said, he wished to auk the President of the Board of Trade, When it is probable that the works at Portpatrick Harbour, now being carried out under direction of the Government, will be completed; and, in the event of much further delay occurring in the completion of the works, whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety of having the Mails conveyed to and from the North of Ireland viâ Stranraer and Larne?

, in reply, said, the works at Portpatrick Harbour were in progress, but from what he had heard it was not probable that they would be completed during the present year. The entrance to the floating dock would be ready in about six weeks, and a large portion of the channel would be deepened in the course of three or four months. With regard to the second question of the hon. Member, he had to state that the proposal for a temporary mail service between Stranraer and Larne, during the construction of the works at Portpatrick, had been considered, but it had not been thought advisable by the authorities to adopt that arrangement.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware by whom Mr. Rawlinson's Report on the Bradford Reservoirs was last week given to the Bradford Corporation and the local press, when it has not yet been printed and delivered to Members of the House of Commons?

, in reply, said, he was not aware by what authority the Report had been given to the Bradford Corporation or the local press. The reason why it had not yet been presented to Parliament was that it was to be accompanied with plans, which it would take some time to complete.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Member for Tyrone, When the last Report of the Patriotic Fund Commission will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, in reply, that the Reports of the Patriotic Fund Commission were presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, and therefore it did not come within his province to lay them upon the table of the House. The last Report was forwarded to the Secretary of State for War. It had, he believed, been laid before Her Majesty on the 26th of October last, and he was not aware why it was not produced at the commencement of the Session.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is not aware that the Prussians do not pay for the supplies they exact in Jutland in money, but only by acknowledgments of the amounts in question, which amounts they intend to reckon up against the Danish Government on a future occasion, under the pretence of claims for the expenses of the war, or other demands; and whether the British Government will allow such a departure from one of the leading conditions of the armistice to which they were parties?

From recent accounts, Sir, which we have received, it appears that at present the German troops in Schleswig and Jutland are sup plied by contributions or supplies afforded to them, not by the people of the country but by contracts made at Hamburg for the Austrian and Prussian troops. An endeavour was made to get a contract from the people of the country, but the price asked was more than that at which the contract could be made at Hamburg. Orders have also been issued by the Prussian Government that all contributions, either in money or in kind, which have been levied after the 12th of the month, the day on which the armistice commenced, shall be restored and returned to the persons from whom they were levied.

