said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Lord Cowley has forwarded to Her Majesty's Government a Copy of a Fate, dated the 29th day of February last, from his Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State to the Nuncio at Paris, answering the arguments of Mons. de Thouvenel; and also, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay that state paper upon the fable of the House?

said, that the Government had not received any Copy of the Despatch in question from Lord Cowley; but Cardinal Antonelli had stated to a Diplomatic Agent in Rome he was extremely sorry he could apt give a copy of the document at the time, but that it was about to be published, and he would furnish Copies of it to the Diplomatic Agents in that City. As soon as Her Majesty's Government received it they would take care to lay it on the Table of the House.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a Letter, signed E.G., which appeared in The Times of Thursday last, complaining that on the 20th of March four persons, dressed in the uniform of a Rifle Corps, while practising on Wandsworth Common, aimed at and shot the favourite dog of the writer's sister, immediately upon which fatal catastrophe they all ran away; and, whether it would not be advisable to authorize the Police to put a stop to sharp-shooting upon public footpaths?

said, he understood that the North Surrey Rifle Volunteers had been upon the day in question drilling in that neighbourhood, and that four men in their uniform were seen near the spot where the dog was killed, but that the Police could not discover who was the person who had fired the shot. He understood that no sharp-shooting had taken place near the footpath.

said, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he has received the Rejoinder of the Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland to his Reply to their Memorial on the subject of Education; and whether, if he has received such Rejoinder, he is prepared to lay it upon the Table at the earliest opportunity? He also wished to ask, Whether, as the Irish Members were anxious to return to Ireland for the Easter holidays, the further consideration of the Irish Reform Bill will not be put off until after the holidays?

said, he had received the Document referred to, and would readily lay it on the Table. With regard to the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill, there seemed no prospect of reading it a second time before Easter; and, therefore, he proposed to have it brought forward on Friday, the 20th of April.

said, he rose to bring forward the Motion which stood in his name for certain Returns connected with the reorganization of the Indian army. As he had served with the three armies of India in the field, he was probably justified in forming his own opinion upon the subject; but as he might be considered to have taken a prejudiced view, he moved for these Returns, in order to enable the House to determine what value was to be attached to his opinion. Although his Motion, was headed "The Organization of the Indian Army," that, in truth, was a misnomer, for although the Bengal army had already disappeared, with the exception of thirteen or fifteen regiments; the armies of Bombay and Madras stood intact in their organization, and were now as loyal and effective as they ever were The question he wished to bring before the House was simply whether the army in India should be under the control exclusively of the Governor General of India and the Secretary of State for India, or whether it should be one under the control of the Secretary of State for War in England and the Horse Guards? The right hon. Secretary of State for India, seemed last year to have made up his mind upon the subject, because he had passed a Bill through that House for the maintenance of 30,000 European troops in India as a local army; and he would now ask him whether in a review of the services of that army he had found that the Indian service had ever been wanting in cases of emergency or been unequal to any crisis, or whether there had been a single instance of such a disaster as the loss of an army under an Indian officer, and whether the same could be said of Royal commanders? Most undoubtedly not. As regarded its commanders, had the Indian service not produced its Clive, its Goddard, who inarched 6,000 Bengal Sepoys, unaided by European troops, from Calpee, through a hostile country, and saved Guzerat from desolation? Had it not also produced its Ochterlony, its Pollock, its Nott, its Outram, its Havelock? The fact that the misfortunes which had occurred in India had never happened under an Indian officer, was attributable to the local experience of Indian officers, their knowledge of the country and the people, and of the organization and temper of their troops. It was by these means that the Indian officers had got through difficulties which had overwhelmed others. With regard to the seniority system in the Indian army, it had been asserted that it necessarily produced old men, worn out in the service, incompetent to command, and physically and mentally unsuited to the elevated position in which they were placed. The names which he had already given was a sufficient answer to that unjustifiable assertion. Moreover, in the Royal army had they not some of the most distinguished men as successful commanders in India at a very advanced stage of life, or, at all events, beyond those periods of life at which officers of the Indian army generally remained in India. They had a Napier and a Gough, and they had now a Clyde—all of them septuagenarians. Therefore the arguments that the seniority system necessarily incapacitated officers for command by reason of age were groundless and futile. The difference of cost between the line and local European troops was 20 per cent; but admitting it to be only 10 per cent, that difference upon ten millions of money spent annually upon European troops in India would be exactly one million per annum saved. Was not that another argument in favour of a local army? Another advantage in regard to the local troops in India, was in their being acclimatized. They were not subject to the same mortality to which troops lately arrived in India were subject. In illustration of this fact, the gallant Colonel mentioned an instance which occurred in the force under General Whitelock, which was composed of troops of the line, and local European troops, about equal in strength, and whilst the losses amongst the acclimatized-troops amounted to 3½ per cent only, the losses amongst troops of the line was 10½ per cent. Another instance occurred in the 71st Regiment of the line, which, with the 3rd Madras European Regiment, was under the command of Sir Hugh Rose, and upon one occasion the 71st Regiment, which had lately arrived from Europe, had twenty men struck down by sun-stroke in one morning, many of whom died. How many men did the House suppose were struck down on that day in the old Indian Madras European Regiment? Not one ! It had been said that if a local army in India were maintained, it must deteriorate in its physique, morale, and discipline; but he need only refer to the services rendered by the 1st Bengal Fusiliers and the Madras Fusiliers, and Bombay European Regiments, at the battles of Plassey, Buxar, Arcot, and Guzerat, fought a hundred years ago, and to many other battles whose names emblazon their colours, and to the glorious services recently rendered by those troops during the late outbreak in India, to prove how utterly without foundation was the assertion of deterioration. Again, in this country so jealous were the people of having a standing army that the army was only maintained by an annual Mutiny Act and annual money Votes. What would the people say, then, to an army of 100,000 men being maintained in India, and paid out of the revenues of India, and being under the Secretary for War and the Horse Guards, but independent of the House of Commons? It was proposed that 80,000 European troops should be maintained in India; that every regiment should be relieved decennially; consequently, there would be annually 8,000 men afloat or in transitu; and with the reserves and depôts, the actual number, independent of the House of Commons, would amount to 105,000 men. Now, he asked, would it be possible to recruit an army of 105,000 Englishmen, for Indian service, independently of the army required for the Imperial service at home or in case of a European war? It would be physically impossible; and nothing short of a conscription would ever do it. Besides, an army of 100,000 men must consist of 100 regiments, which would require each from forty to sixty officers, so that there would be 4,000 or 6,000 commissions to be given away. And would the House of Commons be willing to add this vast amount of patronage to that already possessed by the Horse Guards? Yet such would be the effect of the scheme proposed; and if the army in India, with its own organization, was not to be kept under the Governor General and the Secretary for India, there would be a constant clashing of authorities. The returns for which he had asked were absolutely necessary to enable the House to form a right judgment when the question came regularly before it; and he did not see that they could be objected to. They comprised the opinions of men whose opinions, whatever they were, would possess almost irresistible weight in this country, and they could not, he thought, be considered of a confidential character, as every official department was bound to give such information to Parliament when it was demanded, and nothing should be kept back. He agreed with a distinguished public servant now in India, that whenever anything in such cases was concealed the Government itself was damaged by that concealment, and he would warn the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India that a great feeling of distrust was now growing up in the minds of thousands of our officers in India, and a suspicion was entertained that it was wished not to carry out in a bonâ fide spirit that clause of the late India Act which ensured to every civil or military servant of the East India Com- pany on their transfer to the Crown, that the same rights, privileges, promotions, pensions, and other prospects that they had before enjoyed, should be maintained and continued to them under the Crown. There was a growing fear amongst the officers in India that this clause would not have the efficacy it was intended to have. Under these circumstances, he begged to move for an— "Address for Copies of the Report of the Military Committee of the Council of India," &c.

said, that before this matter was irrevocably decided by the Government, he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend had given him an opportunity for a little conversation upon a question which really was one of great importance. The question was, whether the European force in India, which at present was, in a great measure, a local one for India alone, and belonged, so to speak, to the Governor General of India, should in future consist wholly of regiments of the regular army, taking India in their rota, as they might take any other colony. At first sight it seemed very natural, now that they had done away with the East India Company that they should abolish its army as well, and defend India, as any other part of Her Majesty's dominions was defended, namely, with a portion of the regular army of the country. Doubtless, at first sight, that proposal commended itself by its simplicity; and no doubt some strong arguments in favour of this scheme were adduced by the witnesses who were examined before the Commissioners who inquired into this subject, some of which he would briefly and fairly lay before the House. One of their arguments was that if regiments were permanently stationed in India they were apt to deteriorate in discipline. That, however, was Stoutly denied by many officers of high authority, and he thought it was hardly borne out by Indian history, which, as the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sykes) had said, teemed with the achievements—showing no less good conduct than valour and discipline—of the local European force. They further urged that it would be a good thing for the regular army to have its share in the credit and experience that might be derived from Indian wars. But now that there was no longer a single warlike neighbour to contend with, they might fairly look forward to a long period of peace, so that the soldiers would be more likely to be injured by the Indian climate than benefited by Indian campaigns. It was further said that a mutiny among the European troops would be more easily put down if they belonged to the regular army than if they belonged to a local force—an argument which he did not think worth discussing. These throe were the only arguments in favour of the scheme which seemed to him worth notice, except the grand argument—and he allowed it to be a powerful one—the argument that surely it mast be far best in a single country to have but a single army under a single head; that by blending the two into one they would render the whole force a more effective instrument, and would escape those jealousies that must arise between two services running in couples. It might be replied that what some call jealousy was regarded by others as a wholesome and stimulating emulation; and again, that actual experience had not shown any ill effects from the combination of the local with the Imperial forces. Waiving that, however, and allowing that the army of India should be one army under one head, still it was an open question whether the sound inference would not be to make the whole European army a local one, under the Governor General, instead of making it altogether a part of the regular army, under the Horse Guards. That alternative was exactly as open to them as the other, and they ought to remember that the Native army must perforce be a local one. If, therefore, they made the European force a local one as well, then they would indeed make the Indian army a single army under one head; whereas, in the other case, they would retain the evil, such as it was, of a divided army, under a divided command; and he saw that Indian officers of great experience looked forward with, alarm to the mortification and jealousy which the Native army would feel were the line drawn so sharply between itself and the European force. It appeared to him, then, that the arguments in favour of the proposed change were not of great weight, except the last, from which, however, the legitimate inference would not be to imperialize the whole European force, but to localize it all. But, when he turned to the other side of the question, he found the arguments against the scheme so numerous that the difficulty no longer was to find out what they were, but to choose among them, and so powerful that it was not surprising to find nearly every Indian statesman of experience and authority dead against the change. He might just mention the names of the Earl of Ellenborough, Earl Canning, the noble Lord the Member for Lynn; and above all, Sir John Lawrence. No one who had had any intercourse with Sir John Lawrence would dispute his profound knowledge and profound wisdom on questions of Indian policy; but he (Mr. Buxton) knew that Sir John Lawrence looked upon it, not as a matter of secondary consequence, but of first-rate consequence to the welfare of India, to prevent this scheme from being carried out. The House ought to observe this, that while on the one hand the scheme had proceeded from a Commission consisting mainly of a number of English generals and the British Commander-in-Chief, from whom they could not look for any intimacy with Indian affairs, and who might, perhaps, have some bias towards increasing the power of the Horse Guards, on the other hand the scheme was condemned by nearly every man whose judgment on Indian affairs was worth sixpence. And now, what were the arguments that weighed with the latter so strongly? It would detain the House too long were he to dwell upon them all; some, therefore, he would not touch upon. There were a few which he would barely refer to; but there were three or four to which he really was anxious to invite the attention of the House. The arguments that he would simply mention, without dwelling upon them, were these:—It was said that if regiments were permanently stationed in India, instead of merely paying it flying visits, they acquired a kind of traditional knowledge of the way to encounter the climate, and of the necessity for temperance and care; and, in the same way, they acquired an intimacy with the character of the Natives, which preserved them from violating their feelings, and further a smattering of the languages of the country which is found to be very convenient, especially in campaigning. Again, it was pointed out that if a regiment were a mere bird of passage, the men formed no lasting ties in the country, whereas, in local regiments, many of the men intermarried with the Natives, and many of the invalids and pensioners settled among the hills. As regarded health, the mortality in regiments that landed fresh in India was perfectly awful. Some returns given in the Appendix to the blue-book showed that in those regiments that went straight from England to India, 110 men out of every 1,000 die in the first year, and that fact might suggest another strong argument in favour of a local force. They were assured by the highest local authorities that, in Lord Ellenborough's words, it was cruel to see how young men, whose constitutions had not been formed, perished on their arrival in India. Well, then, if they had a distinct army for India, they might for that army put the age of admission, say, three years higher than for the regular army. By that means they would cease to compete with the home army for recruits, while they would lessen the mortality in India, with all the sorrow, suffering, and expense which it entailed. But, once more, they were warned, and that by men of great authority, and with great emphasis, of the risk there would be, that if the European force in India were merely part and parcel of the regular army, then in any stress at home, the remote interests of India, despite their infinite importance, would be forgotten, and our military force there dangerously weakened. To these secondary, and yet weighty arguments, he would add but one more. It was said that already the Horse Guards was overwhelmed with business, that the interests of the army suffered greatly from the impossibility of giving minute attention to such vast affairs, and that it would be a serious evil to the regular army if the Commander-in-Chief was further encumbered with the weight of the whole European force of India. But he came to the main objections to the scheme, and the first of these was as follows. It was proposed to keep up an army in India of 80,000 Europeans. Plainly then, if the regiments were to be shifted to and fro every ten years, each year 8,000 men would be brought from India and 8,000 would be sent there to take their place. That is to say, every year 16,000 men would perform that four months' voyage, and their services, meanwhile, would be utterly and absolutely lost. Nay, in time of war, instead of being a great strength, they would be a great weakness to the country, from their liability to be captured by the enemy. The next consideration was that the expense of these vast movements of whole regiments every ten years would be a most disastrous burthen to the Indian finances. Sir A. Tulloch, who was an ardent admirer of the proposed change, reckoned that if some economical plans of his were adopted, the transmission of regiments by the Cape would only cost £430,000 a year; but the House could guess whether such estimates would be found to be within or without the mark. It was said, however, that there would be no great difference in expense between a permanent and a local army, because men now only enlisted for ten years, and, therefore, in any case, they must needs be sent back, and substitutes sent out, when that term of service had expired. But they must remember, that the moving of regiments would be altogether exclusive and independent of those movements of individual soldiers. During the regiment's ten years' stay in India, the terms of service of at least nine-tenths of the men would have expired before its last year; a multitude more would have been invalided, or would have died, and their places taken by recruits from England; but the shifting of the entire regiment at the end of its term of Indian service would be quite distinct from this, and in addition to it. And even should the expense now exceed half-a-million, still he was sure that no one who had paid attention to Indian affairs would deny that this was a matter of very grave importance. For his part, he believed that the very essence of sound wisdom and policy with regard to India at the present time was to pare down the expenditure to a level with the income, and that nothing could be more fatal to the wellbeing of that country than recklessly to fling away millions and half millions. The third essential consideration was this—that if there were a separate army for India, every officer would go out there while still young. He would go not for a short sojourn, but to spend his days there. He would look forward to an Indian career, and to an Indian career alone. He would therefore have a powerful inducement to familiarize himself with the language of the people, and with whatever else would be likely to advance him in that Indian career, and being, so to speak, the servant of the Indian Government, his abilities, if he proved a man of ability, would be available for that Government either for any military or any civil post, and everyone who was at all acquainted with Indian history must be aware of the incalculable value to our dominion over that country of services so obtained. Some objections no doubt had been made to that system, but in the opinion of the wisest Indian statesman, and again he might quote Sir John Lawrence, its effect was to give a powerful stimulus to the officers of the Indian army, by setting before them careers of responsibility and glory, even in the time of peace, and to supply a large body of excellent officials; while, in case of war, it had been found that no officers had shown such robust and vigorous ability as those whose minds had been trained by dealing with large civil affairs. But, abolish the local European force, and that system would be at an end. In that case the thing would work thus:—A regiment stationed, say at Gibraltar, would be sent out in its turn to India; the superior officers would, as a matter of course, be middle-aged men, past the period for entering upon a new career; the young men would feel that in ten years they would leave India and be home again; that even then perhaps they would be little more than thirty years of age, and the minds of all would rather look to an English or European career than one in Oriental banishment—nor, indeed, would it be possible for the Governor General to borrow other people's officers for his own purposes. If he did so, it would lead to endless clashing between the plans and orders of the unlucky man's two masters. The final consideration, and one of grave moment, was, that if the local army were given up, the head of the European force in India would no longer be the Governor General, but the Commander-in-Chief at home. Could it be wise to wrest from the Governor of a country like India his authority over the army, and transfer it to an individual 12,000 or 13,000 miles away, and who could have no special knowledge of Indian affairs, nor any special interest in India? Why not leave all possible authority in the hands of him who was responsible for the tranquillity, and well-being, and defence of the empire entrusted to his charge. But if it were said that the change would be merely one of name, and that the Governor General would still exercise paramount sway over the European force in India, then he asked whether it was not an obvious principle, but especially obvious with regard to such a country as India, to leave the whole prestige of authority where the actual authority resided? Why should they needlessly lower the ruler of the country in the eyes of those under him, by placing or seeming to place the command of his military force in other hands? Upon the whole he (Mr. Buxton) was not aware that he had ever endeavoured to weigh the pros and the cons of any subject in which he found the arguments on the one side so utterly overborne by those on the other—perhaps the papers which the hon. Member had moved for might throw some light upon it—but he earnestly hoped the Government might be induced to pause before they gave their sanction to this scheme.

