlord with an atom of common sense would ever grant a lease without a covenant to make those clauses a dead letter. In the name of all that was impenetrable, what was the use of persisting in a Bill which led to nothing but discussion for the present and no good for the future?

said, that if hon. Members on the Opposition benches thought proper to persevere in their present course, it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill, and he should, therefore, advise the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to allow the Chairman to report progress.

said, he had not the least objection to accede to the proposition if hon. Gentlemen thought it right; but, having passed seventeen clauses which had particular reference to the interests of tenants, he hoped the Committee would not show an indisposition to address themselves to the remaining clauses, which were supposed to be rather in favour of the interests of the landlords. The Government having undertaken the Bill, and having passed it up to its present stage, he trusted the House would not now be disposed to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), and take the clauses which had already been passed and form them into a separate measure, but that they would proceed with the remaining portion of the Bill, without allowing any party considerations to interfere with it.

said, he had no desire to defeat the Bill, or to obstruct its progress; but as it was a very important legal measure it required care and accuracy; and he thought his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) ought to be furnished with the Amendments proposed to be inserted in it before the measure was allowed to pass through Committee.

said, that the Bill was exactly in the same shape in which it had passed through the House of Lords, and, having been approved and adopted by the eminent judicial authorities of that House, the objections which the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged against it might be withdrawn.

said, the hon. Mem- bers on that side of the House could not be charged with unfairness when the clauses they wished to abandon were, as they had been told, exclusively favourable to the landlords. He did not wish to oppose the Bill, as he believed it would be a dead letter.

said, he thought the better way would be for the Government to accept the seventeen clauses and dispose of the remainder in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. If the Bill passed there would not in a few years be a lease in Ireland worth having. It would take away the power of granting leases for three lives, a very common kind of lease in Ireland, and it would even take away the power of the Crown to grant leases for more than twenty-one years.

said, he was not prepared to omit the latter part of the Bill, and should adhere to the whole of it; but it would be useless to persist in the Bill at present, if the Opposition were prepared to resist it. Therefore the Chairman had better report progress, and the Bill be resumed at the next morning sitting.

said, he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. He said he did so with reluctance, as no one was more desirous than he was for a reduction being made in the duties on stage carriages; but the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, had introduced a clause which had nothing to do with stage carriages, but was intended to subject the members of Building Societies to stamp duties, from which they had hitherto been exempt. The clause was first introduced in the Friendly Societies Act, and he only discovered it at the last moment by accident. By means of the telegraph he communicated with the building societies, and a deputation waited on the hon. Gentleman, and they agreed to a compromise; but when they came to put it in words, they found it could not be carried out. A clause, however, was introduced which was totally different from the compromise. The House of Lords struck it out; and now the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity had suggested to him a mode of defeating both the House of Lords and the Building Societies, by inserting the clause in the Bill now before the House; because, being a Money Bill, the Lords must pass it or reject it as a whole, and thus they were deprived of their privilege of objecting to the clause. It was not right to charge the members of Building Societies, who were the most respectable of the working classes, with stamp duties from which they had been exempt for twenty years. If it was right to tax them, let them have the whole question of Building Societies brought before them, and let them not seek to tax them in this underhand manner. He only objected to that clause of the Bill.

seconded the Amendment. He thought it most unjust that they should levy taxation upon the people, in respect to a subject of which they at present knew nothing.

said, that the hon. Member who opposed the second reading of the Bill had stated, that there was only one clause of the measure to which he objected. That clause had passed this House during the present Session; it had received full consideration, and had been deliberately adopted by the House in the Friendly Societies Bill. The Bill then went up to the other House; and, as it was there thought that the clause referred to was a revenue clause, and ought not to be inserted in a Bill relating to Friendly Societies, it was accordingly omitted. Under those circumstances, he had introduced the clause into the present Bill for the purpose of again bringing it under discussion. He knew that the clause was objected to by Friendly Societies, but he protested against the doctrine that it would affect only the interests of the poorer classes, for he knew that many of these societies dealt largely in land and made purchases to the amount of 50,0001. or 60,000l., and he thought that no reason could be shown why, when purchases ware made exceeding the amount specified in the present clause, they should not be subjected to the stamp duties. When the Bill was in Committee, they could then consider whether they would or would not adopt this clause, but as the greater portion of the Bill was not objected to, he trusted the House would agree to the second reading.

said that, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government had spoken that night of the manner in which the public business was conducted in that House, he should in consistency instruct his colleagues not to conduct their business in the way his Chancellor of the Exchequer carried forward the present measure. The House of Lords had deliberately rejected the clause, as one introducing new taxation; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing a Bill on stage carriages, inserted that very taxation clause. He should support any opposition that could be made to the Bill.

said, he had done all he could to oppose the clause in the Friendly Societies Bill; but he did not like to risk that Bill by persevering in his opposition. He thought, however, it ought not to be urged that he and those who acted with him had deliberately passed the clause. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, when they went into Committee, agree to abandon that clause?

in reply, said, that he had previously stated that it would be competent for the House in Committee to adopt or reject this clause as they might think fit. If they refused to read the Bill a second time, they would throw out a clause respecting the mileage duty which he had introduced in the Bill in consequence of the discussions which had taken place on that subject.

said, he considered that any Bill imposing taxation upon the people ought to be introduced in the regular way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) to reserve his opposition until the 6th clause came regularly before them, when he would attain his object in the most effectual and convenient manner. He wished to know what was the extent of the amount of taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to raise from the tax? He also wished to learn from the Government what was the composition upon which the Inland Revenue made their calculations in regard to the mileage duties?

said, that he had introduced a clause into the Bill by which the power of compounding for mileage duty would be taken away. The reasons for retaining that power while the duty was at the rate of l½d. a mile would not exist when it was reduced to 1d. A report of the Board of Inland Revenue, containing a full account of their proceedings in respect to that subject, had been made, and was now in the hands of the printers, preparatory to being laid on the table of the House. If after that Report was presented further explanations should be required, he should be happy to give them.

said, he must complain of the levity with which the subject had been treated by the right hon. Baronet, who had said that the clause relating to Building Societies had been deliberately considered. Those societies, he told the House, had purchased property to the amount of 50,0001. or 60,0001. That was not correct. It was the Freehold Land Societies that had made those purchases; they were quite distinct from Building Societies, being formed for political objects; and the House would be surprised to learn that, under the clause, those societies were exempted from the tax to be imposed upon Building Societies, than which nothing could be more unjust.

said, the question put by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby), as to what amount of revenue was to be derived from the imposition of the tax, convinced him that the hon. Baronet did not understand the provisions of the Bill, which was not a measure for the imposition but for the modification of existing taxes. It was impossible to say what amount would be lost by a continuance of the exemption, the effect of which was to give to large associated bodies benefits which were denied to the poor man in his individual capacity.

said, he thought that Building Societies were deserving of every encouragement, and certainly ought not to be interfered with by a measure like the present.