, who had presented Petitions from Sir George C. Whitlock, K.C.B., and Major Generals; E. Apthorp, E. Holt. W. Reece, and E, Miller, for Distribution of the Banda and Kirwee Booty, as recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission on Army Prize, proceeded to move an humble Addrees to Her Majesty thereon. The petitioners whose petitions he had presented to the House stated that the Royal Commission on Army Prize had recommended a distribution on the principle of actual capture; and they asked, should there be any; dispute as to the troops entitled upon that principle to have the matter referred to some competent judicial tribunal? The petition concluded by praying that before the matter was concluded the House would interfere by praying Her Majesty to take steps to have the matter submitted to a fair and legal arbitration. That was the object at which his Motion pointed. He felt that he had a difficult task to perform, for the papers were voluminous and the case was complicated. He was anxious, at the beginning, to point out to the House the importance of the subject. It was not a question between one officer and another, or one force arid another, but it lay at the root of the whole subject of army prize. Last Session, as the House would recollect, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford shire (Colonel North), an address to the Crown was unanimously agreed to, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the whole subject of army prize. That Commission was appointed, and its Report had been laid before Parliament. The Commissioners entirely confirmed the statements of his hon. and gallant Friend, in making the Motion, as to the great delay and consequent inconvenience in the distribution of prize money, and they said that that delay had often been such as to deprive the bounty of the Crown of its grace, and to create an impression that good faith bad not been kept. The Commissioners I had divided the causes of delay into three — the delay in the realization of the booty, the delay in fixing the principles on which it was to be distributed, and lastly, the delay in the actual distribution, and they had proposed a scheme by which these delays might be avoided, the cardinal point of which was that there should be some certainty as to the principles on which prize should be distributed. It was to the introduction of that principle of certainty that his present Motion pointed. It was a Motion in effect asking the Crown to restrict its prerogative. Of course he knew perfectly well, and he wished the Government to understand that it was admitted, that the prerogative of the Crown in the matter was absolute. There was no claim of right set up on the part of any person in the matter of army prize. Her Majesty might do what she pleased with any booty. She might build a palace with it, or she might give it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear off the debt, but in practice Her Majesty and her predecessors had for a very long time exercised their prerogative by giving up booty to the troops who had captured it. Naval prize had formerly stood in the same position as army prize now stood in; but within the last century a system of distribution according to rule had been established, and a code built up by the decisions of the Court of Admiralty, by which naval prize was now distributed to the general satisfaction of the service. In the case of army prize the prerogative of the Crown bad never been restricted in such a manner, but the Crown had always waited until after the booty was taken, and then had considered on what principles it should be distributed; and though the principles and precedents of naval prize were applicable to army prize, it was only to a certain extent, and the Treasury, which was the deciding body, had been obliged to refer to law officers, to distinguished military authorities and others, thus causing great delay. The Commission had drawn up a scheme by which the system of distributing army prize might be placed on a sound footing, and it was for the House now to consider whether, having asked the House for a Commission, it would go on to ask that the principles laid down by that Commission should be carried into effect and applied to this particular case, which he thought would be found to be a leading case. With regard to this case, he had taken it up without having any interest on either side, but simply because it involved a general principle which it was very desirable for the sake of the army at large to settle as soon as possible. At the time he took it up he was not aware that he had a single friend who had any interest in it. It was only lately that he had learnt he had two or three friends in India who were interested in the matter, but they had made no communications to him on the subject, and it was not at their instigation that he was proceeding with it. The reason why the parties had come to him was, he presumed, because he had formerly for a short time been connected with the Department which was supreme in these questions. Having said thus much, he should briefly state the facts on which his Motion was based. When Lord Clyde went out to India in the autumn of 1857 he found the mutiny had not drawn to a head at any one point; but that insurrection was springing up in various parts of Central India under different chiefs. There was not only Lucknow to be relieved, and Oude and Rohilcund to be pacified, but there was the vast territory between the Nerbudda on the south and the Jumna on the north with a number of independent leaders who were making war against British rule, and whom it was necessary to reduce to obedience. In order to accomplish these objects and to restore order everywhere, Lord Clyde saw it was expedient that an organized plan should be adopted, and he devised, in conjunction with the Government of India, a system of detached columns, which were to advance through Central India, clear it from the enemy in all directions, and ultimately to meet his own army in the North. Before, however, that scheme had been decided upon between Lord Clyde and the Supreme Government, the Presidency of Madras had organized a similar movement, and had collected a force for service in Central India which was placed under the command of Sir George Whitlock. That being so, Lord Clyde took advantage of the column under General Whitlock's command, while he arranged that there should also be a column from Bombay under Sir Hugh Rose, and in conjunction with those two a third under General Roberts, each of which was to have its own line of action and to sweep the country of what might be called Central India to the Jumna, where they were all to put themselves into communication with the army of Lord Clyde. In pursuance of that arrangement Sir George Whitlock advanced from Madras in independent command of his own force. He encountered on his march the troops of the Nawab of Banda, and defeated them in an engagement which Lord Clyde had characterized as taking rank among the best actions of the war. The result was that the Nawab's army was dispersed, and that the Rajah of Kirwee, his relative and neighbour, became so terrified at the result that he entered into communications with the British authorities with the view of surrendering his town. Finding, however, that Sir George Whitlock, owing to the condition of his force, was not pressing on him so rapidly as he expected, he took courage, abandoned his intention of submission, and prepared to defend his territory. In the meantime Sir Hugh Rose had been carrying on that splendid campaign which filled everybody with admiration in Central India. In the course of his operations, he had been on more than one occasion in correspondence with Sir George Whitlock. He was engaged in the siege of Jhansi, and other operations, and at the time of the defeat of the Nawab of Banda it appeared probable that the two forces would be brought into communication for the purpose of attacking Calpi. Sir George Whitlock had offered to join Sir Hugh Rose for that purpose, but the town was taken before the cooperation could take place. Sir George Whitlock then pursued the line laid out for him. He marched to Kirwee, the Rajah of which gave way, and took possession of the town, in which he left a portion of his force, the troops of the Rajah having retired to the mountains. When, however, it was found that Sir George Whitlock was absent from the town, and that there was in it only a small number of British, the Rajah made an attempt to retake the place, but Sir George Whitlock came under the pressure of the most severe weather rapidly to its relief, and, saving it from capitulation, drove the enemy back into the mountains. Under those circumstances that gallant officer, not unnaturally, thought that he had a claim to the prize money taken at Banda and Kirwee, while the Government and the Treasury had decided, as the matter at present stood, that he and the force under his command were only in part entitled to the booty, and that Sir Hush Rose's force was entitled to share. They had, however, suspended their decision to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it. That being so, it be came necessary to consider what was the ground upon which the decision of the Government was based. So far as he could understand the papers, the claims of Sir Hugh Rose to a share of it were supported upon two grounds, the one being that the two forces were so combined that they must be regarded for the purpose of the distribution of prize, as the same; the other that the operations of Sir Hugh Rose were essential to, and were the cause of, the capture of Kirwee by Sir George Whitlock. The accuracy of both these allegations was, however, disputed by the representatives of Sir George Whitlock and his troops, and both appeared to involve questions of such delicacy and intricacy as to require the most careful study, and the most minute sifting of evidence. It was not a case which could satisfactorily be disposed of with closed doors, at the Treasury or any other Government Office, but one which required open and fair investigation. First, as to the claim of Sir Hugh Rose, founded on the supposed combination of the forces. How could they be considered a combined force, when they were under two distinct commanders? When two columns having different commanders were united, the senior officer took the command of the junior; but in that case there was not a single instance of an order having been given by Sir Hugh Rose, the senior officer, to Sir George Whitlock, or a report in the ordinary form of a report from an inferior to n superior having been addressed by the latter to the former until after the combination of the forces at a later period. But the case did not rest on the absence of such reports and orders; the tone of the letters which passed between them was such as to afford positive evidence that there was no such combination 'and co-operation as Sir Hugh Rose now relied upon. In one case Sir Hugh Rose, addressing General Whitlock, said, "I shall feel extremely obliged to you if you could as much as possible clear the Valley of the Nerbudda;" and in another, "I Hope you will have the great goodness to bring up 5,500 bullock-loads of corn for I my force. Was that the language which; a commanding officer would use? The courtesy of Sir Hugh Rose was well known, but military discipline must have changed a good deal of late years if that was the I way in which a superior officer wrote to another who was under his command. I More than that, when Sir George Whitlock received a communication from Sir Hugh Rose he did not always comply with the request which it conveyed to him; and I whenever Sir. Hugh Rose desired to obtain the co-operation of Sir George Whitlock, he wrote, not to him, but to Lord Clyde, whose chief of the staff then communicated with Sir George Whitlock. And how did the chief of the staff make these communications? Did he direct General Whit lock to follow Sir Hugh Rose's orders? Not at all. Take the case of Calpee for instance. Sir Hugh Rose desired General Whitlock's aid. He wrote to Sir William; Mansfield, as chief of the staff, on the subject, and Sir William Mansfield there upon requested Sir George to co-operate with Sir Hugh Rose, if the state of his own district enabled him to do so, but left it entirely to himself to decide whether it would be prudent for him, and consistent with the attainment of the special objects of his force, to take such a step. Sir George Whitlock exercised the discretion which was left to him, and Calpee fell without his co-; operation. What the effect would have been if he had gone there was a different question. He was now asking the House to I consider what he actually did, and the fact; was that he never went out of his district. I Now, how could it be said that this was a case in which, with closed doors, without the power of cross-examination of witnesses, and without any argument, it was to be decided that the two forces were in combination? Co-operation of a certain kind there undoubtedly was between the two forces, but it was clear from the evidence contamed in the blue-book that the Treasury did not consider that there was an absolute and clear combination. It was a new case; its decision would form a precedent, and, therefore, he maintained that his position was inexpugnable when he demanded, in the name of justice, that it should be submitted for the decision of a legal and judicial tribunal. Mr. Arbuthnot, one of the principal officers of the Treasury, a gentleman of high authority and well known to many hon. Members, stated, in his evidence before the Commission, that he was not aware of any exact precedent for two columns being concerned in combined operations under separate commands, and in the Minute of January, 1862, it was admitted that this case was to some extent peculiar. The answer given to him by the Government would no doubt be that it was an exceptional case; but he held it was more necessary to be cautious in dealing with an exceptional case than with an ordinary one. Then, as regarded the second ground taken by the Government. When it was asserted that the capture of Kirwee depended upon the success of Sir Hugh Rose, they were getting upon very delicate ground. Of course, in a certain sense, there was no doubt that the operations in all parts of India, whether at Lucknow, in Oude, in Rohilcund, or in other places, had a bearing and an influence upon each other; but when a distinct statement was made that the fall of Kirwee resulted from the success of Sir Hugh Rose's force, it was not only the pecuniary interest, but, to a certain extent, the honour also of Sir George Whitlock's force that was attacked. He did not wish to institute a comparison between the services of the two forces, but it should be remembered that the Madras force were the representatives of a faithful army; they had come a great distance out of their own district to the assistance of their country, and it was cruel to tell them that successes which they achieved without a shot being fired or a sword cut given by any force but their own were won, not by themselves, but by some one else. If the Government professed to act upon the principle that the operations of every force bore upon those of every other, and that each force had a right to share prize to the capture of which it might in this way have contributed, where was the line to be drawn? That was a practical question which had arisen in the course of this Correspondence. A brigade of Sir Henry Roberts's force, under the command of General Smith, claimed to share in the prize taken by Sir Hugh Rose's force, on the ground that it was in communication with it; but General Smith was at once informed that he had no case. General Smith, however, sent in his claim again, which was then admitted by the Secretary of State for India, and also, he believed, by Lord Clyde. It was disputed, however, substantially upon the same grounds by Sir William Mansfield and Sir Hugh Rose, the latter of whom appeared to take a very different view of what occurred on his right hand and what took place on his left. Sir William Mansfield said it was utterly impossible General Smith could have any claim, as he was not under Sir Hugh Rose's orders. General Smith was not, it is true, under Sir Hugh Rose, but neither was Sir George Whitlock. Generanl Smith was represented as being 200 miles away, and unable to render any assistance; but at the time Kirwee fell, not only was Sir Hugh Rose many miles away, and unable to render General Whitlock any assistance, but he was actually hastening in exactly the opposite direction after Tantia Topee, who had seized Gwalior and seriously alarmed the British force in that part of the country. The fact was, that Sir Hugh Rose, so far from helping Sir George Whitlock, needed all the help he could get for himself. It appeared to him (Sir Stafford Northcote) to be idle to say that that force which had marched in an entirely opposite direction, was, nevertheless, entitled to claim the honours and advantages arising from the actual capture of Kirwee, whilst at the same time it was also maintained that General Smith's force should be shut out from all participation in the prize money, on the ground of its having had no share in the operations in question. That seemed to him to be a most monstrous and inconvenient doctrine. Once the doctrine of constructive capture was admitted, they involved themselves in all manner of gross inconsistencies. On this point it was most important to attend to the recommendations of the Committee on Army Prize—

"To give simplicity to all proceedings in matters of prize, and to facilitate despatch, it is essential that the principle of actual capture should be as closely adhered to as the nature of military operations permits. Any departure from this principle involves doubt, uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and delay; and any apparent want of equity which may arise from it in particular cases will, we believe, be willingly acquiesced in by the parties concerned as in the similar case of the navy, as one of the proverbial chances of war."