said, when the question at issue came fairly before the House, he did not think that the sentiments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which from his having been long connected with the local army, to be both natural and honourable to him would carry much weight with them. The real question which they had to consider was, what would most tend to the efficiency of the army in India, due regard being had to the interests of officers then in the service. The hon. and gallant Gentleman laid great stress upon the economy of the local troops, in contradistinction to the Royal troops. He (Colonel Herbert), however, thought that he had placed the charge of the former at too low a figure. To the alleged impossibility of maintaining the required number of the Royal troops in India, on account of the difficulty of raising recruits, the best reply was, that the recruits had been got. Although it might be difficult suddenly to increase an army, yet, once increased, there could be no real difficulty in maintaining it at the requisite strength. He freely admitted that the local army had done excellent service; but he must say, so far as his small experience in India went, and from what he had learned in conversations there with officers of high rank, the discipline of a local European force was not equal to that of Her Majesty's army. To his mind, there was one great advantage which a Royal army had—namely, that in the case of disaffection arising in any of the regiments of a Royal army, the Indian Government would have the power of moving those regiments down to the coast and sending them to any of the colonies or to England, without assigning any reason, and thereby eradicating the evil; whereas in the case of a local force in India the Government had no such power. All that they could do was to move disaffected regiments from one station in India to another, which would only have the effect of disseminating, instead of eradicating the evil. The question was one to which he paid earnest attention when he was in India; he discussed it also with gentlemen in high stations, both military and civil, and the conclusion at which he arrived, even before the recent mutiny, was that if they were to have a force raised solely for local service they would run the risk of losing for the Government of India that freedom of action which was so necessary for a Government to possess. Occasions might arise on which a local army would combine together for a given purpose like one man; not so a Royal army; and in such an emergency they would run the risk of sacrificing the independence of the Government of India by the army becoming that greatest of all curses—the master, instead of the servant of the State.

was understood to express his astonishment that that discussion had been considered at all necessary, when he remembered that on the debate that took place last year on the question whether there should or there should not be a local European force, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Sir C. Wood) went even beyond the expectations of those who desired a local force by intimating his intention to introduce a measure with the object of increasing it considerably. On that occasion, too, the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) expressed himself most emphatically upon the subject, and said it was his bounden duty to place upon record his opinion that the local force was indispensable for the good government of India. Notwithstanding, however, those expressions of opinion on the part of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India, it was rumoured—he hoped without any foundation—that the right hon. Gentleman had found good reasons for changing his views upon the subject. He (Sir De L. Evans) had certainly not changed his own views. The sole object of the present Motion was, as he understood, to obtain the best information possible for the guidance of the House in coming to a decision upon this great and important question when it regularly came to an issue before them. Were they, then, now to be told by the right hon. Gentleman that he meant to withhold those documents moved for, that they were of a confidential character, and that he did not deem it necessary for the House to have them? If the right hon. Gentleman had had access to important information from persons of great weight and authority on the subject in question, it would surely not be treating the House fairly to withhold it. He (Sir De L. Evans) conceived such information to be public property; and the House would be placed at a great disadvantage if it was asked to decide the question without that information. If there were any expressions contained in those papers of a personal or confidential nature nothing could be more easy than to omit such statements. The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Colonel Herbert) said that a local force was dangerous, inasmuch as they acted together as one man against the Government. The facts that had taken place were, however, a reply to that assertion. What was called a mutiny had taken place in India. He would not call it a mutiny. He would remind the House that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had stated in that House that, upon the passing of the Bill for the better government of India the local force were entitled to their discharge. The Commander-in-Chief, he believed, was of the same opinion. The Government of India had, however, acted with singular want of tact in their treatment of the troops. It was generally thought that if the Government had in the first instance offered those men so entitled to their discharge the ordinary bounty for entering the Royal army their services would still have been secured. Instead of that, the Government published a legal document, drawn up by a gentleman who was more a lawyer than an officer, to the effect that they had no right to their discharge. What had been the result? The soldiers having naturally relied upon the opinion of the heads of the Government and army of this country, and having made up their minds that they were entitled to their discharge, contended obstinately for such right, and got out of temper at finding it denied to them. The Indian Government at length declared that they might have their discharge. But did they act—as it had been said they would in such a case—as one man? No: 10,000 decided to come home, but 11,000 remained. They were greatly provoked, and their demand to be discharged was fully justified. But judging from the treatment which near a thousand of them had received on board the Great Tasmania on the voyage home, it would almost seem as if the authorities in India entertained some feeling of resentment towards them. He was still of opinion that it was not safe for the Government of India to be without the services of a body of officers who had been trained there, and whose ambition was more exclusively directed to Indian than to European service. Then, in reference to the Royal Commission that had been appointed upon the subject, however honourable and independent were the members of that Commission, it should be recollected that very few of them had ever been in India. That Commission consisted of eleven members, the three principal of whom, including the Secretary of State for War, who was chairman, and the Commander-in-Chief, had never been in India, and therefore knew personally nothing whatever of the subject. There were, however, four Indian General officers, and they signed the Report. On the other hand he believed that no less than seventeen gentlemen of the greatest authority and experience in India had dissented from the opinions expressed in the Report of that Commission. Amongst those gentlemen were, he believed, the Governor General of India and the Governor of Madras, Sir John Lawrence, and Sir J. Outram. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the discipline of the European local troops was not equal to that of the regiments sent out from England. Although martinets and civilians, looking to smartness on parade, might fancy there was a superiority in favour of the latter, yet when they took the field the rough and easy manner of the local European regiments accustomed to India told very much in their favour. The local European troops in India had undoubtedly performed singular and continuous services of the highest importuance. Amongst the many regiments that had passed through Calcutta, the Madras Fusiliers were received with the greatest acclamation, and had conferred on them the most honourable distinctions. He believed that a great portion of them had obtained their discharge. Were they therefore to be stigmatized for want of loyalty who had so pre-eminently distinguished themselves throughout the whole service? If the right hon. Gentleman should refuse the papers asked for he for one would use every effort to obtain their production when the question came again before the House.

said, bethought his hon. and gallant Friend, who moved for certain papers which he thought the House ought to have in their possession to enable them to discuss with advantage the question whether there should be any change made in the Indian army, had not acted consistently with his declaration that these papers were necessary to form a correct opinion in entering at considerable length into the general discussion. He certainly would not follow either his hon. and gallant Friend or the other hon. Gentleman who spoke after him. He had stated, in reply to a question put to him a short time ago, that the Government had not finally made up their minds on this important question. It was not a question for the decision of the Secretary of State for India alone; it was not a question which could be decided only on Indian grounds; it must be decided not on Indian, but on Imperial grounds. When that question was decided it might be necessary for him to bring the subject formally before the House, and that would be the proper occasion for discussing the merits of the question. It was quite true that early in the summer he had stated that the Government were prepared to maintain a local European army in India; but very important circumstances had taken place since that time. He would not say there had been a mutiny in the local European army in India; but the fact of upwards of 10,000 men taking their discharge as they did was a circumstance that could not be passed over by the Government in forming a final decision on this subject, as, in truth, it had changed the opinion of many of the most eminent persons in India. This alone, he thought, was sufficient to show that, however anxious they might be to come to a decision on this most important subject, the Government had not acted without good grounds in having paused before they took a final determination. Among the papers moved for by his hon. and gallant Friend were some which had only recently arrived in this country. It was impossible he could enter into a discussion of the main question without indicating an opinion on the one side or the other, and he repeated it was not yet ripe for discussion, and would not be until the question was decided by the Government, when he should bring it before the House and the country. With regard to the papers themselves, he did not think it right to produce them at that stage of the question. When the question could be brought fairly before the House, however, it would be his duty to lay on the table not only the greater part of these papers, but others having an important bearing on the whole subject. With regard to "the decision of the Secretary of State for India in Council," no decision had yet been come to on the subject. The next paper was "the Report of the Actuary to the Secretary of State for India in Council on the cost of a military European force in India of troops of the British line, as compared with the cost of an European local force." He certainly was in possession of that Report; but it was only within the last three days that he had received a very important letter questioning the accuracy of the views contained in it, and he had a decided objection to lay it on the table at present. If his hon. and gallant Friend really wished to have the last portion of the papers—namely, the correspondence between the military authorities—he had not the slightest objection, for these papers contained no opinion on the subject; but he thought the House would agree with him that not only these, but papers on both sides would be necessary to enable them to come to an opinion on this question. In fact, there must be a large blue-book. He had not the slightest wish to keep anything back. He only wished, by producing all the papers together, to enable hon. Members to consult them not partially, but at one view, so as to make up their minds on the whole matter. The papers would be produced whenever the Government had decided the question, and that they must do shortly. He trusted after that assurance his hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied; he only begged the House to believe that he was not anxious to withhold papers; he was only anxious to lay on the table full and fair information.

said, that he had never heard a syllable breathed against the loyalty of the local European troops; and as for the discontent (for it had never amounted to mutiny) that had prevailed amongst them, it arose from an amount of indiscretion on the part of the Government which could not be censured in too strong terms; for it had broken up a force of the very finest description, and had resulted in scenes of cruelty and misery that would for ever attach a stigma upon the present Indian executive. In 1832 he was in command of 500 European artillery and infantry who had been placed on board his ship; and he found that the men anticipated a bounty whenever the power of the Company (the charter of which was on the point of expiring) should be transferred to the Crown. He believed that idea had existed almost traditionally in the minds of the European troops. Certainly nothing could be more unfair than the course which had been pursued. They gave a bounty of 30 rupees to the soldiers of any regiment that was coming home, if they would volunteer into another regiment that was remaining in the country; and yet it was proposed that the whole of the Company's army should transfer their allegiance without receiving a farthing. It was the most scandalous thing a Government ever did, and had left a stigma that would remain upon the Government of India as long as it was a Government. He had attempted, with his hon. Friend (Mr. Willoughby), to draw up a clause upon this subject for insertion in the Bill lately introduced for the government of India, but neither of them had been long enough in the House to understand the proper form in such matters, and they had consequently let slip the proper moment to bring it before the House. But he had always been certain that there would be a difficulty experienced in dealing with the local European troops, knowing as he did what their opinion was with regard to the change of allegiance.

said, he thought the answer of the right hon. Secretary of State for India to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sykes) far from satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman professed the greatest anxiety to give the House all the information in his power, and even more than the gallant Member for Aberdeen had asked for; and yet he coolly refused it the information to be obtained through these Resolutions. The House had seriously to consider what sort of a question that was—not exactly the question involved in this Motion, but the question to which that Motion referred. For his own part he looked upon it as one of the most important subjects that could come before them in connection with the whole future government of India. In time of peace the army expenditure of that Empire was about £12,000,000 sterling, and in the last few years the amount had advanced to some £20,000,000. They might well hope the expenditure would come down again to its old standard, and, for his own part, he would say the sooner the better. But the present question was whether that House should have before it now, or at any early period, such information as the Government could afford to enable it to form a sound judgment on the future management of the whole military establishment of India. Much confidence could not be placed in the right hon. Gentleman's desire that they should know all about it, or in his assurance that when the Government arrived at their decision and came before Parliament for the means of carrying out that decision, then every information would be laid before the House. They were all aware that when the Government had decided, even although they had decided wrongly, a great power was thrown into the balance on one side as against the other; and any conclusion to which a large portion of that House might afterwards come might be seriously prejudiced by the previous conclusion of the Government. Therefore, while the question was still under consideration, not only by the Cabinet and the Horse Guards, but by the part of the public conversant with the matter, it was most important that information should be produced that the House might have an opportunity of studying, conversing, and thinking on the subject; all which would, no doubt, have an influence even on the decision of the Government itself. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that opinions regarding the military establishments of India had greatly changed since the occurrence of recent events. Probably the events thus referred to con- sisted of the refusal of the Company's European troops to transfer their allegiance to the Queen, and their consequent return home. These circumstances had, however, arisen at the time when the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter before. But, be that as it might, it would be the paltriest of quibbles for any Government to say that a great question of so much importance ought to be decided upon a ground such as that, springing out of no disloyalty on the part of the troops, but out of one of perhaps the most extraordinary blunders ever committed by any Government. Whether Englishmen were in India as servants of the late Company or of the Crown, he undertook to say that, if the same measure of justice were meted out to them, there would be the same measure of discipline and loyalty. To assert, then, that because 10,000 men had returned to England believing they had been unfairly dealt with—as, indeed, they must have been, or they would not have been allowed to come home ! that fact changed the bearing of this whole question, was an excuse which ought not for one moment to be listened to. The Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen asked for copies of the Report of the Military Committee of the Council of India to the Council upon the reorganization of the Indian army, and of the decision of the Secretary of State for India in Council thereon. Of course, if the Secretary of State had not decided, that portion of the return could not be produced. But the Report of the Military Committee to the Council would be of great value to the House in considering this subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman further asked for the Minutes of members of the Indian Council. Now, though he understood that the members of the Council had not the smallest objection to the publication of that part of the return, yet the Secretary of State might think it not desirable to place these Minutes before the House, because they might disclose discrepancies of view the existence of which it would not be for the advantage of the service to make known. The gallant Member might, therefore, consent to waive that portion of his Resolution. The Motion likewise asked for the report of the Actuary to the Secretary of State on the cost of a military European force in India of troops of the British line as compared with the cost of an European local force. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that within the last few days he had received a revised estimate differing from the original estimate, and he could not yet tell which of the two were correct. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to lay the Report on the table as soon as he had ascertained which estimate was correct, the object of the Motion would be answered, and the Resolution might be so altered as to include papers that could be easily granted. That was not the proper time to discuss the great question whether the Indian army should be under the control of the Horse Guards, or under the Secretary of State in Council here, and the Government in India ! He had paid no inconsiderable attention to the affairs of India, though not so much to this branch of the subject, perhaps, as to some others; but he thought they would commit a very great error if they permitted the Government, without the most serious deliberation on the part of that House, to come to such a conclusion as should hand over 50,000, 60,000, 70,000, or 80,000 European troops in India to the management of the Horse Guards in this country. Judging from all past experience, the expenditure for the Indian army out of the revenues of India would rise rapidly if the control were transferred to the Horse Guards. And whatever evils had hitherto arisen in the management of the patronage connected with the Indian army would be greatly aggravated if that patronage were added to the present patronage of the Horse Guards. Such being his opinion—though he could not say that no documents which might be produced would change that opinion—he was entitled, and the House was entitled, to call upon the right hon. Gentleman to be frank with them in this matter. An hon. and gallant Member who sat below him (Sir De L. Evans) had referred to a point not often alluded to in that House, and had spoken of the influence of the Court as to that question. It was to be hoped that the House would not feel itself unable to discuss freely a subject on which it was supposed that the influence of the Court was largely engaged. The great interests of India and of England, and the question whether the Indian military expenditure should be £12,000,000 or £20,000,000 sterling were infinitely more important than the sentiments of anybody connected with the Court of England in such a case. The House should, therefore, have the matter fairly before it, that it might not find itself to have been kept entirely in the dark till it was too late to reverse a perhaps unfortunate and fatal decision of the Government. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would sec that he had not quite treated the House with the consideration to which it was entitled, and would take steps to lay before it all the information which it ought to possess on a question of such magnitude.

said, that without attempting to prejudice the question at all as to whether the Government ought to decide in favour of the regiments of the line or a local European force in India, he could not help observing that it was of the utmost importance that they should arrive at some definite determination upon the subject speedily, for it was important to the maintenance of our power in India, and of the good faith and loyalty of the troops, that no unnecessary delay should be permitted. The Minutes of the Members of the Council he thought a most important document and one that should be placed before the House if Parliament were to express any opinion at all upon the matter. It had struck him on a perusal of the documents already published that the balance of opinion among the Council was in favour of the local army, and he was himself rather inclined to that view; but whichever way it might be decided, he earnestly hoped that the Government would not refuse to Parliament the documents bearing upon both sides of the question, so that the House might know exactly what the most learned and experienced men had said and written upon the subject before it was called upon to pronounce a final decision.

said, that this question pressed for an early decision, because the state in which it had been left during the last two years had acted most prejudicially upon the public service in India. For his own part, he entertained a strong opinion in favour of a local European force; and that opinion had not been shaken by any of the suggestions which had been made either in that House or out of it. He agreed with the Earl of Ellenborough that the presence of a large European force, consisting exclusively of troops of the Line, would operate injuriously upon the Native service. He entertained, further, the greatest distrust of the extent to which the claims of the Horse Guards might be carried in respect to the Indian service. This was a question which affected, not merely the commands of regiments, but all the staff appointments; and he would remind the House that, if so large a force were transferred to the Line, the Governor General would lose a portion of that proper control which he ought to possess over the whole army in India. The greatest care should be taken that the control of the Governor General should not be impaired. With regard to the Motion, he submitted that there were many reasons why the House should press strongly for the production of the papers now moved for, more especially for that of the opinions of the Members of the Indian Council. Those councillors had been excluded from the House of Commons and placed very much under the control of the Government, and it was therefore very desirable that their Minutes should be laid before the House, in order that they might assist it in coming to a decision upon this question.