That was the true doctrine on which they ought to proceed. There was one consideration he knew which could not be excluded, and which must necessarily have great influence, not only with the Government, but with every Member of the House. He referred to the splendour of the services rendered by Sir Hugh Rose No one could read the modest and spirited memorial which he had put forth on behalf of his own force without feeling his blood thrill at the great services rendered by Sir Hugh Rose in that wonderful campaign. Had the noble Lord come down to the House and proposed that some substantial tribute should be given to Sir Hugh Rose, in acknowledgment of his achievements against tremendous forces and under such critical circumstances, there was not a single hon. Member who would not have sympathized with the proposition. But it was a very different thing to confer honours and rewards upon Sir Hugh Rose at the expense of somebody else, who so far as the particular capture was concerned was equally if not more deserving. However high their admiration was for the general services of Sir Hugh Rose, they must not lose sight of the principle of fair play in the matter, and of common justice to the weaker and smaller force, which had home an important part in the transactions to which he was referring. The Treasury treated it as an exceptional case on account of the largeness of the booty and the disparity of force between the different armies. In a Treasury Minute, dated 1862, they said—

"My Lords have already expressed their opinion that under the circumstances attending the capture of the booty in question a more extended principle of distribution should be adopted than that of actual capture, and they still retain the impression that having regard to the great value of the treasure, and the comparative numbers of the forces engaged in contiguous, if not combined, operations, it will be right to advise Her Majesty to exercise a discretion in the grant of the treasure, which remains at her free disposal. Yet they feel that any advice which may be tendered on the subject to Her Majesty should be governed by some well-defined principle, and that an arbitrary decision should be avoided, Which might create a new precedent of inconvenient application to future cases, when possibly the conditions might be reversed, and the larger booty be taken by the larger force."

If the authorities persevered in the system of guiding the distribution of booty by reference to its amount and the size of the relative forces engaged, they would be entering on a most dangerous course, and sowing the seeds of heartburnings and irritation that would no doubt extend through- out the British army. The unanimity of all the lawyers who had been consulted formed a curious feature of this case. Opinions had been given by Sir Roundell Palmer and Sir Robert Phillimore before they attained their official positions, by Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Rolt, Mr. Montague Smith, that most eminent authority Mr. H. Prendergast, and by Dr. Travers Twiss, and they all affirmed the exclusive claim of Sir G. Whitlock to the prize money in question, if the decision were quoted only by military precedents. So much for the view of the lawyers. On the part of the officials what did he find? He must say that of all the involved cases he ever read in his life he never met with one more confusing. The protest by Mr. Willoughby and other Members of the Indian Council against the decision of the Secretary of State excellently summarized the various opinions entertained —

"In August, 1861, the Secretary of State for India in Council was of opinion that the Kirwee booty should be divided between the three field forces, and that Lord Clyde and his personal staff should share. We now reiterate this opinion, but admit that as far as regards Sir H. Roberts' force, the information is not so direct. Lord Clyde thinks that Sir H. Rose's force, and a brigade detached from Sir H. Roberts' force (Smith's) should share, but not Sir H. Roberts' force generally. He would also include the chief of his staff and the adjutant-general of the Bengal army. The Secretary of State for War and his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge concur with Lord Clyde, except that they would not include Sir William Mansfield and Lieutenant Colonel Norman. The prize agents, whose memorial has been received from the Lords of the Treasury, contend for the observance of the principle of actual capture, which would give the whole booty, to Sir G. Whitlock's force. The Lords of the Treasury, in a very able minute, propose a compromise—namely, that a moiety shall be assigned to the actual captors, and that the other moiety should be divided between the three columns. But they suggest that the Law Officers of the Crown should be consulted, and that, should they entertain any doubt, then that the case should be submitted for the judgment of the High Court of Admiralty."

Since then Sir Hugh Rose had made his claim, the ground upon which he did so, after his previous inactivity, being explained in the passage where he expressed his belief that the principle of constructive capture had been allowed. A leading question had virtually been put to him, and he naturally did his best for the force under his command. General Smith's claim followed, and the list, they might depend, was not yet exhausted. He asked the House to deal with this question not as between man and man, but as involving a great principle under which all army prize would be distributed in future. The actions they were discussing took place exactly six years ago; they had not yet determined the parties who were to settle the prize roll, and when they got that length how many of the men entitled would have died or disappeared? The other day Sir G. Whitlock told him that one of the things which pained him most since his return to this country was that men came to him begging for charity whom he knew to be entitled to share this prize money. He asked the House not to be led away by recollections of the splendid services of this or that man into doing an act of injustice to the whole British army, into establishing a precedent certain to become a leading case hereafter, or into perpetuating that system of delay from which the army already had so grievously suffered. He trusted that the case he had presented was sufficient to show that it was unjust and unnecessary to keep these parties in suspense any longer. They now asked the House of Commons to interfere and intercede with the Crown. They said they had undergone two trials—one when the opinion of the Law Officers was taken, which they knew to be in their favour, and another when the Royal Commission, composed chiefly of general officers, examined the subject. Both these tribunals had, in effect, decided in their favour. They trusted that it would be unnecessary to subject them to any further expense and delay by referring it to any judicial tribunal. Still, if the House thought the matter doubtful, they wished it to be investigated by an open tribunal, in which they would have an opportunity of examining and cross-examining witnesses and making their own statements. If there was one thing Englishmen loved it was fair play. They would always accept a defeat with good humour if it came to them fairly; but if there was the slightest suspicion that they had not been allowed a full and fail-hearing, there would necessarily be discontent and dissatisfaction on the part, he would not say of the officers, but of the soldiers. Last year the noble Lord at the head of the Government thought he had reflected upon him in the observations he (Sir Stafford Northcote) made on the subject. So far from that he had never desired to say anything that reflected either upon the noble Lord or his Government. He knew that the Government had paid their best attention to the subject. It was not, however, practicable for a Government to deal satisfactorily with all the details of such a case, and it was impossible that their decision should command the same confidence as an inquiry before a court of law. There would be no difficulty in such an investigation. The captors and nil persons having claims might send in their petitions to the Crown, which had power to refer the petitions under the Act of Will. IV. to the High Court of Admiralty. The decision of such a court could not fail to give satisfaction, and he could not conclude without entreating Her Majesty's Government to consider whether those parties had not been kept long enough in painful suspense under the expectation that their claims would have been long since satisfied; and whether, in the interests of common justice and fair play, this matter should not be settled with the least further delay possible, and according to the mode which he had ventured respectfully to suggest. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Motion.

Sir, I must, in the first place, say that I think the Government and the House are much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) for the proposal he made last year that a Royal Commission should be appointed to investigate this question of army prize money. We adopted that suggestion with great readiness, and I think the Report shows that it was desirable to appoint a Commission to investigate the matter. No doubt great delays take place in the distribution of army prize money—delays that, in many instances, might by better arrangements be prevented. We were glad to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commission so far as they belong to the functions of the Government. I wish at the outset to state for the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman that, after a full consideration of this matter, and of the difficulties that surround it, I have come to the decision that it will he desirable to give orders that the question shall be referred to the Court of Admiralty. There are three authorities that might decide in a matter of this kind, and of these the worst is that which was pressed upon us last Session—namely, this House. We all know that when questions affecting the interests of individuals come to be considered in this House there is no limit to the private canvass and the ex parte statements that may be made by parties interested, and which have a great effect upon the minds of hon. Members. Indeed, the very cheers which we sometimes hear in this House are a sure indication of what has been done out of the House to influence the minds of hon. Members. Now, a great deal of misunderstanding arises in all reasoning from the use of words which are capable of doubtful and ambiguous meaning, and the first thing when reasoning on any question is to attempt to sift the meaning of the words you employ. There are two words employed in this matter which are of doubtful and ambiguous meaning, and by which hon. Members may be misled—the words actual capture and constructive capture. In naval operations it is more easy to apply these words with certainty than in military operations. A ship is a single unit. A squadron may also be said to be a single unit. And when a capture is made by some ship or by a squadron there is no doubt that it is an actual capture, and any ship being out of sight or hull down in the offing cannot justly be deemed as having operated in the capture. But in military matters the case is essentially different. You may say that which is fairly contended by some Hint an army is a unit, and that you must deal with it as such; that captures made by any part of an army in a campaign should be thrown into a single fund, and ought to be divided among the whole of the army engaged in the campaign. Many reasons may be given in support of that view. The objection is, that when you come to divide prize money among the whole of a large force, the amount for each is frequently so small that it is hardly worth accepting, and that it is better to give the prize money to the individuals actually engaged in the operations. The former plan is adopted with regard to medals. When an army gains a great victory the medals are given not only to those who were under fire, but to those who were in the reserve, and who were not actually engaged in the operations by which the victory was gained. The whole army is considered as one mass, and the whole are rewarded according to the part which may have been assigned to them. This question resolves itself into who were the actual captors? If yon carry the matter to its logical conclusion, the actual captors are not the whole division or column by which the town is taken. The actual captors of the treasure are the company or regiment that happen to break open the door and take the booty. You are therefore driven by the necessities of the case to adopt the principle of what is called constructive capture. I will show the House how the principle of actual capture might, in some cases, apply most unjustly. Here are three columns, say, all acting under the orders of the general in chief, according to a plan sketched out by him, and all co-operating in the execution of that plan. The right hon. Gentleman has; argued that these columns were not co-operating because they were not under the orders of either of the three generals commanding them. But that is not at all necessary for the purposes of cooperation. It is not necessary to: show that General Whitlock was under the command of Sir Hugh Rose to prove that his force was cooperating with the column of Sir Hugh Rose. Each column was under the command of Lord; Clyde, each was performing a duty as signed to it by Lord Clyde, and the duty of each was to support and co-operate with the other. Suppose, and it is not far from the reality, that the central column of these three gained a great victory over the enemy, and by driving him back rendered defenceless a town within reach of the right hand column, which had taken no part in the victory gained by the central column. The enemy, however, being driven; away, the right hand column falls on the town and takes possession of all the booty. According to the doctrine of actual capture, these troops, who did nothing to wards gaining the victory, would get all the booty, while the other column, which did all the fighting, would get nothing. That would be the result of a strict adherence to the technical doctrine. It would be another illustration of the principle sic vos non vobis, that those should hare no share in the booty who had done all the fighting. I will not follow the hon. Baronet into the details of the case. He has argued it very ably as the advocate of one party. However, I retain my opinion, I have looked at the case with a good deal of attention, and my opinion certainly is that in fairness and justice all the parties who claim ought to share in the booty. But I am willing to waive that opinion and to refer the whole matter to the Court of Admiralty, under the power which allows this reference to he made, and it will he for that tribunal, after hearing the parties, as the hon. Baronet said, in open court, to pronounce a decision founded upon an accurate examination of the facts and details which will be brought out before them. That decision I am sure will be far more satisfactory to the parties and to the public than any arbitrary decision of the Treasury, and much more satisfactory than any vote of this House founded upon a canvass by those interested, and upon the imperfect knowledge which hon. Members must have of these intricate details. I have already given directions to this effect, and trust that the course proposed will be satisfactory to the hon. Baronet. As to the proposal that we should determine nakedly that the actual captors should be in all cases alone entitled, I should say that if you were to establish any rule, it should be that troops which indirectly contribute to the capture should be admitted to share the booty. But all these cases must be dependent upon an infinite variety of circumstances, admitting accordingly of an infinite variety of interpretations; and, therefore, I am of opinion that in all cases where any doubt exists it will be better to refer them to the determination of the High Court of Admiralty, to give what they think a just and proper award under the circumstances. I hope, therefore, that, satisfied with what I have said, the hon. Baronet will not press to a division his Resolution, the main point of which will, in fact, be gained by the directions already given.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Resolution upon the understanding that the question would be referred to the High Court of Admiralty. He wished to know, at the same time, whether there would he any objection to state the form of reference? He understood that the orders had already been given, and, if so, he should like to hear in what terms.

said, he had already directed that the case should be so referred, but the particular form of reference had not yet been determined. About this, however, he presumed there would be no difficulty.

considered there should be some definite law to guide the decision in these cases. At all events, there was no doubt that the Banda and Kirwee booty ought to have been distributed to the captors long since.

said, that before the reference was finally made to the Court of Admiralty, the terms of it ought to be seen, because, unless some definite question was referred to them, the Court might say that it was matter of prerogative upon which they could not decide.

intimated that he would communicate the terms of the reference to the hon. Baronet.

said, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for a Commission to inquire and report as to the best system of registering titles to land in Ireland, to frame a measure for that purpose, and to consider and report upon the creation of transferable debentures upon land in Ireland. He had brought the matter publicly forward some fifteen years before; in fact he entered Parliament principally for the purpose of introducing the subject, and he hoped to remain in that House until his object had been attained. Although he had confined the Commission to Ireland, he should not have the least objection to extend it to the Empire. Ireland, however, had usually been the pioneer in these important reforms, and possessed some machinery for carrying them out that did not exist in this country. There was an obvious distinction between the registration of titles and the registration of deeds and assurances. The registration of deeds spoke for itself. One either put upon the register the entire deed, which was then called an enrolment, or an abstract of the deed, which was called a memorial. That system existed only partially in England—namely, in Yorkshire and Middlesex, but it was general throughout Ireland, and was found the cause of great expense. The registration of titles was a very different matter. It was known that in the case of stock and shares, certain persons were entered ns owners in the books of the, bunk, or of a company, and they could then transfer without any investigation of title. It hail often been asked why there should be more difficulty in transfering £ 100,000 of landed property than there was in the transfer of £100,000 invested in the funds or in railways. Well, in the Bill which he brought forward in 1853, he claimed to be the originator of a new system which was adapted, in his opinion, to supply that want, and which had formed the basis of the plans since submitted to Parliament He proposed that it should be open to the landowner to have his land brought under the operation of the Act, and submit his title to a preliminary investigation. If the Court were satisfied that a primá facie right to the land had been made out, a full investigation of the title might be ordered, and if that were satisfactory the owner obtained a declaration of indefeasible title, good against the whole world. The title would be registered, a certificate of his indefeasible title would be given, and then the land would be transferable, like money in the funds or railway shares, by entry in the books of the office, or of the tribunal constituted for the purpose of carrying out the new sys tern. The Bill was read a second time in 1853, and Lord Cranworth's Bill for the Registration of Assurances having come down from the Lords, both were referred to a Select Committee, That Committee could not go into all the details of the matter; but it distinctly condemned the proposal to register deeds, and recommended that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject of registration of title. A Commission was accordingly appointed in January, 1854 Several plans were laid before the Commissioners, who sent out questions to leading members of the legal profession in this country and Ireland; but the Commission was not commissioned to frame any measure itself. There were three courses, any one of which might be adopted. First, the Government might bring in a Bill on their own responsibility; and if they undertook to do so he should leave the question in their hands. But he saw no likelihood of that. On the contrary, it seemed certain that they did not intend to introduce any measure on the subject, during that Session at least. The second course which might be adopted was that of bringing in a Bill himself. He did not, however, think that any measure emanating from a private Member would tie likely to be adopted. It might be read a first and second time, mid referred to a Select Committee. But could a Select Committee grapple with the details, and do the business in such a manner as to secure for the country a simple and useful measure? He feared not. There were hon. Members in the House fully competent to deal with the question in all its details; but could such men as the lion, and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. White side) afford the time necessary for the discharge of such a task in the middle of the Session of Parliament? Besides, by having a Select Committee they would exclude a number of very eminent men who were authoritative on the subject—the Irish Master of the Rolls, Mr. Napier, and Judges Longfield and Hargreave, for instance. The third course was the appointment of a Commission. What would a new Commission have to do? A very respectable amount of work. A good deal of experience had been acquired since the last Commission concluded its labours; and that Commission did not examine into the foreign systems of registration. The Commission might very well inquire into the foreign systems of registration, and before the next Session, by means of questions circulated through our diplomatic agents, they might obtain all His information necessary on that part of the subject. The Commissioners might also go through the different Bills which had been brought forward, some of which had passed into law, and some of winch had not. They might examine into the legislation of 1862, and see how far it was applicable for Ireland. The secretary of the Commission might be directed, under the superintendence of the Commissioners, to frame a Bill, He would probably do it as efficiently as any ordinary draughtsman, and the expense would be no greater. The House was perhaps not aware of the large number of Bills which bad been passed on the subject [the hon. Gentleman exhibited a large packet of them] but they were far too numerous for a Select Committee to deal with. A Commission alone could go through them effectively, selecting from each what was good in it, and framing a comprehensive measure. An important point for the consideration of the Commission—if it should be appointed—was how to combine complete facility of transfer with due protection against fraud, for he was quite ready to admit that, unless at least as much security were given as was now afforded, this country would not be prepared to adopt a system which would make land easily transferable, however desirable that system might be in itself. The Commissioners, however, who some years ago inquired into the subject, were of opinion that adequate protection could be provided, while he himself was of opinion that it could be better attained by other means than those which they had pointed out. It had, he might add, been said that there was no precedent for the issue of a Commission to prepare a Bill, but the mere fact of novelty was no argument. If a thing was right to be done, it ought to be done, whether the particular method was a novelty or not. But there was a precedent for his proposal in the Report of a Commission which had been appointed, on the recommendation of a second Commission on the subject, to prepare a body of law for India. He might quote many other eminent authorities in Ireland, but as most of them had given evidence before the Commission which inquired into the subject, he would not trouble the House with any further reference to their opinions. A movement had lately been set on foot in Ireland similar to that which commenced in the year 1851. Many large landed proprietors and eminent merchants took a great interest in the subject, and a short time ago a meeting was held in Dublin, which was largely attended, at which resolutions were passed declaring the necessity of the adoption of an improved system of conveyancing, and expressing approval of what was called the "Torrens system" of registration, which it was stated had succeeded very well in Australia. For his own part, he did not entirely approve that system, but thought that with certain improvements it might be made the basis of a good system of registration. At the time that the measure for which he was himself responsible was in preparation he issued a pamphlet—a copy of which was still available for any Member taking an interest in the subject, and among the replies which it elicited was one from an authority, if possible, higher than any he had referred to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in acknowledging the receipt of the pamphlet on Free Trade in Land, said, that on his own limited scale he had every reason to desire a thorough reform and simplification of our system as to the transfer of real property, while, on public grounds, he felt the question to be not only ripe, but urgent. Justice towards the land demanded a change, and, as far as he was able to lend a helping hand in a matter beyond his immediate Department, assistance on his part should be freely and zealously rendered. He was quite sure that some day or other the question would pass into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and he looked with confidence for the fulfilment of that pledge. In the meantime, all he asked for was the appointment of a Royal Commission, which would investigate the different schemes, and report in favour of that which they thought most desirable. The Government would not be bound by their decision, but it would show the country that there was a disposition to give effect to its wishes, and he did not believe that any branch of the legal profession in Ireland would stand in the way. Objections might be urged to any scheme; if there were 100 clauses in a Bill, there would no doubt be 100 misunderstandings of them. But that was the true way to settle the question, and he cheerfully relinquished any preference he might entertain for his own measure, to which he had given years of thought and labour, besides submitting it to the most competent men. He had no personal interest in the matter, except as an Irish landowner anxious to improve the value of property. As regarded land debentures he did not ask the Government to bring in a Bill on that subject. But no measure for the simplification of title would be complete unless attention at least were given to the subject of charges on land. A step in the right direction had been made during the Session, when a Bill for the investment of securities was passed through that House and sent to the Lords, but Lord Redesdale stopped it, and very properly turned it into a public Bill. In conversation with his Lordship he suggested that the advantages of that measure ought not to be confined to companies. It was well known that men of great authority in Ireland had pronounced in favour of some such plan as he had suggested, and the Commission of 1854, although they did not recommend a system of land debentures, yet they pointed out that there were facilities for trying such a system in Ireland, where strong opinions had been expressed in its favour. The House would remember that in 1862 two Bills for the creation of transferable debentures upon land in Ireland were brought in, one by himself and the other by the hon, and learned Member for the University of Dublin. Both those Bills had relation to the subject which he had now brought under the consideration of the House, and they were read a second time and were then referred to a Select Committee, but, owing to some unfortunate fatality, that Committee never sat.; It was most important at the present time to inquire into the systems of land registration and of land debentures, and therefore he trusted the Government would consent to his Motion in its exact terms.