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) found fault with the gallant Member for discussing the subject before the papers had been laid on the table; but then he stated that he should not think proper to produce them; and it tbus resulted that the question was not to be discussed at all. The intelligence which had just been received from India, however, showed the importance of the question as to the reorganization of the Indian army. They read that Mr. Wilson contemplated, if he had not executed, the disbandment of the whole Native force of India. Now, having served some time in that country, he entertained a very strong opinion that it would be impossible to maintain British dominion in India with an European force alone. He did not think that a European force of 80,000 men could be permanently kept up; and, besides, there were camp duties which would be much better performed by Natives. The Motion ought to have received more consideration than the right hon. Secretary of State for India seemed disposed to show to it; and, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman ought to lay upon the table such papers as he thought might be produced without inconvenience to the public service, in order that hon. Members might have some data upon which to form an opinion as to one of the most important questions which could affect our Indian Empire.

said, he concurred with those who urged that the House before it discussed the question, ought to be placed in full possession of the materials for arriving at a conclusion. He would remind hon. Members, however, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India had promised that prior to that discussion, and as soon as Her Majesty's Government had decided what course they ought to pursue, such of these papers as existed should be laid upon the table. He had also added—and he hoped that would be satisfactory to the House—that he would at the same time produce other papers bearing upon the subject. There was not the slightest intention to conceal from the House the opinions of the members of the Indian Council; on the contrary, those opinions would be laid before Parliament at the proper time, and therefore he hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen would not press his Motion to a division. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would perhaps feel relieved when he told him that the question was not one of the magnitude that he supposed with regard to the number of troops it concerned. It did not affect the number that he had stated.

said, he had stated no specific number. What he said was— 50,000, 60,000, or 80,000, or whatever the number might be.

said, that when he informed the House that the whole of the Local European troops concerned amounted to between 11,000 and 12,000 men, it would be seen that the hon. Member had rather exaggerated the numbers. The hon. Member talked also as if the whole power and patronage of the army in India were to be transferred to the Horse Guards. Now, if the hon. Member had read the papers already upon the table with the care and attention that he usually gave to other subjects, he would have found that more than one feasible plan had been proposed by which, if that change were made, no addition at all would be made to the power of the Horse Guards. He (Mr. T. G. Baring) would carefully abstain from expressing any opinion upon that subject, but he wished to disabuse the minds of hon. Members of the idea that the Indian army, under any new arrangement, must necessarily be handed over to the Horse Guards, or that there would be any addition to the patronage of the Horse Guards in respect to staff appointments in India. The hon. Gentleman had further suggested, not in the most civil language, that it was a quibble when his right hon. Friend said that recent occurrences in the European army had obliged Her Majesty's Government to take this matter again into their consideration. He (Mr. T. G. Baring) appealed to hon. Members, and especially to hon. and gallant Officers present, whether those occurrences were not of the most grave character, and whether the Government were not perfectly justified in allowing some delay in order the more carefully to consider the whole question, so that they might not, by a hasty decision, pledge the country to a course which in the end might not be the most advantageous to the public service.

said, the question was narrowed to this—whether the documents should be produced or not. He thought they ought; and he would remind the House that as the report of Sir Patrick Grant, expressing a strong opinion on one side had been laid on the table, justice required that the opinions of Sir James Outram and Sir Bartle Frere should also be produced. He entreated the House to take care that they had all the documents before the discussion took place. It was said that when the Government had decided the course they would take, then the question should be discussed; now he thought the discussion ought to precede the decision. Besides, a grave constitutional question was at issue ! whether the Government was to have under its command 80,000 or 100,000 men who were not subject to the Mutiny Act or in any way under the control of Parliament. The Indian army was entitled to know what course the Government intended to pursue. He believed that a portion of the Indian Army should consist of local troops, while the other should consist of regiments of the line; but nothing could be so dangerous as to hang up a question of such vital importance, and he hoped the Secretary of State would feel it to be his duty to produce the documents asked for as soon as possible.

said, he hoped that in the consideration of this question only one object would be kept in view,— the welfare of India; because, upon a wise and prudent decision of it depended the safety and welfare of that country. He could not pretend to say that he had made up his mind in the present state of his information, but strong opinions hav- ing been expressed upon one side, it was but fair that the members of the Military Commission who had been appointed for the purpose of making the inquiry, and who had made their Report last June, should have their views made known. Why the House should not be in possession of them he was at a loss to know. All the House wanted was to learn the opinion of all who were competent to assist it, in order that it might itself he rendered competent to exercise its judgment. He hoped, therefore, the Government would assent to the Motion.

It seems to me, Sir, that this matter has been either misunderstood or not properly treated. It has been assumed by many who have spoken that there is a disinclination on the part of the Government to lay before the House the information necessary to give a full knowledge of the arguments on both sides of this important question with regard to our local army in India. Now, my right hon. Friend distinctly stated, in objecting to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not that we were disinclined to produce the papers, but that the particular information asked by the Motion could not be given, because in some cases the papers did not exist, and in other cases they were papers not in a state to be presented, and moreover that those which could be presented would be imperfect, and would not give a clear view of the whole question, containing the arguments on both sides. My right hon. Friend stated, moreover, that whenever full information was in the hands of the Government, and the Government had made up their minds, and arrived at a decision on the subject, that information would be afforded. The hon. Member for Birmingham, according to the theory which he has always put forth—and which I have no doubt he sincerely entertains—the opinion that the House of Commons is the executive Government, and the responsible ministers of the Crown are to do nothing but follow the behests and orders of the House of Commons, says that it is necessary that the House should consider and decide the question, and then that the Government should act according to the decision the House may pronounce. I venture humbly to submit that that is an unconstitutional doctrine. By the constitution of this country the responsible executive officers of the Crown are bound in duty to consider and determine on this matter, which belongs to their functions, and then to submit it on their responsibility to Parliament. Parliament is, afterwards, to pass judgment on their conduct, approve or disapprove of their acts, and punish them, if you please, by a vote of censure; but it is not the proper function of a legislative assembly to take out of the hands of the executive administration the affairs of the country. Then, I say, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take into consideration this question and to decide upon it on their own responsibility. It is very possible that as on many other questions, so upon this, the action of Parliament may be necessary in order to give effect to the decision of the Government. In that way, no doubt, Parliament will be called upon to co-operate with the Government in carrying into effect anything the Government may think proper to recommend; and without such action the decision of the Government may be totally vain and fruitless. In that respect the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham is correct aid constitutional. But before Parliament can come to that point it is necessary that they should be in possession of the full information on which the Government may have acted, and the manner in which the Government may intend to carry its intention into effect. Now, Sir, this question is one which no doubt affects the interests of a great number of gallant and meritorious officers, and that may be one element, no doubt, in the consideration; but I contend that it is a question not merely regarding those officers, and not merely regarding the interests of India, but it is a great and Imperial question. It is a question involving the interests of the British Empire, and it is a question to be decided not on narrow and local grounds, but an grounds of military and political expediency, as bearing upon the general interests of the empire at large. It is stated—and I am almost ashamed to advert to these clap-trap arguments or insinuations which we have heard in the course of this discussion—that the Government would be swayed in their decision by considerations of Court influence, of Horse Guards patronage, and God knows what. I feel almost ashamed to defend the Government against those insinuations. I should hope that any Government that aspires to the confidence of this House and the country would act on higher grounds than those ! on a sense of public duty—of what they believe to be the proper interest of the coun- try, and would not allow themselves to be swayed by prejudice's either on one side or the other. Therefore I say, while, on the one hand, none of those influences which I have alluded to ought for one moment to be considered; so, on the other—although it so happens that all those who have been employed in India may follow the groove in which they are accustomed to run, and speak according to the views and habits of former life—we should not be swayed solely by the turns of thought engendered by those habits and that particular kind of employment. Now, Sir, it is said that if you have the whole of the force a European force in India for general service, the population of the country will not sustain the strain. I should like to know if a certain number of European soldiers are required for service in India what great difference it can make as regards the strain, whether they serve in the general service or in the local force. They must serve in India clearly. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Willoughby) considers it in a constitutional point of view, and says you will have an army that will not be under the control of Parliament. Why, if that argument has any force, it does not apply any more to the local army than it does to the general service. The local army not coming in any way whatever under the cognizance of Parliament, is exactly that unconstitutional force which the hon. Baronet inveighs against as inconsistent with the institutions of the country. Parliament certainly must have more effectual control over the force in India, if it be-longs to the general army than it can have over a local force which is totally withdrawn from all cognizance and control of Parliamentary action. Well, but then, he says, an army in India supplied from the general service would not be sufficiently under the control of the Governor General, [Sir HENRT WILLOUGHBY: I never said a word about it.] Well, then the argument was used by some other hon. Member. I beg to say to that hon. Member that the Governor General would have every control over the arrangements for the general service troops—in fact, the same as he has over the local service. The only difference is, that the general service troops are under the general regulations of the army established by the Commander-in-Chief; but all the local arrangements are as much under the orders of the Governor General, with respect to the general service troops, as with respect to the local service troops. But, however, I will not enter into that now. My right hon. Friend has stated that when all the papers which are essential to a full and proper consideration of the subject shall be ready for presentation, to this House they will be given. He objects, and I object, to partial information, which would only tend to mislead, or insufficient arguments on one side with corresponding arguments on the other. We object to a partial production, but we shall be perfectly prepared to give full information to the House when it is in our hands. I hope, therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not put the House to the trouble of dividing. His object will have been obtained by that which we shall voluntarily give. With regard to the letter of Sir Patrick Grant, that was addressed to the right hon. and. gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), and forms part of the documents already presented.

said, that the hon. Member for Birmingham was in the habit of making statements which were wholly and wilfully erroneous.

said, he rose to order. The hon. and gallant Member would feel on reflection that the expressions which had just been used by him were not consistent with the usage or courtesy of the House.

expressed his regret at having transgressed the bounds of order by using an expression which was considered, discourteous, but he could not help expressing his wonder that the hon. Member for Birmingham, who had constant opportunities for considering the Army Estimates, should not know that the Horse Guards had nothing whatever to do with the Army Estimates. They were entirely under the control of the Minister for War, and the constant complaint of the Commander-in-Chief was, that he could not command a single farthing even for the purposes of the most necessary sanitary Reforms. With respect to the Indo-European Army, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) had paid a justly-merited compliment to its bravery, but what he (Colonel North) complained of was the want of discipline which could have allowed disaffection to go on so long without the knowledge of the officers. During the whole proceedings not a single non-commissioned officer had made his officers acquainted with what was going on, and it was only in consequence of two Queen's soldiers joining the service and telling their officers what they heard, that the matter was at last brought to light. With respect to the Returns moved for, he thought that nothing could be more objectionable than to have information given to the House piecemeal.

said, he did not think that the reasons assigned by the noble Lord for refusing his assent to the Motion were satisfactory. The despatch moved for by the hon. and gallant General opposite, expressing as it did a strong opinion on one side of this question, had been granted, and it was only just, therefore, that publicity should be given to opinions of a contrary nature.

observed that he had been told that in Mr. Wilson's financial statement that gentleman said he was not prepared to recommend the resuscitation of the local European Army. It was most desirable to do away with the absurd anomaly of separate Armies in India, with separate interests and separate rules of promotion. He should feel it his duty to support the Government upon that occasion. As it appeared to him that it would, at the present moment, be premature to call upon the Government to produce the papers connected with that important question.

, in reply, said, he held in his hand a copy of Mr. Wilson's speech, and it contained not a word on the subject. If, however, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India would give him an assurance that he would produce the papers within any definite period, as for instance a week or a fortnight after Easter, he would not press the Motion.

stated that he could not accede to his hon. and gallant Friend's request, but as soon as he was in a condition to produce papers which would reflect opinions on both sides of this Question, he should be prepared to lay them on the table.

said: Sir, I rise to propose the following Motion:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to enter into negotiations with the Emperor of the French, with the view of making a Treaty for the reciprocal abrogation of all discriminating duties levied upon the vessels and their cargoes of either of the two nations in the ports of the other; and for procuring such alterations in the Navi- gation Laws of France, as may tend to facilitate the Commercial intercourse, and strengthen the friendly relations between England and France."