said, it was quite impossible to exaggerate the importance of the subject which had been so ably brought before the House by the hon. and learned Member. He thought, too, that the subject was properly brought forward by the hon. and learned Member, who had distinguished himself by his zealous and persevering efforts in support of a principle which at one time did not seem likely to obtain much support. He did not intend to follow his hon. and learned Friend through all the details of his speech, but he might say that there was scarcely a principle laid down, or a position taken up by the hon. and learned Gentleman in which he (Mr. O'Hagan) did not agree. He believed that the establishment of a system of land transfer in Ireland, making the conveyance of land simple, speedy, and cheap, was a great necessity. There might be differences of opinion as to the effects of free trade upon Ireland, but one thing was certain, that that country was entitled to the benefit of free trade in land. There existed in Ireland a strong feeling upon the subject. The corporations of Dublin and other towns were united upon it, and the landed gentry, with the Duke of Leinster at their head, had also discussed it. He might further point out that there existed in Ireland special facilities for trying an experiment such as that recommended by his hon. and learned Friend. There was there a Landed Estates Court, presided over by Judges as enlightened and as able as any in the world. That Court had worked effectively and well for the people of Ireland, and it had laid the foundation, and had supplied the machinery for working a system of cheap and speedy transfer of land. That being so, and the principle being generally accepted, all they had to do was to see whether the principle could be carried out safely and without injury to any interest of the country. The proposed system would produce a great social revolution as far as landed property was concerned, and it would change the relations of different classes in the country. It might be expected that one result would be that the capital which was dammed up in Ireland might be let loose, and that through the instrumentality of a system of cheap transfer of land, a class might be created which Ireland sorely needed—a class of yeomen having an interest in the soil. There were a variety of projects to be considered. There was the plan of Mr. Torrens, which had undoubtedly succeeded in Australia. But then it must be remembered that there was a great difference between the simple relations of property in a new country and the complicated relations of an old country. It was, therefore, necessary to observe great caution in applying the principle to Ireland. He did not say that Mr. Torrens's system was not applicable to Ireland, but that great care should be exercised in dealing with the subject. Then, again, there had been a Bill introduced which contemplated the creation of a new machinery, a recording court and officers. The Government must consider whether there did not exist already in Ireland machinery adapted to the purpose. The question which the Government had to consider was, whether it was absolutely necessary that a new Commission should be appointed. A Commission, composed of extremely able men, had applied their full attention to the subject fur a series if years within a recent period. He did not think they could constitute a Commission of more enlightened men, or that a Report could be obtained from those more deserving the confidence of Parliament and the country, than that they were already in possession of. It was the less necessary that they should go into any new inquiry, because measures had since been introduced in England by men of the highest ability, and they had an opportunity of seeing how these measures had worked. The matter then stood thus — a deputation had waited on the Lord Lieutenant for the purpose of impressing on his Excellency and the Government the necessity of considering the subject, and especially in connection with the scheme of Mr. Torrens. His Excellency had referred the memorial to the Law Officers of Ireland, and accordingly, along with his learned Friend the Solicitor General, he had been applying his mind as diligently as he could to the subject, and he was inclined to think it was quite possible to frame a measure with the information they already possessed, which might be satisfactory to the House and to the country. Perhaps, too, it would be more becoming, more according to precedent and principle, that such a measure, involving such large interests and consequences to the community, should be introduced on the responsibility of the Law Officers and of the Government itself. They had the matter under consideration; already a measure was more or less in progress, and he trusted, either before the end of that Session or at the beginning of the next, he should be able to introduce a measure at all events worthy of the consideration of the House. He had already enough of legal matters before him for the present, and it was manifest they could not reasonably entertain the hope of successful action that Session. It would be quite competent for the House to say when they saw the Bill, whether on the face of it there appeared any necessity for further inquiry. They would apply their minds to the subject as best they could, and submit their measure to the consideration of the House.

said, he entirely approved every portion of his right hon. and learned Friend's speech, except the last few sentences, which seemed to doubt the possibility of introducing a measure during the Session. The question had excited the highest interest not only of the legal profession, but also among the landed proprietors of Ireland, and considering the enormous importance of some measure for simplifying and cheapening the transfer of land, looking especially to the frightful emigration going on in Ireland, and the distrust and anxiety which pervaded the mind of everybody connected with land in that country, the subject ought to be taken up with as little delay as possible, to see if some means could not be suggested for increasing employment and developing the resources of Ireland. If his right hon. and learned Friend had, as he understood, the skeleton of a measure prepared, why should he not at once lay it on the table, with a view, after it was read a second time, to refer it to a Select Committee—not for the purpose of taking evidence, but to go through its various clauses and render it as perfect a measure as possible? A Royal Commission, he thought, would be the best mode of shelving the question.