After the statement made in the early part of the evening by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he did not mean to offer any opposition to this Motion, I should content myself with simply proposing it to the House, were it not that, from the peculiar nature of the subject to which it relates, there are two parties who must give to it their assent before it can be attended with any practical effect. This House may adopt the Resolution, but it can lead to no result, unless it shall also meet with the approval of the Government of France; and I therefore deem it expedient that I should go at some length into the question with which it deals. I believe that although the change which I advocate is desirable on the part of England, it would be still more beneficial to France. Those Navigation Laws, which we abolished in the year 1849, had been imitated by France and other countries. They had been framed as long ago as the year 1651, and they had been in operation since that period until the year 1849, with the exception of those alterations which had been made in them under Reciprocity Treaties, concluded some time after the commencement of the present century. By them it was provided that no goods from Asia, Africa, or America should be imported into this country in any but British ships; and that from Europe no goods should be imported except in British ships, or ships of the country where the goods Were produced. There were, besides, lists of what were called "enumerated articles," which could only be imported, under any circumstances, in English vessels; and there were double duties against foreign ships for Light Dues, Harbour Dues, and other charges. Those laws remained in force until the year 1850, when the measure for their abolition, which had been passed in the preceding year, came into operation. They were somewhat broken in upon by a Treaty into which we entered with Turkey in the year 1809, and which was our first Reciprocity Treaty. But the first great blow next struck at them was the Reciprocity Treaty which we were compelled to conclude with the United States of America in the year 1815. By the laws previously in force we prohibited the Americans from bringing us their own produce in their own ships. They protested, and very properly protested, against such a provision, but their remonstrances had hitherto been made in vain. At last they gave notice to our Government that they would be obliged to exclude the ships of England from their ports unless we made a material change in our Navigation Laws. The British Government paid no attention to that threat, and then the Government of the United States levied a duty of one dollar per ton on every British ship entering their ports; and not satisfied with that, they imposed a differential duty of 10 per cent on all our manufactures imported in British ships. The result was that we were driven to the necessity of forming with them a Reciprocity Treaty, which placed American ships entering our ports upon the same footing, with regard to duties and local charges, on which they placed our ships entering their ports. Shortly after that we had to make a similar concession to almost every other country. Every one conversant with that subject must be aware that in the year 1822 the Prussian Government complained of the effect of our Navigation Laws on their trade, and threatened to exclude our ships from their ports unless we changed those laws. The consequence was that Mr. Huskisson found it necessary to conclude a Reciprocity Treaty with Prussia upon the most liberal terms which had previously been adopted, in the case of the United States of America, in 1815. Then followed our Reciprocity Treaties with other countries, including France, with which we entered into a treaty of that character in the year 1826. France, it might therefore be said, had imitated our policy in that matter throughout its two early stages. She had followed our exclusive system, which we had commenced in the year 1651, and which she had "imitated" in the year 1664; and she had afterwards concluded, as we had done, Reciprocity Treaties. It will, perhaps, be advisable, considering the subject which I have now in view, that I should here state what it is that we have lost or gained by the policy which we have pursued upon this subject. In the year 1720 ! the earliest period for which we have any Eeturns—under the protective system, there cleared outwards from our ports 430,000 tons of British shipping; and in the year 1810 there cleared outwards from our ports 1,600,000 tons; showing an increase of 1,170,000 tons in these ninety years. Hon. Members might think that was a large increase; but as throughout that period we had the command of nearly the whole Carrying Trade of the world, he believed it ought really to be regarded as a very small increase, and it would appear still more so when it was compared with the figures of other epochs. The middle stage of our Navigation Laws was that of a reciprocity period. In the year 1820, before the operation of the reciprocity system, there cleared outwards from our ports 1,670,000 tons of British shipping. In the year 1849 we abolished our Navigation Laws, and with them the reciprocity system, and in the year 1850 there cleared outwards from our ports 4,700,000 tons of British shipping; showing, under a partial free trade, an increase of upwards 3,000,000 tons in a period of thirty years, while under a strict protection the increase had amounted to only 1,170,000 tons in ninety years. In the year 1858 there cleared outwards from our ports 6,440,000 tons of British shipping, which give in the eight years an increase of 1,740,000 tons ! a greater increase than that which had taken place in ninety years under a close protection. But as it might be said that these Returns did not give a correct view of the state of the trade, I must direct the attention of the House to a statement of the tonnage of the ships which we owned. In the year 1830, under the reciprocity system, we owned 2,500,000 tons of shipping; and at the end of last year we owned nearly 6,000,000 tons; showing, during that interval, an increase of 3,500,000 tons. Look, too, at the other advantages which accompanied the change ! at the great improvements which have taken place in the models of our ships—at the application of the screw to navigation—at our magnificent steamships constructed of iron—and, above all, if we look at the vast increase in our commerce which this free trade in shipping has materially assisted, we must at once admit that the free-trade policy was a wise policy, and that it has greatly benefited, not only the country generally, but the shipowners themselves. Now, as I have already said, France followed the example of our ancient navigation laws. She thought that they were founded upon a wise principle; and I fear she still considers that to be a policy which it is her interest to pursue. By her first navigation law she levied 50 sous per ton on all foreign ships frequenting her ports. In the year 1687 she made the law almost an exclusive one against foreigners; and, not satisfied with confining her coasting trade and the trade with her colonies to her own ships, she actually imposed a duty of £30 per ton on all exports from her West Indian colonies, and a duty of £50 per ton on all imports into those colonies; and those charges had to be paid by her people for the purpose of "encouraging" the enterprise of her shipowners. But France, as I hate already stated, wisely-entered into reciprocity treaties, and her treaty with this country was concluded in the year 1826. I shall now proceed to allude to the state of her navigation laws as they at present exist. There is, first, her coasting trade, which is strictly confined to her own ships, any foreign vessel engaging in that trade being liable, as well as its cargo, to confiscation. There is, next, the direct trade—that is to say, such a trade as that between France and England—and, by the Treaty of Reciprocity, that trade is placed upon the same footing in the two countries. There is, thirdly, the indirect colonial trade of France. That trade is entirely limited to French vessels, the differential duties to which foreign ships are liable being so high that they are excluded from any share in it. Then there is the indirect foreign trade—such a trade, for instance, as that between New Orleans and Havre, or that between Brazil and Bordeaux. From that trade, too, English ships are almost wholly excluded, because the differential duties to which they are liable are so high that they could not enter into the competition. I wish the House to observe what has been the result to France of the policy she has thus pursued. In the year 1787 she had 164,000 tons of native shipping employed in her trade with foreign countries; in the year 1830 she had only 156,000 tons engaged in that trade; so that in the course of those forty-three years that portion of her shipping had decreased by 8,000 tons. In her colonial trade, which is entirely confined to her own ships, she had in the year 1787 not less than 114,000 tons of shipping; she has now only 102,000 tons; so that there has been in the forty-three years a decrease of 12,000 tons in that strictly protected trade. Another very remarkable fact is, that while the protected branches of her shipping have decreased, there has been an increase in those branches of it which were unprotected, and had to engage in a competition with other nations. On comparing the entrances and clearances of France for the year 1856, with the mean number of annual entrances and clearances during the five years from 1851 to 1855, I find that although in the trade with the Colonies there was an increase of 16 per cent, in 1856 there was a decrease of 17 per cent m her strictly protected trade with her own, French possessions out of Europe; and that in her fisheries which were guarded with unusual care, there was a decrease of 4 per cent. But both in her non-protected trade with European countries there was an increase of 10 per cent, and in her non-protected trade with countries out of Europe there was an increase of 11 per cent. What I say is this, that while the policy which has been pursued by France towards this country, in a commercial view, has been injurious to us, it has been far more injurious to France. Let us examine the question with respect to the number and the tonnage of the French ships, and contrast them with ours. In 1787 France owned 500,000 tons of shipping; in 1850, sixty-three years afterwards, she owned only 688,000 tons. Her shipping has only increased, therefore, in sixty-three years, 188,000 tons. In 1835 I find France owned 15,600 vessels; in 1840, instead of any increase, I find she only owned 14,800. The House may say that, although the number of vessels is small, their tonnage may be large. What is the fact? Why, that out of 14,800 vessels there were 10,000 under thirty tons, and 3,000 between thirty and 100 tons. France, in 1838, owned 680,000 tons of shipping, but instead of increasing she appears to have been on the decrease, for I find that in 1844 she owned only 604,687 tons of shipping. Taking the whole period, from 1838 to 1858, the increase in her shipping, under her protective policy, was only 370,000 tons; whereas, if I look to the increase of British shipping during the same period I find it has increased from 2,890,601 tons to 5,609,623. So, while the French shipping has increased only 370,000 tons under her protective policy, British shipping has increased under a free and enlightened policy no less than 2,800,000 tons. What is the case with respect to steam? I find that while we had, in 1838, 82,716 tons of steam vessels, in 1858 we had no less than 488,000 tons; while France, which in 1838 had 9,693 tons of steam shipping, had only increased in 1858 to 66,587 tons. Thus while we have increased upwards of 400,000 tons of steam shipping in the last twenty years, France has only increased about 55,000. The House will also remember what France has given large bounties for the creation of a steam merchant fleet, and yet with all her protective policy in her favour and with all these bounties she can only show an increase in sailing vessels of 370,000 tons as against an increase in British sailing vessels of 2,800,000 tons, and in steamers an increase of 55,000 as against 400,000 tons. Why is all this? France has a greater seaboard than any other country in Europe. Her coast is studded with magnificent ports along the Channel to an extent of no less than 150 leagues; on the shores of the Atlantic she has a seaboard of 130 leagues; and on the shores of the Mediterranean she has a seaboard of 90 leagues. Her situation is all that they can desire for carrying on a very large maritime trade. France is also increasing at an extraordinary rate in her general trade, for I find the increase of her special commerce from 1827 to 1836 to have been 10,000 million francs; from 1837 to 1846, 15,000 million francs; and from 1847 to 1856, to have been no less than 22,000 million francs. That is the commerce which includes only her own manufactures and her own produce, and articles which she imports for her own use; yet in the ten years from 1847 to 1856 the increase in that special commerce has been the immense sum of 20,000 million francs. How is it that, with a splendid situation for carrying on large mercantile pursuits, with such a large seaboard studded with magnificent harbours, with a vast and rapidly increasing commerce of her own, that the shipping of France is almost at a standstill? I will tell you why. It is because the shipowners have been taught by their legislators to depend upon the Government instead of depending upon themselves. As with individuals we seldom see those who have been left well provided for so energetic as men who have to make their way in the world themselves, so it is with nations. It has been proved by the policy of this country that when British shipowners were left to their own energies and their own resources they went on increasing largely, and I have no hesitation in saying if the Emperor of France had adopted as wise a course of policy the shipping of that country would be greatly increased and materially bene-fitted, and its commerce generally would be vastly increased. Now, Sir, observe how unjustly these laws operate upon the French people themselves. It was stated before us the other day in the Merchant Shipping Committee, by an intelligent witness, that in one particular branch of trade alone, which was a very small branch, the difference of freight paid between the French and English ships on sugar imported from our possessions in the East to France was no less than £300,000. Of course France pays that. It is not possible, but if it were possible to show what the people of France are suffering and paying in trying vainly to increase their Merchant Navy, I have no hesitation in saying that the people of France would at once appeal to the Government, and demand a change in the Navigation Laws for their own interest. Because, if in a small branch of trade in which only about 180,000 tons of shipping are engaged, the people of France have to pay every year £300,000 for the benefit of that trade, what must it be with the trade of France as a whole. France, with her vast commerce, has not got a merchant navy one-fourth sufficient to enable her to carry on her own trade; consequently, she is obliged to come and seek shipping from other countries, and, in spite of her protective laws, foreign shipping, to a very large extent, entered the ports of France. In 1857, the total number of entries in French ports was 4,162,000 tons, but of that number no less than 2,550,000 were foreign ships; so that by far the largest proportion of the carrying trade of France is conveyed in foreign ships, and if we could get at an estimate of the differential duty paid upon that 2,550,000 tons of shipping, it would be found that the people of France are taxed to an enormous extent in their vain attempts to create a merchant service and a foundation for her navy. The people of France are beginning to find that this policy of protection to shipping is a mistaken policy for their own interest. Honourable Members may have seen by the public press, the other day, that the merchants and planters of Guadeloupe have memorialized the French Colonial Minister, and have represented to him the very great inconvenience to which they have been subjected from the want of a sufficient supply of French tonnage to carry their sugar and other produce to France; and only the other day I had a letter from a large East India House, and though I do not wish to weary the House with extracts, this is so important that I must beg permission to read it— It is from a merchant and shipowner at Bordeaux to the head of an East India House resident in London, and is an answer to a communication with respect to the rice market in the East. This firm had written to the French merchant to know if they could supply him for the incoming year, as on previous occasions. The following is his reply:—

"I have received with much pleasure your letter of the 24th November, and thank you for the information it gives me on business in rice this year. I must tell you that rice is no longer admissible, except by a French flag, since the beginning of this year; that is, that it pays a duty of 9 francs per 100 kilogrammes, if by a foreign ship, which excludes it completely."

I find, Sir, that in 1847 France imported 3,000 tons of rice; but in 1856, when the duties on rice and. other grain were suspended, she imported no less than 50,000 tons of rice from the British East Indies, showing the enormous benefit which, in this case, France derived from a free-trade policy, by which they allowed ships of all nations to convey rice from our possessions in India to the ports of France. But this is not all. Take the case of the manufacturers, and here again I beg to refer to another important communication. About a fortnight since I made a speech in regard to this same question, and it so happened that the words which fell from me found their way to the French press, and were somewhat extensively circulated. And in consequence I received a communication from a large manufacturer carrying on his business in a northern town of France:—

"I am interested," he says, "here in jute-spinning, and our trade in Prance will be much injured, if not ruined, if the present differential duties are continued; and as these duties are injurious both to the British shipowner, as well as to the French manufacturer, while not in reality serving the French shipping, I thought your influence might be brought to bear on the subject."

Well, Sir, the only answer to be given to the French manufacturer was—"Really, this is more a question for the French manufacturer and the French people, than it is for the British shipowner. Memorialize your Government to release you from the trammels by which you are bound; agitate throughout the country for the repeal of the laws, to the repeal of which you must look for advantage as a manufacturer, and by so doing do good to the people, and also to the shipowners of your country." But, Sir, while we are impressing upon the French Government that, in justice to us, as well as in justice to their own shipowners; and, above all, in justice to the people of France, they should make a material change in the navigation laws of that country, let us not forget that we have a duty to perform to France. We still levy Light Dues on the ships of France entering our ports, as we do on the ships of all other nations. But France lights her shores free. She makes no direct charge on the ships of England under the head of Light Dues. There are other small taxes, more annoying, perhaps, than of pecuniary importance, which we still continue to levy upon the ships of France frequenting our ports, from which freemen are entirely exempt. I believe these charges are well known as Freemen's Dues. France, upon various occasions on which we have endeavoured to obtain reciprocity from her, has made these charges the ground for not entering into reciprocal dealings. I think such excuses have been frivolous, but still they have been made, and I say we must be prepared to remove those charges, which are still levied at 83 ports throughout this country. We must exempt the ships of France from all such charges; we must exempt them from Light Dues; and when we have done so, we shall have placed the ships of France in all our trade on the same terms in every respect as our own ships. Having done so, it is to be hoped that the Emperor of the French will be willing and ready to meet us in making the change I propose, which is much more essential to the interests of his own people than it is to the interests of the people of England. To what extent it is desirable that that change should be made it is not for me to say. That is a matter which must rest with the Government of France itself. If I had anything to say in the matter, if I was a Frenchman interested in the question, I should urge the total and unconditional repeal of the Navigation Laws of France, and I should urge it not merely on the ground of justice to the shipowners, but, above all, in justice to the people of France. If the French Government is not prepared to go to that extent, and to say that the Navigation Laws should be totally repealed, they ought at least to put the trade between our colonies and possessions, and France in the same position as the direct trade is now placed; that is to say, they ought to abolish all differential duties levied on goods conveyed from our possessions and colonies to France in British ships. In that trade, which is peculiarly our own, we ought at least to be placed on exactly the same footing as our ships are now placed with respect to the direct trade. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) has been good enough to say that this Motion is not to be opposed, and that, so far as Government is concerned, it will be allowed to pass this House. Allow me, however, to take the opportunity of saying to the noble Lord that something more is wanted. If this Resolution is adopted by the House, it will be in the shape of an Address to Her Majesty, and it will be the duty of the Government to lay it before the Queen. But there is another duty connected with it beyond that ! a duty which is most important; and I do trust that Her Majesty's Government, if the Motion is carried, will use its most strenuous efforts and every argument in its power to impress on the Government of France that if the Treaty of Commerce just ratified is to produce the good both nations anticipate—if it is to increase their commerce and bind them more closely together in their friendly relations, and thus tend to prevent war, then it is essential that a great change be made in the Navigation Laws of France, so as to enable the more free interchange of commodities, and remove the irritation which these differential duties create, and which tend to produce angry feelings, and too often, with them, war. I wish my feeble words could reach the palace of the Emperor and the Senates of France, but far more do I wish that they should reach the hamlets and the homes of the heavily taxed and toiling millions of that fair—that sunny land. The question, as I have endeavoured to show, is of far greater importance to the people of that country than it is to England; but in the interests of progress, and, above all, of peace, it is one of vast importance to both. However prone man is to evil— however desirous to vindicate what he considers "right" by might, no nation can desire war. To Her Gracious Majesty I move this Address. I know that she ever has and ever will mourn the sacrifice of her people on the battle field; that she will ever be ready to put forth her hand to aid the cause of peace; and I cannot but feel that her great Ally, the Emperor of the French, must equally deplore the dread havoc which war creates, and that he will be ready to join our Queen in the adoption of such measures as are likely to render more secure the peace of Europe, and promote the happiness and prosperity of the people. There can be no happiness in their palaces when the harsh note of war is sounded. On questions such as these they must hold even stronger feelings than the people, for in the uncertainty of war their own destinies are at stake, and in its results depend the stability of their thrones and kingdoms, and often their personal liberty. They, indeed, must be deeply interested in any movement which tends to join nations together in the bonds of peace and goodwill.

, in seconding the Motion, expressed his conviction that the greatest good would be produced by the fact of its receiving the unanimous support of the House and the Government.

said, that, as his hon. Friend was already aware, no opposition would be offered by the Government to the Motion. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that if this address were adopted it would be necessary that steps should be taken to give effect to it, and at a fitting opportunity the Government would use their utmost endeavours for that purpose. There could be no doubt that British ships laboured under many disabilities in French ports. The coasting and colonial trade, or the trade between France and her own colonies, might not at once be conceded; but with regard to the indirect carrying trade or the foreign trade of France, seeing that all countries, with the exception of France, Spain, and Portugal, had extended full reciprocity to England in the foreign carrying trade, he might fairly express a hope that the facilities enjoyed elsewhere would Be also extended to this country by France. He felt the advantage it would be to French commerce and to the French nation, and, without taking up the time of the House by travelling over unnecessary ground, he might say that he fully concurred in the views of the hon. Member as to the great advantages conferred on English shipping and commerce by the liberal navigation code which we had adopted. The hon. Member had made a most interesting and useful speech, and he would say no more than that he could assure him the Government would do all which lay in their power to give effect to his views.

said, that representing as he did a constituency all more or less concerned in the shipping interest, he felt called on to make a few remarks on the question now before the House. The distress of the shipping interest was acknowledged when the hon. Member for Sunderland moved for a Committee of Inquiry. At that time he did not think that the sympathies of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were greatly in favour of that interest, but he was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman express himself tonight much more warmly, and to receive an assurance that the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to exert himself to carry out as much as he could the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland. With regard to the fact stated the other day that freights from the Mauritius were unremunerative to British while they were lucrative to French shipowners, a witness before the Committee on Merchant Shipping attributed it to the excess of British tonnage. Great competition might partially be the cause, but he believed that the command of a more extended sale for their produce made it worth while for merchants at the Mauritius to pay double and treble freights and to put their merchandise on board French ships rather than English ships, which in comparison had so limited a field for sale. It was a most extraordinary injustice that English shipping should be exposed to the operation of differential duties in French ports which operated against it in the proportion of five to three, and also involved, in some cases, the forfeiture of both the ship and her cargo. He had read not long since a pamphlet written, he believed, by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour), in which that hon. Gentleman mentioned that the increase of the French over the English shipping since the repeal of the navigation laws was in the proportion of nine to one; and in his opinion that statement was perfectly accurate. Statistics proved that the export and import trade of Yarmouth had very much decreased. In 1857, Yarmouth exported in British ships 77,413 quarters of wheat; in 1858 only 33,462 quarters of wheat. In 1857, the export of barley from the same place was 81,792 quarters, and in 1858 only 77,249 quarters. In 1857 no maize whatever was imported into Yarmouth in British ships, but in foreign ships 3,492 quarters. In 1858, 200 quarters were imported in British, and 7,990 quarters in foreign ships. In 1858, 410 quarters of wheat were imported in British ships, and 9,723 quarters in foreign ships. In 1857 no barley was imported in British, but 36,950 quarters were imported in foreign ships. In 1858, 4,999 quarters of barley were imported in British and 22,695 quarters in foreign ships. There were many other statistics, proving the decline of the trade of Yarmouth, with which he would not trouble the House. He would merely say that within the last few months 100 foreign ships had delivered their cargoes in that port. Yarmouth, which he had the honour to represent, was particularly interested in the trade of salted herrings, and his constituents expressed great anxiety at the extraordinary quantity of salted herrings which had arrived lately from Norway and other places. A few days since one ship brought no less than 1,100 barrels. They believed that a great trade might be opened with France if the Government would kindly give their attention to the subject, and endeavour to get the duty lowered on them, if not abolished. At present the duty charged by France on the barrel of 100 kilogrammes—equal to 2 cwt. ! was 30 francs, and when he told the House that the same quantity could be bought for much less, retail in Yarmouth, it must be obvious that the duty was perfectly prohibitory. He had reason to know that there was a disposition on the part of the French Government to afford facilities to the English merchant for carrying on this particular trade. The demand from the interior of France for them was great and increasing, but the duty of 30 francs a barrel was regarded in the light of a prohibition, and notwithstanding every encouragement was given to the French fisherman, he could not, under any circumstances, meet the demand made from the interior of his own country. If the Government at this favourable time would interest themselves in coming to an arrangement with that of France on this subject, the result would be to open up an important trade between France and the towns on the eastern coast of this country, and it would be relieved from the reproach that they had more especially consulted the coal and cotton interests, and had neglected the shipping interests of this country.

said, that he wished to call attention to a branch of this question which had been overlooked. The question of a treaty of navigation with France was not a new question, for a treaty was entered into in 1826, having reference to the direct trade. That treaty had not been in operation more than a few months when grave complaints were made by the Government of France against the man- ner in which that treaty was carried out by this country. France charged the English Government that although they might carry out the treaty in the letter, yet in the spirit of that treaty they had not faithfully carried it out. The ground of complaint made by the French was, that in a vast number of our ports there existed exemptions or exceptions in respect to the payment of duty, which operated differentially against the ships of a French port. Matters continued in this state up to the year 1849, when a new state of circumstances occurred. It would be in the recollection of the House that, in that year, the Navigation Laws were repealed, and it was then proposed by the English Government, as a sort of corollary to our repealing the Navigation Laws, to enter into a negotiation with France; but the same objections with regard to local exemptions were then urged as were urged in 1826. Mr. Edgar Bowring, of the Board of Trade, was employed to investigate the grounds of complaint, and the result of his inquiry, as stated in evidence before a Select Committee, was that in no less than eighty-one ports and creeks of this country local exemptions from the payment of duty continued to exist, and to operate differentially against French ships trading to this country. In 1850 another attempt was again made to enter into a treaty with France, when the question of local exemption was again urged by the French Government. As he understood that fresh negotiations were about to be commenced on this subject, he should like to have some assurance from her Majesty's Government that they would endeavour to get rid of those causes which, from 1826 down to 1850, formed a barrier to the carrying out of any treaty with France. Unless the Government did that, he was afraid that no negotiations on this subject could have a successful result. He quite agreed with his hon. Colleague that the system of the Navigation Laws as it existed in France was, although injurious to English commerce, still more injurious to French commerce and the French people; but he had no great faith in the Government being able to convince the French people of that fact at present. He trusted that before the debate was concluded, the House would have some assurance from the Government that an attempt would be made as early as possible to get rid of the causes which had so long operated to pre- vent this treaty of navigation between this country and France being carried into effect.

said, he regretted that the hon. Member who had last spoken should have introduced a new element of dissension into the debate. Attempts had been made both by the Government and the House to deal with the local exemptions alluded to, but without success. The reference to them on the part of France was obviously only a shallow pretext to avoid a navigation treaty with this country. He rose, however, mainly for the purpose of expressing his gratification at the assurance that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enter into communication with the French Government with a view of obtaining, at any rate, some relaxation of the French Navigation Laws. He thought that as we were now supposed to be on terms of commercial alliance with France we were entitled to ask, as a matter of justice, from those with whom we had recently concluded the treaty, that they should meet us in a fair spirit. It had been left free to French ships to trade from all parts of the world to this country as suited them best, and it was extremely galling to an English shipowner that in consequence of discriminating or differential duties being levied in French ports on English vessels, he was often unable to compete in our own Colonies with French vessels in obtaining a cargo, or getting as high a freight. He trusted the French Government, if they were sincere in their desire to carry out the design of giving to the French consumer the full benefit of the Commercial Treaty recently concluded, would see the necessity of removing these very offensive duties, He asked of the Government that they would supply the omission in the late Commercial Treaty, an omission which had been much complained of, but never satisfactorily explained. He trusted the proposed negotiations might prove successful; but he wished he could be more sure that they would be successful, for he felt that if the negotiations had been entered into at an earlier date, their chance of success would have been much greater than it now was.

said, he also wished to express his gratification at the fact that the Government had acceded to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and his conviction that the Government had exercised a sound discretion in taking that course, still he thought it behoved the House to ask why it was necessary that so soon after the Treaty with France another negotiation should be commenced? How came it that they had, so soon to set to work to patch up the comprehensive Treaty recently concluded r He believed that the Treaty had originated in party and not Commercial objects, that it was more a political than a Commercial Treaty. It had, therefore, been hurried through in a hasty, crude, and, he might say, slovenly manner, so that it might be ready for announcement at the opening of Parliament, as a proof of activity during the autumnal recess. This seemed to have been considered requisite as a stimulant after the long period of autumnal inactivity. No doubt it had obtained for the Government some cheers, but they would be only of a temporary character, The Government had given up everything to France, and now they would have to recommence negotiations with the Government of that country when they had no inducement to offer. He rose to remind the House, and to press upon the Government, that they should in future employ those skilled and experienced diplomatists who were always at the service of the country in these important matters. It was no disparagement to the ability of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), for whom he had the highest respect, that, however eminent he might be in private life, however superior to all competitors in his own line of trade, he was not so well qualified to deal with astute and wily negotiators, as one who had had the benefit of diplomatic training and experience. If a proper negotiator had been selected, then this country would not have been called upon to make such extensive concessions without obtaining equivalents. He would shortly call the attention of the House and the noble Lord at the head of the Government to a speech of the noble Lord's, made seventeen years ago, on the occasion of Lord Ashburton being sent to the Court of Washington to negotiate a treaty. The noble Lord laid it down as a rule, and he was a great authority, that when the country had to enter into Commercial Treaties, they ought to leave the matter to diplomatic agents, and the noble Lord used these remarkable words:

"I know that some persons imagine that in negotiation a plain, simple, straightforward man will do just as well as the most experienced and skilful diplomatist; but the House may depend upon it that the same rule holds good in negotiation, as in any other employment of the intellec- tual faculties, and that a man who has some acquaintance with the practice will, ceteris paribus, have an advantage over a man who has none. Now, was the Government driven by any necessity to appoint an inexperienced negotiator, and had they no other choice?"

Those words were spoken seventeen years ago, and yet the noble Lord, in forgetful-ness of them, had appointed an hon. Gentleman who had had no experience in these matters. He entertained no political bias against the hon. Member for Rochdale; but he believed it would be seen that the more his crude and ill-digested Treaty became known throughout the country, the more it would be disliked and opposed. As an instance, he might refer to the Chamber of Commerce of Leeds. A petition had been presented from that body, which showed that the 30 per cent duty on goods imported into France, would in almost every instance prove a strictly prohibitive duty. The people of Leeds were engaged in nearly all the great manufactures to which the provisions of the Treaty related, and so dissatisfied were the leading and influential merchants of that great centre of commerce and manufactures, that the Chamber of Commerce prayed that a supplemental treaty might be made. Now, if the work had been properly done in the first instance, there would not be this universal cry for a supplemental treaty. He believed the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had not been consulted on all these matters, or a different result might have been obtained. It might be said, on the part of the Government of Prance, whenever an attempt was made to open negotiations, that the Parliament of England had sanctioned the principle of differential duties, by agreeing to the late Treaty, and that would be one of the great difficulties in the way of removing them. In the case of the linen trade, the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. M. Gibson), had held out hopes of an amelioration of the regulations in future negotiations; but what hope could there be of successful negotiations when the original proposition of the French Government was a maximun ad valorem duty from 10 to 15 per cent, which was raised by our negotiation to 30 per cent. He (Lord C. Hamilton) could only hope that those future negotiations would be entrusted to an experienced diplomatist, and that the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would act upon the advice he had tendered to another Government in making the selection.

said, he thought the observations of the noble Lord uncalled for, and that the attack made by him upon the conduct of the hon. Member for Rochdale in his absence was undeserved. That hon. Member would no doubt receive the thanks of his countrymen for his recent labours in the cause of freedom of trade; and he believed the noble Lord could not name any diplomatist who would have been better qualified to carry on the late negotiations with the French Emperor and his Government. The Treaty was from first to last a Treaty of Commerce, and not of navigation, and the noble Lord could not point to any Article in it which altered the character of the Treaty. Any man who looked at the matter fairly would see that in asking the French Government to enter upon negotiations for another treaty, the Government would be met by the answer that one of the first things to do would be the removal of those various charges on French vessels which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Fenwick). The object of the Motion before the House was to show the general feeling of the maritime body and of the Government, that France, having regard to the concessions made by us, as well as with regard to her own interests, should meet us in the spirit in which we met her. For the last ten years England had allowed French ships to enter her ports freely, and the moral was that free trade could not be both a blessing and a curse, or, in other words, while free trade was life to us, it could not be death to the French people. But though England had thrown open her ports to France, English vessels, although permitted to carry goods to France from this country, were at a relative disadvantage with the French, because they were excluded from the French coasting trade. The latest advices from the Mauritius stated that while French ships were getting from £3 to £3 10s. for freight, British ships could not command more than £1 for freight to French ports. But at Port Louis, French and English ships for English ports Were obtaining the same freights. The differential and tonnage duties against British ships were equal to £4 19s. 4d. per ton on all importations of guano into France. These facts were enough to show that the statesmen of both countries ought at once to negotiate the basis of a supplemental treaty of navigation; and to those who remembered the advances which France made in a free-trade policy in 1854, by repealing a portion of her navigation laws, this would not appear altogether hopeless. He had recently received a copy of the Journal du Havre, which contained a report made by the French Ministers, MM. Baroche and Rouher, in which they commented on the Treaty recently concluded between the two countries, from which he (Mr. Digby Seymour) was led to hope that, while due regard was paid to the French marine as one of the great national interests, a sounder commercial policy than the old Protective system had now among its champions the Emperor of the French and the Ministers who had assisted him in the recent progress of free-trade doctrines in France. This country had cast away the worn-out cloak of Protection which the French had picked up; but he hoped the sun of free trade would induce them, too, to drop it from their shoulders, and that they would come to see that it was for their own advantage to make those arrangements in favour of the shipping interest which the voice of justice demanded. He trusted the example of France in 1854, when certain alterations were made, would be followed, and that better results would be obtained. The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to comments of MM. Baroche and Rouher in the Journal du Havre, in favour of the late Treaty, and said he hoped a better light was dawning upon the Government and people of France in reference to freedom of commerce, and if that were so, it would lead to the further adoption of the principle of the Treaty of 1826 between this country and France.

rose to express his surprise that any hon. Gentleman should place the differential duties, or rather the exemptions which existed in certain English ports, as really a bar to the negotiations of a treaty with France. Those were not really dues that were charged on the shipping with France, they were simply exemptions that were made in favour of certain classes of persons in England, and pressed upon portions of our own countrymen quite as much as they did on the subjects of France. He quite concurred in the conclusion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and he was assured that the shipping interest would read the hon. Member's speech with great satisfaction, for they would remember that not very long ago the hon. Gentleman did not attach so much value as he now appeared to do to the system of reciprocity. They would be glad to find that since the hon. Gentleman had applied his vigorous mind to the subject he had come to the conclusion that, without reciprocity, the prosperity of the British shipping interest would not long continue. He did not mean, however, to detain the House with any remarks on the general question, which he thought was exhausted by the speeches in the present debate, and by one on a former occasion. But he must say that it was not complimentary to the shipping interest that it should be necessary to bring forward this Motion. When a treaty of commerce was under discussion it was due to the shipping interest that hopes should have been held out to them that their interests would not be neglected. But those hopes had not been held out, and it was only after a great deal of agitation, both in and out of this House, that hopes were at last held out that some attempts would be made to redress their grievances. For his own part, he was disposed to trust very little to the generosity of nations; for each Government would naturally get the best advantage for their own subjects that they could; and he felt certain that if in a negotiation they were to begin by giving to France all they had to give, and then asked France to make some sacrifice to them in return, they would find themselves quite disappointed. He thought the attitude of Prussia, in Mr. Huskisson's time, which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Sunderland and the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour), and by himself on a former occasion, was the attitude which should have been maintained by Her Majesty's Government. His opinion was that the whole question of the navigation laws with France required revision. Circumstances were entirely changed from what they were when the existing treaties were formed; and following the example of the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir H. Stracey), he would take the liberty of reminding the Government that in any revision of our relations with France there was a portion of his own constituents whose claims he wished to recommend to the notice of the Government. The hon. Baronet advocated the interests of the herring fishers; he wished to advocate the claims of the oyster fishers. It was known to everybody that there was on the south coast of England a race of hardy fishermen who were engaged in the oyster fisheries. Since the convention with regard to these fisheries, which was concluded with France in 1839, deep-sea beds of oysters had been discovered in the middle of the Channel, the existence of which was at that time altogether unknown. These beds could only be fished at a certain time, and in rough weather the boats could not go out to them at all, and as the close time intervened great hardship was often inflicted on these fishermen, who in some seasons lost their fishing altogether. Now, there was no reason why the terms of the fence months should not be, in regard to the deep-sea fishings, extended for two months longer, but the difficulty was to persuade the French Government to consent. The French fishermen cared nothing about these deep-sea fishings; they only wanted to protect their own shallow water fisheries, and with that view they demanded that our fishermen should be prevented from going into deep-sea fishings. This prohibition, however, wag of no advantage to either party, for as the beds lay in the middle of the Channel and were net under the jurisdiction of any Government, the Butch fishermen, as he had lately learned, came to the beds and dredged them in the fence months to the disadvantage of both countries. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take this question into their favourable consideration, as our fishermen naturally felt aggrieved at these injurious regulations which pressed upon them alone. I think the Motion, though it only regards actually the reciprocity duties of Prance and England, should include these minor matters in any revision which may be deemed advisable. Her Majesty's Government had shown themselves anxious to maintain a good understanding with Prance. Every man on both sides of the House, who had any regard for the interests of his eountry, would be anxious to maintain it. But Her Majesty's Government need not to be told by him, that nothing would be so fatal to such a good understanding as any uneasy feeling among particular classes in the country that it had been purchased at the cost of impediments to their trade, and a sacrifice of their interests.