said, he regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider it necessary to oppose the issuing of a Commission. The question was one of the first importance, and any measure would require the greatest care and attention on the part of the framers of it. He wished, at the same time, to bear testimony to the great ability with which his hon. Friend had introduced the subject. He had himself been instructed by his hon. Friend in the true principles which ought to regulate their legislation on the subject. He had, many years ago, laid a Bill on the table which he was perfectly ready to submit again, and there was little necessity to make any changes in it, notwithstanding all the improvements which Mr. Torrens had suggested. He did not see why a Royal Commission should not be appointed, which might inquire into the subject and report long before the next Session, and then a Select Committee could be appointed to proceed with the inquiries, and perfect any Bill that might be introduced in that House.

said, it would be highly satisfactory to the public in Ireland if the Government would that Session lay on the table a Bill on the subject. He quite agreed that the thanks of the House and the country were due to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork for his exposition of the subject. He trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would lay a Bill on the table during the Session that it might be considered during the recess. In the county with which he was connected there was hardly a landlord with whom he had had any communica- tion who had not urged him to support any measure that would lead to a proper registration of titles to land.

said, he had not stated that he would not lay a Bill on the table during that Session. On the contrary, he hoped to be able to do so; but he did not think there was any chance of the Bill being passed in the present Session.

said, he trusted that the right hon, and learned Attorney General for Ireland would consider the subject well before bringing in any measure upon it. The real difficulty in relation to the conveyance and transfer of land arose from the length of time over which the search had to be made. A great deal of confusion arose from a misapprehension of the parties who wished to have a rapid transfer of land. Persons who wished to raise money upon land by way of mortgage no doubt liked to have a rapid title deduced; but it was impossible to have great rapidity and equal security at the same time. An other purpose for which a rapid transfer of land was required was for small purchases and in investments of trust funds upon land. He thought all these legitimate purposes might be attained by making it compulsory that at short recurring periods the land should pass through some tribunal like the Landed Estates Court, so that the point from which the title had to be deduced should not be remote. After an indefeasible Parliamentary title was obtained, all subsequent encumbrances on the property must be put upon the register. He did not think it was possible to make the transfer of land for permanent objects so rapid and easy as the hon. Member for Cork desired, nor could he bind himself to that hon. Gentleman's views as to the creation of land debentures. In the nature of things land could not be treated like bank-notes or railway shares. Duties attached to the ownership of land which did not exist in regard to movable chattels; and those landowners who desired to enjoy all the prestige of territorial proprietorship, and at the same time to be able to transfer their property with the same facility as railway stock, resembled persons who wished to eat their cake and have it at the same time. He hoped that before any Bill was introduced on this question, a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the best mode of registering titles; and he thought that the inquiry might be advantageously extended to England as well as Ireland, as under recent legislation the systems of the two countries were very much analogous. He would suggest that a Royal Commission should be issued, which might investigate the system of registering deeds in England, and upon their report there would be no difficulty in drawing a Bill which would meet all the requirements of the landed interests in Ireland.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the right hon. and learned Attorney General would bring in his Bill as soon as possible.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the purchase by the Law Life Assurance Company of large estates in Ireland, and the results attending this acquisition of property, and to move an Address to the Crown on the subject. Some apology was due to the House for his Motion, because, as a general rule, it was not thought right for a Member of that House to avail himself of his position to call attention to the conduct of private individuals in the management of their property. It was, however, on grounds of a public character that he was now induced to bring the subject under the notice of the House, as the case to which he wished to call attention was one of those in which the power of the House to address the Crown might be usefully invoked. The conduct pursued by the Law Life Assurance Company with reference to the particular property had been productive of great misery through a large portion of the West of Ireland. The region to which he wished to direct the attention of the House was the romantic wilds of Connemara. It was a district which was formerly much more prosperous than at present it could be pronounced to be under a body of English gentlemen of high respectability and position. He did not know whether there was any Gentleman in the House connected with this Society, but if there should be he hoped it would be understood that he (Mr. Long-field) was desirous to avoid giving any personal offence in any observations he might have to offer. He wished to deal with; this altogether as an impersonal matter, but at the same time, in referring to the proceedings of the Society in question, he could not help considering that they had purchased a large property improperly, and that they had abused their rights. Some years ago a gentleman of great humanity, and also of some eccentricity of character, who might be remembered by many hon. members—Mr. Richard Martin—was the owner of a very large estate in Connemara. The estate was deeply involved when he inherited it, and he was much embarrassed; but a kinder-hearted gentleman than Martin of Ballynahinch never lived. A few years since there appeared in the Daily News a very interesting series of letters from a writer who was sent out to report on the agricultural prospects of the country. He gave a very interesting account of this district of Connemara. He described that after riding a distance of forty miles through this property, formerly all belonging to one family, he arrived at Ballynahinch, the residence of the late lord, or rather lady of the domain. The lady owned the greatest number of acres possessed by any one subject of the Crown, and now there was not a single rood of property to which a descendant of the family could lay claim. The late Mr. Martin, however, had ever been a most kind and liberal landlord, beloved by his tenantry. In the year 1824 the Law Life Assurance Society was founded, composed principally of lawyers, and governed by some leading legal authorities. These great Estates gradually passed into the hands of this Society; and although they were not, technically and legally speaking, mortgagees in possession, they yet contrived to enter into receipt of the rents and profits under the clauses of their deed by means of an agent. They thus became the virtual owners of the property, and were morally, if not legally, responsible for what had taken place. They had taken the whole of the proceeds, depriving Mrs. Martin even of her jointure. In this he could not blame them; they were actuated by no personal feelings; they were an impersonal company, without feelings, merely trying to do the best they could for their shareholders. Probably the principle on which they had acted had been merely to invest their capital to the best advantage. They next proceeded to prepare the estate for sale, and the first thing they did was to serve a number of ejectments on the tenants, a policy which they pursued with very little consideration. It must be admitted that the tenants were not of a very desirable class. They were for the most part without capital, though he believed that if favour had been extended to them, many of the tenants would have become useful and profitable servants to their landlords. The estate was prepared for sale, and it was purchased in 1852. It consisted of about 200,000 acres of land, and the number of tenants was 827. He was not aware that the estate was ever offered for sale publicly in Ireland. It was bought in by the Law Life Society under a private contract by means of trustees for something like £1 per acre, for a sum which was said to be due to the Society. Having placed the Society in possession of the property, he would proceed to trace their management of it during the twelve years which they had been the owners of it; and he would show that from year to year the property had been most fearfully mismanaged; that the number of evictions had been enormous; that no encouragement whatever had been given to the tenants; and that the result had been that the acquisition of land by this wealthy Society had been a curse to that part of the country. What made the matter worse was that the Society had not the slightest right to become the purchasers of estates in Ireland. They were a society or fraternity having perpetual succession, but they had not the slightest right to become possessors of estates. From the earliest times the acquisition of property by corporations, or those who possessed a corporate succession, had been discouraged by the Legislature. The Statutes of Mortmain prohibited the acquisition of estates by religious bodies, and an Act passed in the reign of Richard II. extended the prohibition to purchases made for guilds, fraternities, and other societies of a similar description. He held that the Law Life Society having become purchasers of the Martin property by an evasion of the law, the Crown might seize upon the land and confiscate it. Not many years ago the Crown seized upon property acquired by another Insurance Company, and it might pursue the same course in the present instance. It would readily be believed that the purchase of the Martin estates by the Law Life Society had proved most injurious to the country, for of all absentee landlords a body of persons animated by a corporate spirit, never visiting the property, but merely receiving the rents, and managing the estate by a solicitor in London and an agent in Ireland, was by far the worst. Feeling that they had acted contrary to law, the Law Life Society in 1854 sought to obtain an Act to facilitate their dealing with the estate. Power was given to them to lend and advance money on the security of freehold, leasehold and other property in Great Britain and Ireland, He need hardly point out, however, that power to lend money upon security did not enable the Company to purchase property. Again, in 1863, after the mismanagement of the estate had be- come notorious, after several attempts had been made to compel a sale, after it was well known that the Society were owners of land contrary to law, another Act was got enabling them to sue and defend all actions in their own name, instead of the names of trustees, and to have them properly vested successively in trustees whenever nominated, without payment of stamp or succession duties. That Act gave them extraordinary powers and privileges — powers and privileges not possessed by private owners—but it did not really enable them to purchase land; so that, according both to the old Acts and to the new, they were not the legal owners of the Martin property. He had already hinted at the manner in which they had performed the duties of proprietors. Since 1852, as appeared from a Return recently laid before the House, they had prosecuted in the Civil Bill Court alone no fewer than 191 ejectments, affecting about a fourth or a third of all the tenants on the estate. The total number of defendants was 735. This Society, numbering amongst its members some of the highest lawyers in the land, having contrived to escape the ordinary burdens on property, had endeavoured to avoid all local charges. As managers: of the property they had winked at the tenants falling into arrears with their county rates, and when they purchased the estate it was found that the arrears amounted to about £1,000 for county rates, and that most liberal Company sought to place the debts due from their tenants upon the county at large. They traversed the presentment which was made. The grand jury considered it unjust that the rest of the county of Galway should pay the arrears of the tenants of the Law Life Company's estate after they had evicted tenants who were able to pay— although, perhaps, not very willing. The Law Life Society again attempted to evade the obligation, but the county was successful, and the Society were unable to get the county to pay their rates. It was clear that the Society was as much disposed to evade its local obligations as the succession and stamp duties. These, however, were but minor matters, With an enormous territory under their control, they had disregarded their duties as owners of land, and set an evil example to other owners. From a Return which the House ordered to be printed on the 26th April, 1864, it would be seen that they were utterly unfitted to manage their property, and it would be a great blessing to the country if they could be compelled to part with it. Dr. Brodie, the Poor Law Inspector to the Commissioners, in his Report, dated the 21st November, 1861, said—