said, he could not allow this discussion, so important in every respect to one of the most vital elements of British prosperity, to close without saying that it was without exception the most unsatisfactory debate—and he had heard a good many unsatisfactory debates ! to which he had ever listened. What was the result? His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, than whom no man was better qualified for the task, had brought forward a Motion in which he had shown there was a strong case for-interfering in favour of the present depressed condition of the British mercantile marine; and the only result of that Motion was, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to get up and say that at some future fitting time Her Majesty's Government would condescend to look into the matter and see if they could do something for the shipping interest. This was the sum and substance of all that was gained in consequence of his hon. Friend's Motion. He must say, therefore, that involving as this Motion did the welfare not only of that important branch of British industry, the shipping trade, but involving what was far more important, the supply of the seamen to the British navy, it was impossible that a more meagre, unsatisfactory, and unfortunate answer could have been given than the answer which Her Majesty's Government had given to this Motion. The thing spoke for itself. The condemnation of Her Majesty's Government lay in the fact that his hon. Friend felt called on to make such a Motion. What was the state of the case? This Treaty had just been concluded and they were told it was a Treaty of Commerce, not a Treaty of Navigation. But if so, why was the third Article introduced into the Treaty? The question he put was this—he wished it had been put by his hon. Friend who was so much better qualified to deal with the subject—why were the interests of the British mercantile marine so totally lost sight of and neglected by Her Majesty's Government when they were negotiating the terms of this Treaty, under the able and distinguished diplomacy of the hon. Member for Rochdale? Why were those interests neglected? Was the thing of so little importance that they did not think it necessary to ask whether those interests would be injured or not? Before this Treaty was concluded with a great neighbouring nation, was it not their duty to inquire whether there was anything in position or the relations of that interest that required revision before the Treaty was signed? But that was not the whole of the, case. Long before they entered upon, the consideration of that miserable Treaty the deeply-depressed condition of the shipping interest had been pressed upon them in every possible way, and every possible means had been taken to call the attention of the Government to the subject, yet the whole question was ignored by them when they came to carry out the details of this Treaty, and all his hon. Friend could obtain by his Motion for this great national interest was an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that at some fitting opportunity they would endeavour to rectify some portions of the gross neglect of which they had been guilty. He wished this debate could have been postponed for a few days, because then he should have been at liberty to quote to the House the opinions of a great authority in these matters, for the fact, which indeed there was hardly a man connected with the shipping interest who would not corroborate, that if the reciprocity clauses in our Navigation Act were once put in operation, there was not a country in the world which would not agree to reciprocity with us, rather than submit to be shut out, by the operation of those clauses, from our trade. That was stated by a high authority in evidence, to which he would not further allude, except to say that it would soon be laid on the table of the House. But this was only another proof of the inconceivable blindness of Her Majesty's Government to the existence of this great and important interest. If his hon. Friend was content with the assurances he had received from Her Majesty's Government, of course he could not object—all he had to tell him was, that all the assurances he had yet received were not worth a £5 note. But this was only part and parcel of the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, by which every interest in the country was sacrificed with one exception. The Government and their agents had been utterly mystified by abler men than themselves in the concoction of this Treaty; and unless something more than this was done, the hon. Member for Sunderland would find that this great national interest would be sacrificed in the same coldblooded mariner in which every other interest, except one, had been sacrificed in this country.

said, he rose to express the surprise with which he had learned that exceptional dues existed in some of those very ports that were now claiming reciprocity. As one entirely independent and impartial in the matter, it appeared to him that we could not ask France to remove her restrictions unless we removed ours. [Cries of "Agree."] He was glad to find that the House should agree, and he hoped they would insist on these restrictions being removed.

said, he rose to reply. He was quite willing to admit that the Treaty, which had been recently ratified by both sides of the House, bore on the face of it that it was strictly for commercial purposes, and that it left the question of navigation exactly where it found it. It was not fair, therefore, to charge the Government, as they had been charged, with neglecting the interests of the British shipowners. They had not, in fact, done so. It ought to be remembered that the present navigation laws between the two countries imposed differential duties upon foreign ships that were employed in the trade between England and France. The third clause in the Treaty, to which so much reference had been made, proposed to continue those duties, and if that clause had not been inserted foreign vessels might have come here and been loaded with English manufactures, and conveyed them to the ports of France. The insertion of this article, therefore, was a protection of both English and French ships against foreigners, and against that small amount of competition the Government had not neglected to protect the British shipping. But he must say, as this Motion was to be adopted unanimously by the House, he did not think it would be sufficient for his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to say that he would take some fitting opportunity, at any period, however distant, to take this solemn and unanimous Resolution of the House into his consideration. He felt such treatment of this Resolution would be a mere mockery—a waste of the time of the House. The Government ought not merely to act upon it when it suited their convenience, bnt they should be prepared, he hoped before Easter, to state distinctly what means they proposed to adopt in order to carry if possible the Resolution into effect with the Government of France.

Sir, I rise to make one more attempt to settle the question on which the care of every Government has been bestowed and the time of every Parliament for a longer period than I have had the honour of sitting in this House—a question of great difficulty, and to Ireland of great importance. I believe that from the conclusion of peace with France in 1815 down to the present time many branches of this subject have continually engaged the attention of Committees of this House and of Commissioners appointed by the Crown. But the period which may, perhaps, be regarded as the principal era in the history of this question was the appointment of the Commission under the late Lord Devon, which took a large and interesting mass of evidence, and presented as the result of its inquiry its opinions to this House. Since that time there has been, I think, no Minister who has not endeavoured to settle this question. Scarcely has there been a year when there has not been before the House some proposal in regard to it. In the year 1845 the Earl of Derby, then Secretary for the Colonies in the Government for Sir Robert Peel, made a proposal on this subject in the House of Lords. In the following year it was renewed in this House by the present Duke of Newcastle, then Secretary for Ireland. Next, my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Somerville), under the succeeding Ministry, made a like attempt in 1848, and again in 1850. In 1852 the Government of the Earl of Derby made a great effort to settle the question; and under the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen that effort was repeated, but not successfully. Afterwards Mr. Serjeant Shee, with great ability and great labour, brought forward similar measures. Those measures were to a certain extent taken up by the Government of that day, but again they failed to receive the sanction of Parliament. Then an independent Member of this House, Mr. Moore, took up the subject in two successive years, 1856 and 1857; and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), in 1858, was the last Member who submitted a measure dealing with it. The late Government, I believe, had undertaken and intended to grapple with it. Now, it is manifest that a question of which this is the history must be one not only of great importance, but also of great difficulty. And if we presume to entertain a hope of being able to settle it, it is because we think that the condition of Ireland is far more favourable for its settlement than in the times of some of our predecessors; because we believe that their experience may have done much to facilitate the progress of the measure; because we believe that the decisions of this House have shown what are the measures which it is impossible to carry, and will have prepared the way for the attainment of such as are practical and possible; and because I believe I may confidently appeal to this assembly to listen to proposals made with an earnest desire to obtain for them, as far as may be, legislative sanction and practical effect. The first question that anybody will naturally ask is, "Why is it necessary to deal with the land of Ireland in a manner different from that of England or Scotland?" That question has been repeatedly answered in this House in language of the highest authority. Those who are familiar with the works of Arthur Young, of Mr. Burke, or of Mr. Mill, know that in their successive generations those practical and philosophic writers have drawn a broad distinction between the state of land in Ireland on the one side and its state in England and Scotland on the other. A distinction so recognized by the highest authorities may fairly commend itself to the calm consideration of this House. But every Minister and every Member of Parliament who has handled this subject, from the Earl of Derby in 1845, down to the hon. Member who last brought it under our notice, has expressed in the most emphatic terms the necessity of dealing with it, for Ireland, in a manner specially adapted to the circumstances of that country. I am not about to trouble the House with unnecessary references to papers; but I think I ought to ask you to hear the statement on this part of the case which rests on the authority of the Devon Commission, in order that you may have before you the ground of the legislation on which you are invited to enter. These are the words:—

"It is well known that in England and Scotland, before a landlord otters a farm for letting, he finds it necessary to provide a suitable farmhouse, with necessary farm buildings, for the proper management of the farm. He puts the gates and fences into good order, and he also takes upon himself a great part of the burden of keeping the buildings in repair during the term; and the rent is fixed with reference to this state of things. Such, at least, is generally the case, although special contracts may occasionally be made, varying the arrangements between landlord and tenant. In Ireland the case is wholly different. The smallness of the farms as they are usually let, together with other circumstances to which it is not necessary to advert, render the introduction of the English system extremely difficult, and in many cases impracticable. It is admitted on all hands, that according to the general practice in Ireland, the landlord builds neither dwelling-house, nor farm offices, nor puts fences, gates, &c., into good order, before he lets his land to a tenant. The cases in which a landlord does any of those things are the exceptions. The system, however, of giving aid in these matters is becoming more prevalent. In most cases, whatever is done in the way of building or fencing is done by the tenant; and in the ordinary language of the country, dwelling-houses, farm buildings, and even the mating of fences, are described by the general word 'improvements,' which is thus employed to denote the necessary adjuncts to a farm, without which in England or Scotland no tenant would be found to rent it."

This, Sir, is the foundation of all legislation on this subject—that the law and practice, as they exist in England and Scotland, have differed from the law and practice as they have existed in Ireland, and that special legislation is requisite to meet the circumstances of a totally different case. Now, I am happy to say that since the Devon Commission presented their Report no more marked improvement has probably taken place in any country in the world than has been witnessed in Ireland, and that amelioration has resulted in changes which, if on the one hand they diminish the necessity for legislation of this kind, operate on the other as the greatest encouragement to all just and needful measures whereby the law may second the efforts of an improving people, may expand their industry and enterprise, expand and thereby accelerate the progress of a beneficent movement. Since the year 1845, by public works, by loans, and grants, by money expended on drainage, and last, not least, by the multiplication of railways and other internal communication, the greatest advancement has been exhibited by Ireland. If it is not unduly trespassing on the time of the House I will state one or two striking instances of this improvement. We all know that live stock is a much more remarkable and critical test of prosperity in Ireland than in this part of the kingdom. The earliest record we have of the value of live stock in that country is now about 20 years old. It was then supposed to be worth £21,000,000 sterling. By the last return, if calculated at the same price, it would be now worth nearly £36,000,000 sterling. But that would be a most feeble and imperfect index of the true merits of the case, because the quantity itself has not more perceptibly increased than the quality has improved and the price risen. At a moderate estimate, the value is double what it was. If we take the holdings, the proportion to large and small ones is entirely changed; whereas at the time the Report of the Devon Commission was made the number of holdings under five acres was six times that of holdings above thirty acres. Now, however, the former are much less numerous than the latter. You have sold in the Landed Estates Court 2,000,000 acres of land for £23,000,000—most of it, I am happy to say, Irish money, not money imported from this kingdom—to more than 8,500 owners, who, having purchased it for purposes of improvements, must be taken to have expended a considerable capital on their property. I have no accurate information as to what the wages of agricultural labour were in Ireland in 1841, but if I put them at 6d. a-day I think I shall not be far wrong. At present the general average throughout the four provinces is 1s. 3d. per day. Ten years ago the number of persons evicted in the year was 72,000; last year it was 2,308. Looking at crime of an agricultural character, I find that ten years ago there were 15 agrarian homicides; last year only four. Ten years ago there were 20 cases of firing at the person, attributed to agricultural causes; last year one. Ten years ago there were 87 serious assaults of the same character; last year there were 19; making in the whole 122 agricultural crimes committed ten years ago, against 24 in the year just expired. If we turn to pecuniary results, we find that ten years ago the number of paupers relieved amounted to 2,142,000; last year it was 161,000. Ten years ago the expenditure amounted to 2,199,000; last year to £414,000. It is only right that I should state these facts to the House, because it would be uncandid to claim as the basis of a measure on this subject the statements made by the Devon Commission without also referring to the progress which has since been made. The exist- ence of that progress makes this appear to me a favourable time for legislating upon this important subject. We have greater prosperity among the landlords, the tenants, and the working people of the country, we have a better feeling diffused throughout the country, and we have arrived at a time when it may be hoped that just and equitable measures will meet with acceptance by this House. It is also a time when every report that is made to me shows that you cannot hope to pass this subject by without dealing with it; that coupled with that better feeling there is a sincere and earnest desire to have the law which has been so long in suspense, and to the alteration of which nearly every eminent man in the country has been pledged, settled once for all, so that we may have a definite state of the law under which, by the expenditure of the landlord's capital and the tenant's capital and the workman's labour, the growing prosperity of the country may be further developed. I am sure that every hon. Gentleman from Ireland will bear me witness when I say that, as a rule, the landlord holds under a settlement and the tenant holds without a lease. That is the statement upon which the Devon Commissioners proceeded, and it is to a great extent true at the present time. If that be the case, how can you expect the land to be improved? Whose interest is sufficiently strong to induce him to expend his capital upon its improvement? The owner who holds under a settlement, even if a person of considerable property, has to consider the claims of his younger children, who are not interested in the inheritance, and for whom he desires to secure a provision by means of his savings. The tenant having no lease has no sufficient protection to induce him to expend his capital or his labour. There are, then, three conditions under which you must endeavour to deal with the land if you wish to see it improved. Who is interested in its improvement? Not merely the present owner; indeed, it is almost true to say that he is the person who is least interested in it. Of all persons the reversioner is the most interested, because if he inherits land which bad laws have prevented his predecessors from improving he comes into a poor and impoverished inheritance, instead of a rich and prosperous one. In framing the Bill which we shall submit to the House we have endeavoured to deal with the land of Ireland in three categories; first, land in the hands of the limited owner; secondly, land in the hands of a tenant protected by a lease; and thirdly, land in the hands of a tenant who has no lease. With the permission of the House I will endeavour to explain shortly the provisions by which we propose to attain the object which we have in view. In the same year in which the Devon Commission reported, an important measure was passed having for its object the improvement of land. That Act was applicable to Ireland, and it enabled the limited owner to burden his land by mortgage for the purpose of draining, and to saddle the mortgage upon the estate in certain specified proportions. The machinery by which the Act was to be carried into effect was the Court of Chancery, and I am sorry to say that in Ireland not a single application has been made for the exercise of the powers given by the measure. We have the precedent of that Act, of the Montgomery Act, which has for seventy years been applied to Scotland with the most beneficial results, of the Scotch Settled Estates Act, and of other similar Acts, and we think that the principle of that precedent may properly be applied to limited owners under settlements in Ireland, and may be extended to purposes other than those of drainage. We think that for the purposes of this measure the word "improvements" may fairly include the thorough drainage of the land; the reclaiming and protection of land from tidal and other waters; the reclaiming of bog land; the reclaiming and enclosing waste land; clearing the land of stones; making roads or fences; the erection of farm buildings, houses for stewards, labourers, or other persons employed in superintending the cultivation of, or in cultivating, the land, and other buildings for farm purposes; the renewal and reconstruction of such works, so far as they are not required for maintenance, but for the increase of the permanent value. The mode in which we propose that this shall be accomplished is this. I have stated that the application to the Court of Chancery under the Act of 1845 was found so costly, that not a single petition was filed in that court. We, therefore, think that besides extending the scope of that Act, it is absolutely necessary to find a cheaper and better mode of carrying it into effect. What shall that machinery be? In the first place, I think you will agree with me that it would not be justifiable to create a new machinery, involving new expense, if there be already in existence one sufficient for the purpose. It has in former years been proposed to entrust the administration of this law to the Commissioner of Valuation, so that the valuators, who are spread through the land, might be his agents for carrying it into effect. Constitutional objections were always taken to that course, and I am bound to confess that I think that the officer by whose decision land is to be burdened ought to be a judicial and not an executive officer. It will be necessary, of course, to have the advice of executive officers; but the power of employing experts at present possessed by the Court of Chancery could easily be given to the Court exercising jurisdiction in these matters. We propose that, in the first instance, at least, the chairman of every county should exercise that jurisdiction, and that he should have power to employ experts to enable him to arrive at a sound decision. We think that probably the valuator employed for the public valuation would in most cases be the expert referred to, but we intend to leave the decision with the judicial and not with the executive officer. What we propose, therefore, is that when a limited owner seeks to improve his estate, he shall, through a cheap and simple agency, which is provided by the Bill, give notice to his successor. The Bill provides further that he shall at the expiration of three months from the period of notice being served appear before the chairman of the county and present an estimate of the cost of certain improvements and their nature; that the chairman shall hear the objections of any person who may be interested in the matter and think proper to appear, and, having satisfied himself on the subject by having recourse to the advice of a valuator or expert, give a provisional certificate for the execution of the improvements. We, moreover, propose that the successor and other persons interested in the property shall, during the progress of the works, have the power of ascertaining the bonâ fide character of the improvements and of the expenditure, and that when completed, the sum thus laid out shall be charged by the chairman under what may be called, a charging order as an annuity on the property. This annuity we propose should be the same as that which is given by the Settled Estates (Scotland) Act, £7 2s. for each £100 of the improved value of the property, to last for a period of twenty-five years; but that it shall not exceed one-fifth of the unimproved value of the property. It is, however, obvious that these are questions, of detail on which other opportunities will present themselves of entering more minutely into their consideration. The position of the limited owner will be this—so long as he remains in possession, he will, of course, himself enjoy the value of his improvements. After the termination of his estate, it is provided that the annuity, if he has made the advance, shall go to his executors for so long a period of the twenty-five years as has not expired. I do not, I may add, think that it will be necessary to encumber this arrangement with an appeal, and I therefore have inserted no provision in the Bill with that object; but if the House should be of opinion that the safeguards which I have introduced are not sufficient, they will have an opportunity of discussing the point in Committee. For my own part, I must say that, after the experience of the past, I have not deemed it expedient to encumber the Bill with provisions of that nature which would be likely to prove completely inoperative. When the annuity has been charged, it will be in the power of the limited owner to register it in the Public Registry in Dublin, and it will be a charge on the land bearing priority from its date. The limited owner will, then, under this Bill have much the same power in respect of improvements on his estate as that at present possessed by the owner in fee. The next case to which I would call the attention of the House is that of the tenant who improves under lease, and to this part of the case I think hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will agree with me in attaching the greatest importance. A few years ago the Settled Estates Act gave large powers for amending imperfect settlements by extending to them the usual powers of leasing. But, again, the machinery of that Act was limited to the Court of Chancery, and the applications which were made under it in Ireland were very few. We propose to extend its operation in three ways. In the first place, we propose to create a power of giving special improvement leases for a longer period than ordinary agricultural leases. We propose to include under this provision not only the limited owner in the ordinary sense, but also corporations, lay and ecclesiastical, and the owners of foundation schools, making the law in that respect of general application. However, the improvements which ought to be executed by a tenant are less extensive than those which ought to be executed by a landlord, because they extend only to his particular holding, and not to the whole estate. Therefore, when dealing with the improvements of tenants, we propose to leave out one or two of the heads which are included under that term in that part of the Bill which applies to limited owners. We propose that the tenant under lease should be able to execute such improvements as the draining of the land, the reclaiming of bog, the making of roads and fences on his own farm, the erection of farm houses and other suitable buildings, &c. That which we propose to do with regard to the lease itself is this—at present every limited owner can give an agricultural lease for twenty-one years without the intervention of any court, and we propose to allow corporations to do the same. With respect to improvement leases we propose that they may be granted, with the sanction of the chairman of the county, for a period of forty years. We propose that building leases, which in fact amount to an alienation, may be granted, as they are granted under the Settled Estates (Scotland) Act, and as they are granted under many special Acts referring to Ireland, that they may be granted with the leave of the Landed Estates Court, if they relate to a larger quantity of land than three acres, or to a larger value than £100 a year, and if less, then with the sanction of the chairman of the county. We propose that all these leases shall be subject to three conditions, that they shall give immediate possession, that they shall be granted without fine, and that they shall be subject to certain covenants. There still remains another, and that by no means the least complicated part of the subject. To this part of it my attention was directed in the course of the last Session by the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), who expressed a hope that it would be satisfactorily dealt with in any measure on the subject which the Government might introduce. The case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on the occasion to which I allude was, that in which the owner of property, believing he had a leasing power, gave to his tenant a lease for his life, under which he agreed to improve the estate which he held. The tenant accordingly began to improve the property, and expended with that view a small sum of money. The landlord died, and the tenant went on spending a larger sum on improvements. A dispute, however, soon after arose between himself and the new proprietor of the land. Legal proceedings were taken, and the case was heard before the Master of the Bolls in Ireland, a most distinguished Judge, who, in pronouncing his decision, said that he was compelled to give judgment against the tenant, but that nothing could be more repugnant to the principles of natural justice than that the landlord should look on at a great expenditure year after year without warning the tenant of his intention to turn him out of possession of his farm. He added that he had no jurisdiction to administer equity in its natural sense, or he should have no difficulty as to the judgment which he should pronounce. The case subsequently came before the Lords Justices of Appeal—Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Napier—and they did not express their dissent from the language which the Master of the Rolls had employed. Such was the instance which the hon. Member for Tipperary brought under the notice of the Government, and I trust the provisions of the Bill which I have already sketched out have shown the hon. Gentleman that the landlord will have the power of giving a lease, although his own settlement contains no such power, and, therefore, by an arrangement with his original landlord, the tenant will have the benefit of the protection afforded by the Act. To whatever extent the House may think it right that this Bill ought to provide such protection, to that extent, under the leasing powers of the Bill, the tenant will have protection. There yet remain other provisions, however, which the hon. Gentleman may deem more adequate to effect that object, and in approaching this part of the subject, I desire to state in the first place what it is in connection with it which we cannot accomplish. In the first place, I shall fairly avow that we intend to make no attempt to give what is called retrospective compensation. Our legislation is intended to be entirely prospective. I appeal to those who think that we ought to give retrospective compensation to remember the history of retrospective legislation when other measures have been brought before the House; and last, not least, I ask them to remember what occurred last year, when a deputation of those gentlemen who had taken most interest in this subject wait- ed upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, who was then the leader of this House, requested him to exercise the power of the Government to bring this question to a settlement, and stated to him their views upon the subject of retrospective compensation. They stated in the most distinct and emphatic manner that they did not expect retrospective compensation, and that they desired a sound and reasonable Bill which would give prospective compensation for prospective improvements. When a discussion arose in this House the year before last the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), the last Member not in office who had the conduct of a Bill of this kind, which measure failed to obtain the sanction of the House, in stating the reasons which caused his failure, used the expressions to which I shall now appeal as a sufficient explanation why those who, like himself, have exerted themselves to the utmost of their power to obtain what they believed to be right and just for the tenants of Ireland should not refuse to accept that which is practicable because they cannot obtain that which experience has shown the two Houses of Parliament will not grant. "The Bill," said the hon. Gentleman, "which I brought in was rejected by an overwhelming majority—a majority of something like three to one. Why did I fail? Because my measure contained what is known as the retrospective principle with regard to compensation for improvements." Then, he asked, were he and his friends to continue to press on a measure which they knew must result in failure and disappointment? and he said, most justly and emphatically, "If we had done so, we should have deserved the scorn of this House and the contempt of our countrymen. Instead of doing this, instead of demanding something which we knew we could not get, my friends and myself have resolved to do something practical." I entirely appreciate the wisdom of those observations. The object which I have in view is to bring in a Bill which, if it does not obtain popularity and satisfy all expectations, may at any rate do some practical good and pass into law, and therefore I frankly state at once that I have no intention of dealing with the question of retrospective compensation. Are we, then, to sanction prospective improvements without permitting the landlord to have any voice or any opinion as to the effect of those improve ments upon his land? I shall not debate now the justice or injustice of the question, but I think it is absolutely necessary for the success of any measure that we should not interfere with the power of the landlord in that matter, and that we should reserve to him the right of objecting to improvements if he does not think they will benefit his estate. If, then, we cannot violate the law of property—if we cannot give what is called fixity of tenure, by which I understand the transferring the property from the landlord to the tenant—is there nothing we can do? I think we have it in our power to accomplish a great and most important practical result. I think we have it in our power to give to an improving tenant that which is of value to him—the certainty of compensation. I think we can put him beyond the risk and hazard of being left in the position of the plaintiff in the case that came before the Master of the Rolls. I think we can insure to him a cheap, simple, and certain mechanism by which, if he chooses to execute improvements, he will be quite certain that the result of those improvements will return into his own bosom. That is the object I have in view, that is the object which I trust we shall be able to attain. Can we give compensation in the shape of a capital payment? I think it is impossible to give it by a capital payment. I have told you that the general rule in Ireland is that a landlord holds under a settlement. If a landlord holds under a settlement, and if the period of his settlement may shortly expire, how can you enable the tenant to improve, and then saddle the whole cost of the improvements upon the landlord who has only a limited interest in the land? I think it is impossible you can do that, but you can give an improving tenant the certainty of compensation, and you can give it him in that same form of an annuity by which you have already provided it for an improving landlord. In order to carry this plan into execution, we propose that when a tenant seeks to improve he shall serve upon his landlord a notice of his intention. I ought, perhaps, to say, with regard to this notice, that we intend to have forms of notice printed and sold at a small price, so that an improving tenant shall not be subject to any legal expense that might be otherwise incurred. We propose, then, that he shall serve a notice upon his landlord or upon the agent who receives the rent of the land. If the landlord disapprove the improvement, he will have the power to terminate the tenancy. We believe that this will practically lead, not to a termination of the tenancy, which would be a great mischief, but to a written agreement between the parties as to the terms on which the holding shall be continued. I believe hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland will agree with me when I say that one of the most desirable results which could arise in that country would be obtained by the introduction of business-like written engagements between landlord and tenant with respect to the occupancy and improvement of land. I believe that the effect of this provision will be whenever the landlord disapproves, not that he will evict the tenant, but that he will enter into a written agreement with him for the improvement of the land; but supposing the landlord to take no step, then he will be held to have acquiesced, and the tenant will execute the improvements contained in his notice. He will then go before the chairman of the county to prove the value and extent of the improvements, whereupon he will obtain a provisional certificate, which certificate will give him an annuity calculated at 5 per cent upon every £100 expended in the improvements, or £7 2s. for 25 years. If he be evicted by his landlord, he will go before the chairman and obtain a charging order, accounting for his arrears of rent, and that charging order, transferable and saleable, will be duly confirmed and registered, and will be binding on all to whom the land may come. It is obvious that the hardship denounced in such strong and forcible language by the Master of the Rolls cannot arise if this arrangement be carried into effect. As I said before, it will not satisfy the expectations of those who want retrospective compensation, of those who think that the landlord should have no voice in the improvement of his property, of those who desire to have fixity of tenure. I frankly acknowledge that I cannot hope to satisfy those expectations, but I can appeal to the gentlemen who entertain them whether, after the evidence they have had of the certain failure of every measure which contained such provisions, they would consider it an honest act on the part of the Government to propose another Bill of the same kind, or whether they would care to commit themselves to an obstinate adherence to an impracticable and unattainable measure. I ask them not to reject measures which will set free the land of Ireland for extensive, but, at the same time, just, equitable and beneficial improvements, because they cannot obtain that to which they attach importance, but which they know well the two Houses of Parliament will never grant. I can make a further appeal to them. If they think that I have been too timid in not venturing to adopt plans which I believe would not receive the sanction of Parliament, they will have an opportunity when we go into Committee of taking the sense of the House upon those plans, and of regulating their conduct according to the event. The measure which I have explained to the House, whatever may be its shortcomings, will set free the land in the hands of limited owners, and will enable those owners, whether they be sole owners, or corporations, trustees of schools, or clergymen, to give improvement leases; and I say that whoever succeeds in carrying a measure which shall settle the law upon this subject will confer a great benefit upon Ireland. If the measure is not of an aspiring character, I hope on that account it will commend itself to the candid consideration of the House. Surely there have been difficulties enough during the twenty-five years we have been dealing with the subject, and it is time we obtained for the people of Ireland some degree of improvement. The Encumbered Estates Act has conferred a signal benefit on Ireland in regard to land which has passed into the hands of new proprietors; let us by mutual co-operation try to arrive at some measure that will benefit that larger portion of the soil of Ireland, which, I trust, will descend to remote generations in the hands of its present possessors.

said, he could not concur in thinking that Ireland was so extremely prosperous as had been represented. The statistics of the two periods could not fairly be compared. Ten years ago Ireland was only coming out of on appalling famine, from which even now she was only recovering. Neither was he so sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be as to the good results of the measure. In the first place, a large portion of the Bill was only an enabling Bill to put landlords in a position to raise money at 7½ per cent upon an annuity which was to last for twenty-five years, and which was calculated at 7½ per cent. [Mr. CARDWELL: I believe it is calculated at an annuity of 5 per cent.] But the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to tell who was to lend the money; and that brought him to the most important part of the question, namely, who in Ireland possessed capital to lay out in improvements on the land? He believed that the farmers were the only class that possessed capital to lay out on such improvements; and, if so, any measure to be effective must be such as to induce those who had capital to lay it out in that way. But that could not be done without giving them some security for its investment. Now laws of this kind were not made between the good landlord and his tenant, but between the bad landlord and his tenant; and how did the right hon. Gentleman purpose to deal with the two? In ordinary circumstances it would be bad enough for a man who would not allow his tenant to improve, to eject him; but instead of that, down came Cardwell's Act to do it for him. The law would be known in Ireland as Cardwell's Act. He could not see how it could have anything but the worst effect—it was giving the sanction of an Act of Parliament to the ejectment of an improving tenant. It would be better to allow the present state of things to exist than to attempt to interfere by such, legislative quackery. The fright hon. Gentleman was afraid to deal boldly with the question, and he attempted to deal with it in this insufficient manner. The Bill would do no good, but might, he feared, do much harm.

said, as one of the deputation which had been alluded to, he did not abandon or repudiate the principle of retrospective compensation; but merely stated that he would not obstruct a measure which had other good points, because it did not contain that one. He did not quite understand that part of the measure by which it appeared that if the landlord and tenant did not agree as to the improvements the tenancy was to cease. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the prosperity of Ireland; he did not think that prosperity rested on a very sound basis; it was caused by the diminution of the population. The extension of farms was brought about by a process of wholesale eviction, which in Ireland was not considered a great sign of prosperity. The first part of the Bill he could not understand; the second part referred to occupiers who had no leases, and it could not do said that the measure was likely to better their condition. The Government was dealing with Ireland like a doctor with a hypochrondriac patient; feeling that it must do something, it prescribed bread pills.

said, he was disposed to take a more favourable view of the Bill than the noble Lord or the hon. Member who had just spoken. It embodied three main principles; two of them could easily be carried out; with the third there might be some difficulty. The principle of enabling a person having a limited ownership of land to improve it, and charge a portion of the expense on his successor, who would reap the benefit of the improvement, was a sound principle. It was adopted nearly eighty years ago in Scotland under the Montgomery Act, which enabled the owners of entailed estates to improve the land and charge a limited portion of the outlay on the successor; but the charge was made in a gross sum—not as an annuity, and the amount was regulated by the annual rental of the estate. He thought that principle wise and beneficial. Then there was another principle, recognized from the earliest period as one of the justest and most humane, embodied in the Bill; he alluded to the proposal of allowing limited owners to give secure tenures to the tenants. There were at least fifty Acts providing leasing powers in Ireland, and five of them had been passed within the last three years. They were all, however, insufficient, but the right hon. Gentleman had got through the difficulty by proposing a uniform leasing power, which all might take advantage of. With regard to the third portion of the Bill, providing machinery by which tenants from year to year might be permitted to expend their capital for the improvement of the estate, he could not go along with the right hon. Gentleman. He listened to the explanation of that part of the measure with attention, for he knew there lay the difficulty, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had provided much, or, indeed, any remedy. Any provision for the purpose was liable to the objection of converting a temporary tenure, such as that of tenant from year to year, into a settlement, and that was an infringement of the law of property. The difficulty of legislating on this point was great, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had mastered it; and, therefore, from this portion of the Bill he must withhold all praise. The right hon. Gentleman might have introduced a useful provision, for which there were precedents in Ireland, conferring on tenants who hold by leases power to improve their lands.

said, he could assure the House that no one had listened with greater anxiety and deeper attention to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman than he had done. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman in no cynical or captious spirit, and with no desire that the statement he made should be unsatisfactory to the country which he officially represented. On the contrary, he was anxious that the question should be finally and satisfactorily settled, that all legislation on the subject should end with the end of the present Session, and that, if possible, the name of tenant-right should never again be heard in that House. But, however much he admired two portions of the Bill, there was one part which might be considered its weak point, and on which his noble Friend (Lord Fermoy) only gave expression to the feeling of disappointment and pain which every Irish Member felt. He agreed with his noble Friend, that if the right hon. Gentleman did not amend and greatly alter that portion of the Bill, and the most vicious machinery which had been sketched out, his name would be associated in Ireland with evictions in every part of the country. That was surely not an object which the right hon. Gentleman, who was benevolently inclined, and was anxious to associate his name with the prosperity of Ireland, could have had in view. Irish Members were struck with astonishment when they heard that if a tenant from year to year wished to improve his land, and his landlord did not think the improvement would be beneficial, or objected to it from any motive—of folly, or viciousness, or a grudging disposition—the unfortunate man, whose spirit of industry and enterprise had induced him to make the offer, was to be victimized in consequence of his having possessed the very virtues which the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to instil into his mind. With every feeling of respect and friendliness towards the right hon. Gentleman, he could not help saying that a more vicious suggestion for the landlord, or a more fatal result for the tenant, could not by any possibility be imagined. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the fact that most of the land in Ireland was held from year to year. That was a fact quite notorious to every one; indeed, he might challenge any Irish Gentleman to say, whether five-sixths of the land occupied by tenants was not held from year to year. Although the landlord might not disturb the tenant, and although in the instances of honourable, and fair, and kind landlords, the tenancy might be as good as a lease, still the fact remained, that the vast majority of tenants held only from year to year. Who then were to improve the condition of Ireland? In whose hands was the soil—on whose energy and industry must the Country depend? Just those very tenants from year to year. If they had not energy and industry, all legislation would be abortive, and the most benevolently inclined Minister and the most anxious Parliament could do nothing in the matter. How then could such men ever be induced to exert the qualities upon which so much depended, if a poor, struggling, industrious man, the moment he asked permission to improve his land, might be turned upon the roadside by some churlish, ill-conditioned, or vicious landlord? It might be said that such landlords would not be often met with; but had the House contemplated how one single act of such cruelty and folly might extinguish for a generation every impulse to improvement in the district where it was committed? If the right hon. Gentleman wanted a precedent for a practical and judicious measure, he might have found it in a Bill prepared by a former distinguished Member of that House—a late Lord Chancellor of Ireland. By that measure a tenant might improve even in spite of his landlord, and might claim compensation—not indeed for useless or extravagant outlay—not for the building of a pagoda or a piece of Gothic ornamental structure—but for improvements which were proved to be suitable, practicably valuable, and for the benefit of the land. He was most anxious, as he was sure his hon. Friends were, to give the Government every assistance in carrying through the Bill; but he believed in his heart and soul they would be deserting their country, and sowing the seeds of future evil, if they sanctioned at least that portion of its provisions. He, therefore, earnestly appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that clause of the Bill, which was not only vicious but ab- surd; and which, while effecting no single object the right hon. Gentleman desired to effect, would inevitably operate as an encouragement and source of evictions in Ireland.