"About a mile and a half from Clifden, in the townland of Derrygimla, on the Law Life property, I remarked some fences or embankments partially raised; and seeing no men at work I inquired the reason, and was informed by one of the men who had been employed on the work that he and five others were engaged at it at so much per perch (1s. 6d), and that having worked eight days, they received 15s. for their labour, or at the rate of 3¾d. per day for each man; and that they were compelled to give up the work. In the Bunowen division I saw some men employed in making fences: they informed me they were receiving 10d. per day, and spoke in the highest terms of their landlord and employer, Mr. Lyons. The poorer tenants require indulgence from their landlords in the payment of the rents. There is a fine field for doing good, for the exercise of benevolence, and for establishing a high claim to public and private gratitude, in the drainage and improvement of the land. With good management the outlay will prove remunerative. The Law Life Assurance Company own property to the extent of over one fourth the whole valuation of the Clifden union, and it is estimated that they received a rental of £7,000 a year. Much is expected from this body. The Company is expected to set an example of judicious liberality and enlightened philanthropy to the other property owners in the district. Let us hope that they will no longer delay doing so."

In the same Return he found the following most extraordinary resolution, which was passed at a meeting presided over by the agent of the society. At that meeting a letter from Mr. Lyons, a landed proprietor, was read, suggesting that some; means should be taken for providing the poor with a better supply of fuel. That letter was highly approved of, and the following resolution was passed:—

"That the agent of the Law Life Assurance Company he communicated with on the subject, sending him a copy of Mr. Lyons's admirable letter, with the view of ascertaining what amount that company, being the chief proprietors of the locality, would undertake to subscribe towards the purchase of fuel as proposed."

He now came to two letters which did credit to the writers. The first of them was from the Poor Law Commissioners to Sir Robert Peel, and the other from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. On the 22nd November the chief clerk to the Poor Law Commissioners wrote as follows:—

"The expectation that an example will be promptly given by the Law Life Assurance Company, who possess a great part of the property of the Clifden Union, if is to be hoped will not be disappointed. Mr. Robinson, the agent, which manages the property on behalf of the company, is chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Clifden Union, and must be well acquainted with the circumstances of the district. This is the lame gentleman who transmitted a memorial for assistance from the Government, which appeared in the newspapers a few days since."

To that letter the following reply was sent by direction of the Home Secretary:—

"Whitehall, 2nd December, 1861.

"Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to request that you will, at the earliest opportunity, bring under the notice of the managing direction of the Law Life Assurance Company the enclosed copy of a letter addressed by the Poor Law Board in Ireland to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Sir George Grey has received several private communications from Ireland, which he does not feel he should be authorized in transmitting to you as official documents, but which concur in the expression of opinion that the resident agent of the Law Life Assurance Company has not shown the disposition which might have been expected from a gentleman representing a company possessed of an estate of vast extent in Galway, to take an active part in promoting local efforts for the relief of the poor in that district, while he appears to have taken a prominent part in appealing to the Government for assistance. Without entering on the question of whether such assistance may, or may not, hereafter become necessary, it must be obvious that it is of the greatest importance that the first and chief reliance should be placed on local efforts; and it is gratifying to be assured that many of the landed proprietors in the West of Ireland are exerting themselves honourably and successfully in adopting measures to avert, or mitigate, the apprehended distress. Sir George Grey is far from assuming, from the facts already before him, that the conduct of Mr. Robinson may not be susceptible of satisfactory explanation; but he cannot doubt that the managing direction will share, the anxiety which he himself feels, that no suspicion should exist as to their desire that their agent should be one of the foremost in promoting every practicable scheme of local benevolence, and should heartily co-operate with other landowners in the exertions which they are making; and he entertains the fullest confidence that this subject will receive the prompt and serious attention of the directors.—I am, &c.,

(Signed) "H. WADDINOTON.

"To D. S. Bockett, Esq.,

"Law Life Assurance Company."

The demand for relief at that time was very urgent, and, owing to the pressure from the Home Secretary, the Society could no longer avoid coming forward. On the 20ih December Mr. Bockett wrote to Mr. Waddington, stating that the Law Life Society had put £200 at the disposal of Mr. Robinson, to be applied in the purchase of fuel for distribution amongst the poor of the districts in which their estates were situated, either gratuitously or at reduced prices, as he should deem best, except that out of the above £200 they had directed that £20 be paid to the Clifden Fuel Committee, and £20 to the Oughterurd Committee. He believed—and to the credit of Ireland be it spoken—that this wealthy Society were the only landlords in Ireland to whom the Secretary of State was compelled to address a remonstrance and to complain of their tardiness, in comparison with the other landlords in that district, in adopting measures for the relief of the distress. Having shown from public documents what was the character of the management of the Society's estate, he would now refer to other testimony to the same effect. He held in his hand two private communications. Those documents emanated from tenants on the land, who were thoroughly acquainted with the subject on which they were speaking. For obvious reasons he would not give their names to the House, but he was prepared to guarantee their respectability and their integrity. In one of those documents was a list of forty-three tenants who had, with in the last ten days, emigrated from the district. There were many more whose passages to America were paid, but who could not as yet leave the country. The cause assigned for that emigration was the severity and persecution of both agent and landlords. The document went on to say that the tenants received no relief except a few pounds of turnip seed, for which they were charged double price in six months afterwards—that a vast number of houses had been thrown down during the last year — that no such things as leases were given; but that every year a fresh agreement was signed by each tenant, who paid 2s.. 6d. for signing the paper. It was impossible to deny that such a district did not offer a very promising field for tenants. A tenant from year to year had a tenure of an uncertain duration. Still that tenure might last for a long time, but the tenants of the Law Life Assurance Company were obliged to sign a fresh agreement every year. What, he would ask, could the House expect from a society of lawyers, placed as landlords under such circumstances? He was prepared to prove the facts he had Stated before a Committee of the House, Another gentleman, writing on the 12th of May, 1861, stated —