said, there was one portion of the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cardwell) that was extremely important as regarded hon. Gentlemen not connected with Ireland. He laid down in the clearest manner why it was rendered necessary to have a different system of legislation between landlord and tenant from that which obtained in England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman showed that in Ireland those improvements which were considered to be landlords' improvements in England were made either not at all or were made by the tenant. The one test they had to apply to the Bill of his right hon. Friend was, whether the Bill met that difficulty or not. He (Mr. Monsell) agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Mallow (Mr. Longfield), that the two first features of the Bill were founded upon sound principles; but he could not agree that they were likely to produce very important results, and he would tell the House his reason. There existed at the present moment, or within the last year, a system in Ireland, by which landlords, whether with entailed estates or not, might proceed to the Board of works and borrow money upon much more advantageous terms, namely, at 3½ per cent, the repayment of the whole money to be at 6½ per cent for twenty-two years, by which drainage and also farm buildings were enabled to be executed. Though he agreed with the principle, he was afraid that part of the measure was not likely to produce very important results. The real question of importance in the Bill was the way in which it affected that great mass of people who in Ireland were tenants-at-will. Unless they exerted themselves to induce that class to spend the capital they had been accumulating for the last three or four years upon their land, that land would not be improved. He asked any Gentleman who had listened to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, whether this measure was likely to produce the desired result, of encouraging those tenants to spend their money upon the improvement of the land. Let them consider what the process was to be. The tenant was to serve a notice upon the landlord that he wished to make such and such improvements, and if the landlord refused to give his assent to those improvements, a compulsory eviction might take place. Under such circumstances, was it possible to imagine that a tenant would go to his landlord and say to him he wished to make such and such improvements, when he knew that if the landlord refused to allow him to make those improvements, he might be immediately turned out of the farm? He really hoped that he did not understand the measure as it had been explained, but, if he did understand it, it seemed to him calculated to make things infinitely worse than they were at present. He did not think this measure would give satisfaction to the people of Ireland.

said, it was impossible to discuss a measure of this kind without seeing the Bill, because a great deal of its value would depend upon the machinery toy which it was to be worked. There was a great deal of this measure that he for one could not assent to. He was not content that the chairman of the county, without appeal, should have the large powers given to him as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. As to the power of granting leases, that had been proposed over and over again; but now they had chiefly to deal with the tenants from year to year. There was much difficulty in dealing with that question, no doubt. In the province of Ulster the great bulk of the population were tenants from year to year; and he had no hesitation in saying that if the clause of the Bill, as he understood it, referring to tenants at will should be made applicable to that province a flame of discontent would rise from one end of the country to the other. He was anxious to protect the rights of property; but he, for one, could never give his consent to that clause. A landlord, no doubt, ought to have the opportunity of exercising his judgment, but in this Bill it was proposed, as he collected, to enforce by the landlord eviction against a tenant civilly asking permission to make improvements. [Cries of "No ! "] He had certainly so understood, and if he had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's intention it was not his fault. Was the landlord to have the power of saying to his tenant, "For your audacity, Sir, in making this application to me, go about your business?" The fact was that the necessity for legislation on this subject every day diminished. Tenants were far more prosperous now than they were some years ago, and it was well that this was the case. He would not say in what part of Ireland he was a short time ago when he had a conversation with a banker, and asked him what was the state of the farmers in his neighbourhood? The reply was, "I cash bills now for £100 for men for whom seven years ago I would not have cashed a bill for £10." The true interest of the landlord was to encourage the tenant, and not to try to squeeze the last farthing out of him. By the custom of the country tenancies in the North of Ireland were mostly from year to year; but it was a mistake to suppose that the landlords generally got high rents. The rents were moderate, but the landlords always got them. That was, nearly always. He recollected an extensive landowner in Ulster telling him, that during the famine year he got all his rent, minus £100. Believing the worst legislation to be that which was calculated to produce quarrels between landlords and tenants, he could not give his assent to this part of the Bill; but he would willingly lend assistance towards improving its machinery, so far as it related to leasing powers. The worst legislation they could have was that which would tend to produce quarrels between landlords and tenants; but if the Government proposed to enlarge leasing powers such enactments should have his best support.

said, he rose to remove a misapprehension which appeared to have arisen in the minds of the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Fermoy) and other hon. Gentlemen as to the intentions of the Government. It was assumed that the Bill gave increased facilities for eviction. Nothing was more contrary to the real provisions of the Bill or the spirit of its framers. All that was intended was that the landlord should have a veto on the improvements, that he should be enabled to exercise his judgment whether they were calculated to improve the land, before he was bound to pay compensation for them. If he did not think they ought to be carried out the tenant was warned, and must proceed with them at his own risk. The result, they hoped, would be some written arrangement between them, by which both parties would understand their relative position, and the tenant would be enabled to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Bill to acquire a term from which neither the remainderman nor the encum- brancer could disturb him. The class of tenancies to which the operation of the Bill was confined was that of tenants from year to year, for considerable difficulty would be experienced in dealing with those in which the leases constituted regular contracts between the landlord and tenant. The Bill proposed by the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland had never, he might remark, obtained the assent of Parliament, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had felt bound to withdraw from the responsibility of having originated it. In 1855, when a Bill was proposed Tinder the auspices of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, containing provisions with regard to improvements executed by tenants holding under lease, they had been strongly opposed by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. George), and it was only by the utmost exertions of the Government, and by a very narrow majority, that the clause had been retained in the Bill.

said, he would not enter into a discussion of the measure, but simply say that he entirely concurred in all the objections which had been taken to the Bill, which did not remedy any of the grievances complained of by the people of Ireland. He advised the Government to withdraw it with a good grace, and to bring forward some measure more adapted to the requirements of that country.

said, he wished to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had shown an anxious desire to render his term of office beneficial to the people of Ireland, would cause such modifications to be introduced into the Bill as would fulfil their reasonable expectations. He was not as much in love with the landlords of Ulster as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), for the records of the House would show that of the atrocities perpetrated by the landlords of Ireland—which was saying a good deal—the most striking were performed by that very class.

said, that without entering into the details of the Bill he wished to state that he believed it to be free from several of the prominent objections which had been urged with regard to former measures on the same subject, and there were no indications whatever of a desire to give to the measure a retrospective tendency, which he should have felt it his duty most strongly to oppose. He did not agree with some hon. Gentlemen in thinking that an additional power of eviction would be given; the privilege of the landlord was neither accelerated by the circumstance of the veto, nor, on the other hand, was the power of evicting tenants at will, after the ordinary six months' notice, interfered with.

remarked that he cordially agreed in all that every Irish Member had urged in condemnation of the measure, and would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

said, he spoke with reluctance in reference to an Irish measure, but the Bill involved principles which were not applicable peculiarly to Ireland. The time was rapidly approaching when the condition of Ireland would be equal, if not superior, to that of England; and he saw no reason, therefore, why any distinction should exist between the legislation in the two countries on these subjects. Consequently, if the measure were proposed to be extended to England he should not entertain those objections to it which had been expressed by Irish Members. There could be no more reasonable principle than that the landlord, with the concurrence of the tenant, should be enabled to improve the land, and charge the cost of the improvement on the land so as to bind his successor. In England a somewhat similar principle existed in reference to parsonage houses, the rate of interest being so arranged that it did not press with any severity on the person by whom the money was borrowed, but left him with an improved estate, and a gradually diminishing scale of payments. That seemed to him to be a sound principle. He did not think, however, that it would have much operation in Ireland, as landlords already had power to borrow money for improving their estates. By the Settled Estates Act, it was provided, that with the consent of the Court of Chancery, certain provisions might be inserted in settlements which had been omitted by their settlors. This was a matter of the greatest importance, and one hon. Member had asked where was the money to come from? Well, there were many persons who might be willing to lend the money. The landlord, himself, might not desire to put his own money into an estate which might go after him to his own child or to some other person. [Laughter.] He repeated the landlord might not like to lend the money unless he saw that his return was secure. Taking that view of the question and noticing the great assimilation which was growing up between England and Ireland he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he should not cease to treat this measure as an Irish Bill, but extend its provisions to England, so as to make it an Imperial question. He was glad to learn, however, that the impression which be had certainly gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's statement was incorrect—namely, that if a tenant from year to year served notice upon his landlord of a desire to make improvements, and the landlord did not accede, that was to be equivalent to a notice to quit.

said, that he was afraid that he had been the cause of some misunderstanding from a desire of being perfectly candid with those hon. Gentlemen who were advocates of tenant right. He wished distinctly to express that the veto with regard to the expense of repairs was to be left with the landlord. It gave no encouragement to evictions, but in the belief of the Government would lead to a more general system of written agreements between landlord and tenant. They wished to avoid the possibility of the landlord lying by appearing to acquiesce in the tenant's improvements, and then turning round and evicting the tenant, and taking advantage of his labour and capital. With regard to the other points of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) was quite mistaken in supposing that the powers intended to be conferred by the Bill already existed in Ireland. All that existed was a loan, which was nearly all exhausted. With regard to another point, it was the fact that leasing powers did not exist in Ireland. He begged further to say that it was open to any hon. Gentleman to bring forward any plan which he might deem feasible, and see whether it would be favourably accepted by the House or not.

said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland, and to express a hope that he might be allowed to defer any exposition of the measure until a future stage.

inquired what was the consolidation intended by the Bill.

said, that he could not state the objects of the Bill without entering into minute explanations of a legal character which the House, he believed, would not at that hour be disposed to hear, and he might add that the hon. and gallant Member would not be the wiser if he (the Attorney General for Ireland) were to make such a statement.

said, he thought that was not a fitting answer for the hon. and learned Gentlemen to give to the question which had been put to him. No doubt an explanation would take some time, but a law that touched every acre of land in Ireland, and affected all the relations of landlord and tenant, required a short exposition, and if the right hon. Gentleman asked the indulgence of the House to defer that exposition he ought to have refrained from the use of any language which could be considered of a personally offensive character.

disclaimed the slightest intention of giving any offence to his hon. and gallant Friend. He had merely meant to say that he could not explain the provisions of the Bill without entering into details of a legal character, which he feared that he could not at that moment make intelligible to a gentleman who was not himself a lawyer.

said, he really had not heard what was the answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given to his question. If the Bill had reference to the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland he believed he understood the subject better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. Leave given.

said, he also wished to move for leave to introduce another Bill upon the same subject, and to follow the example of the Attorney General for Ireland, and abstain from entering upon any explanation at present.

said, he wished to postpone the Committee till Monday.

said, an impression prevailed in the House that this Bill would not be proceeded with until after Easter. He hoped the doubt would be cleared up by the right hon Gentleman.

said, if the hon. Baronet said there was a doubt, no doubt there was a doubt; but he had no idea that there was a doubt, at any rate there was no doubt upon his mind.

said, it was hardly fair at that hour (ten minutes to 1 o'clock) to ask him to proceed with his Amendment. The statement which he had to make might lead to a discussion. This was an important measure, and it had not been sufficiently debated in that House, for it was brought in without much discussion, and it had been so hurried through the House that only one Irish Member had had an opportunity of speaking upon it. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought not to force the Bill on at that hour. He should move the adjournment of the House.

said, he was sorry to put the gallant Gentleman to any inconvenience, but he thought he bad done everything in his power to afford facilities for a discussion of the Bill. With that view he had proposed a morning sitting, and in the early part of the evening he had vainly sought permission to bring the measure under consideration. A great part of the evening had been spent in discussing unopposed Motions, and much time also in discussing Motions in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as an Irish Member, must feel an interest. It was quite a mistake to suppose that money bills of that kind were usually required to be brought on at 5 o'clock; on the contrary, it was extremely unusual to raise so many discussions upon them in their later stages. But this was not the last stage of the Bill; it would be read a third time next day (Friday) as the first order of the day, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would make his statement on that occasion.

On the third reading I could propose no Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be perfectly free to move the re-committal of the Bill when I propose the third reading.

said, he thought the time had come when there should be some definite understanding as to what the House had to do before it separated, for they were getting into great embarrassment. He felt the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed. In the Budget most important changes in every department of finance were propounded, and the subsequent discussions had not been commensurate with the principles at stake. While recognizing the duty of the House to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer every assistance for a full discussion of his measures, in order, if ap- proved, that they might be passed at the earliest possible period, he could not help observing that the right hon. Gentleman's course of proceeding had been embarrassed by the kindly competition for public approbation which was being waged by him and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the one pressing forward measures relating to the finances of the country; the other, a Bill for a reform of its constitution. It was impossible the House could go on discussing those questions and others in the way they were now doing, passing in one day from serious drama to light farce and back again. It was desirable that the House should resume the discussion of what some called the unimportant question of the Reform Bill. He did not think it was unimportant, though the more it was discussed the less it seemed to be liked. But the noble Lord was not more fortunate than the late Government in that respect. He had produced a Bill which seemed rather to excite ridicule than serious discussion. Shortly after the India BH1 of the late Government was brought forward the noble Lord suggested that, instead of continuing a useless discussion of a measure which gave satisfaction to no one, the Government should withdraw it, and that the House should then proceed to deal with the subject by way of Resolution. If that was thought to be an excellent mode of framing a constitution for India, the House might proceed in the same way in framing one for England. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance his Bill a stage pro formâ, on the condition that a day should be set apart for the discussion of the whole question.

said, he hoped to hear from the Government a distinct statement as to what was to be done that day (Friday). The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just told them that the first business would be the income tax, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had previously stated that the first business would be the Reform Bill. It was desirable that they should know which version was correct.

said, he wished to know whether, on the third reading of the Bill, they would be permitted to move Amendments? ["No, no ! "] Then he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he did not see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain by pressing on his Bill at that hour, if it was to be recommitted in the evening.

said, he would not agree to the recommittal.

said, the House now knew the nature of the proposal made to them. He thought, on the whole, it would be best to take a division at once on the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Dunne).

remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the hon. and gallant Gentleman might move the recommittal of the Bill; but he never said he would agree to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would have an equally good opportunity of taking the sense of the House on his Amendment that evening at 5 o'clock, if he consented to the proposal of his right hon. Friend, as he would have if he brought it on at that moment. Of course they were quite ready to take up the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member at once, if he desired it.

said, he thought that, considering the concessions the House had already made in regard to this Bill, and also the growing feeling in the country that the possible decision on the Paper duty, and the alterations in the Army Estimates, might affect the question of the income tax, it was not right to press the Bill upon them then. He hoped that if Government did not give way, the House would divide on the Motion for adjournment.

said, his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) appeared to think he was so entirely blind to the duties of his office, that, after making a step forward that morning, he would be quite willing to take a step backward in the evening. All he said was, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman might test the feeling of the House as well on the Motion for rocommital as at that moment.

said, so much confusion had crept into the conduct of business in the House, that he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would be adhered to.

observed, he was surprised the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had sat down without answering the question addressed to him, whether they were that evening to go on first with the Income tax or the Reform Bill.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated clearly that the income tax would be taken as the first Order of the Day that evening.

asked whether, after the Income tax was disposed of, they were to go on with the Reform Bill?

urged the noble Lord to postpone the Reform Bill.

said, unquestionably it was the intention of the Government to go on with the Reform Bill that night, if the other business should be disposed of in proper time to allow it.

said, he wished to know what the noble Viscount meant by proper time?

said, he wished to state that he only pressed this Bill as a matter of public convenience—

said, he rose to order. The right hon. Gentleman had already spoken on the question before the House.

said, it was not unusual to allow a Minister to explain under similar circumstances.

said, that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to stop at Clause 16, so as to allow him the opportunity of moving, on another occasion, the omission of Clause 17, he should move that the Chairman report progress.

said, that unless the Bill passed through Committee to-night it could not go through the other House before the recess, and the public in that case would lose £1,000 a day by the postponement.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make the next stage of the Bill the second Order of the Day to-morrow, so as to give him an opportunity of making his Motion.

assented to this arrangement.

said, he wished to direct attention to a point which he declared to be practically inconvenient and even absurd. To enact that a broker was not to recover his brokerage unless the delivery order was stamped, he maintained to be a most extraordinary proposition. If he understood the clause, which was very enigmatically drawn, that was its meaning.

said, the only operation of the clause would be in the case of contract notes of brokers on the Stock Exchange.

defended the clause, and urged that its meaning could not bear two interpretations. That which the hon. Member for London had mentioned was the correct interpretation.

said, he did not think the clause could possibly bear that meaning.

objected to that provision.

said, he would consider the matter, and state his decision on bringing up the Report.