"There is so much poverty and misery in this country that I hardly know where to begin to describe it to you. For many years past the tenants on the Law Life property have had some stock to pay their rents with; now they have none. Since I came to this country, now nearly five years, I have seen in the fair of Roundstone, On the 25th of March, as many as 300 each on the fair green, but on the 25th of March last, I do not think there were more than thirty. To show you still more, the Law Life has had to large townlands in their own hands close by me ever since I came here; Letterdife and Rossrow, more than 3,000 acres which they let out fur grazing; and other years at this time they had about 200 cattle taken into graze, and this year I am certain they have not thirty. The houses are of loose stones, put together without clay or mortar, I have often said to the tenants on the Law Life property, 'Why do you not make your houses more warm and comfortable, and make a few fields round you houses, in which to grow carrots, parsnips, turnips, and cabbages for your families in the winter, when you find that this oft-cultivated land still continues to rot your potatoes?' Their answer was, 'And if I done that same, perhaps I would only have it ope year, for either my "rint" would be raised, or some one else would fancy it, and I would be put out There are no cow-houses or pig-houses, or stables; in Connemara those who are fortunate to possess a few beasts, cattle, pigs, or sheep, during the whole of the winter keep all in the same cabin with their tamily, and in the same apartment, but were I to write for a week, I could not tell you of half the misery of this country. If the Law Life goes on a little longer as it is doing now, no one will be able to live in this country. The small tenants are going fast, and those that are a little better off, must soon follow. Since the Ballinahinch estate became the property of the Law Life Society, they have had as many as 1,000 ejectments tried at one quarter sessions at Oughterard. The farm I now hold, Toombeola, was formerly let for £27 a year. I took it in the year 1860 at a rent of £60, including all rates and taxes. The first year I held it, I laid out £150 upon it, between houses and land, and since that time I have laid out upon improvements (permanent improvements) more than £30 a year; and now Messrs. Bockett and Robinson have offered me a lease at £70 a year, and I to pay all rates and taxes, which would make my rent something like £75 or £76 a year; my last rates were £4 4s. 4½d. Before I took my farm it had been waste, and in the hands of the Society for some eight or nine years, consequently it was in a dreadful state when I got it, just one sheet of dirt and water and bog holes. Whenever any lands or houses fall into the hands of the Society they never do anything to keep them up or improve them. I must tell you that all the money they allowed me for all I have laid out on my house and land was £30. I have no road over which I can drive a car, and they will not allow 1s. to make one—fences that the agent promised to make three years ago between me and the adjoining village or townland, have never been touched yet. There are petty sessions held at Roundstorie and Carna once every fortnight, and sometimes in the summer there will be as many as thirty to forty summonses tried at each, and all, nearly all, for trespass. You might see poor creatures travelling some five, some ten, and some fifteen miles to these sessions to prove or defend their cases, and that is where the swearing goes on, and a little resident magistrate telling the poor things that he does not believe one word they are swearing. It was only the other day (last Monday) that I told the agent that it was unjust to think of giving mo a lease at £70 a year for twenty-inn' years, and I to pay all rates and taxes, and the country coming down at such a rate. 'Well,' said he, 'don't take it.' But you perceive that I cannot go on improving without a lease, and I hardly know what to do. I wish I had never come to this country. The Law Life will not give a lease at a fair price. I have not time to say more now, but I have not told you of hall the misery of this country."

All this showed a state of things really lamentable — the result of twelve years' management of an Irish estate under a wealthy English Society, who had been permitted to acquire the land in contravention of the law. They had abused the power which they possessed, and the estate, so far from improving, had been becoming worse. Such being the state of things it would be in the power of the Crown to do what it did in 1833 under similar circumstances. At that time the University Life Assurance Society, contrary to the provisions under which they were allowed to lend money, purchased lands in Staffordshire, and letters patent were issued to Commissioners to investigate the matter, and if the society had purchased the lands then to seize them. That Commission was actually executed, lie had no desire to see matters curried to such a length in the present instance, and He hoped that the effect of the discussion in that House would be to cause the Law Life Society to see that they could not be permitted to retain any longer the proprietorship of this estate, He believed that the moral pressure, which had induced them to give £200 for the relief of the distress, would also induce them to surrender up the estate for sale in a reasonable time, and all that he was anxious for was that the property should pass away from persons who had acquired it improperly. He concluded by moving an address to the Crown on the subject to which he had called the attention of the House.

said, he would not express any opinion as to the legal authority of the Law Life Assurance Company over the estates in question, but would merely observe that if they were acting illegally either the Government or any private individual might call them to account without the intervention of that House. Neither would he go into the general question, whether it was desirable that any large English company should hold property in Ireland; hut he would explain the exact circumstances of the case which had been brought under the notice of the House. Some years before the famine the Law Life Assurance Company lent large sums of money as a first charge on these estates—for there were two estates; other parties lent money as a second charge; the interest of the second charges was not duly paid, and those who had the second charge put the estates into Chancery. From the moment they got into Chancery things went from bad to worse, and it became unavoidable that the estates should be sold in the Incumbered Estates Court. But it was not the Law Life Assurance Company which either put the estates into Chancery or brought them into the Incumbered Estates Court, but those who had the second charge. In that state of affairs, the condition of Ireland being so bad, it soon became apparent that no one would buy the estates. At that time estates were sold in Ireland for a mere song. He recollected one property, the Ordnance value of which was from £260 to £270 a year, which was put up for sale over and over again without finding a bidder, and at last was sold for £1,000, or less than four years' purchase. Now, there was a sum of £282,000 due to the Law Life Society at that time upon the two estates, and it was probable, had the estates been then put up for sale, they would not have realized more than one-fourth of that amount, and it was not to be supposed that any society would be justified in making such a sacrifice as three-fourths of the money due. But since that time the Company had been always willing to sell the estates either together or in lots to suit purchasers. The best proof that the price asked was not absolutely prohibitory, and that the Company really desired to sell, was that they had already sold £80,000 worth of the property, and but for some bad seasons of late they would have sold a much larger portion. Then the character of the Company as landlords had been attacked. Now he had every opportunity of seeing and hearing how the Mayo estate, a property of about £3,000 a year, was managed, and he believed that very few properties in Ireland be- longing to absentees were better managed. Moreover, he knew the agent, Mr. Robinson well. He was not an Englishman as had been alleged, but an Irishman. He belonged to an old Sligo family, and was an energetic, straightforward, just, and kindhearted man, who was popular among the tenants. It had been said that the rents had been raised, and that the property was now let above its real value. Probably the rents had been increased, for this had been the case on every estate as better times had come. But he had authority for stating that the rental of the estate in his county was not so high as it stood before the famine, while the Company paid all the rates and taxes. As an instance, a farm formerly let at £37 a year, the tenant paying a portion of the taxes, was now let for £30, the Company paying all the taxes. Besides this the Company had gone largely into drainage, road making, building of walls, fences and works of that description, not so much for the purpose of improvement as for giving employment. During the distress twenty tons of meal were given away or sold to the tenantry at reduced" prices; coal was supplied at half its cost; and subscriptions had been made to the relief committees. So much for the Mayo property. He knew but little of that in Galway, but during the last five years the sum of £7,000 had been spent in relief works of various descriptions, and he challenged the hon. Members for Galway and Mallow to point out an instance in which a landed proprietor, with estates of the same size, had spent as large a sum upon similar works. Then in support of the charge against the Company, an ejectment return had been relied on; but what should have been asked was not how many such notices had been served, but how many had been actually carried out by the removal of the parties off the estate. The notices entered furnished no criterion of the number actually enforced. In Galway the rundale system of holding was very much in use—a piece of mountain ground being let to a number of persons as joint tenants. These persons paid their rent separately, and if it was desired to get rid of one, it was necessary to go through the form of proceeding against the whole. The system was a bad one, but it accounted for a large proportion of the ejectment notices. In the county Mayo, it appeared that the total number of ejectments entered on an estate of £3,000 per annum, during a period of between twelve and thirteen years, only amounted to twenty-four. Of that number no further proceedings were taken in five cases. In six the decree was taken out but not acted upon; and one was in duplicate—which reduced it to twelve. Of that number one was the case of a man who was ejected, but immediately restored, and was still in possession of the property. Nine were in arrears for rent, in one case to the extent of £111; and one who held a joint tenancy with his father was ejected for assaulting the agent for remonstrating with him for having done something against the rules of the estate, but his father had ever since retained possession of it; and the other was the case of a man who prevented the tenants from repairing the Clare Island Pier, which was ordered for the purpose of giving employment. When Dr. Brodie visited the estate in Galway, on the 21st November, he declared there was no distress, and food was plentiful and selling at reasonable prices; but he anticipated great distress for want of fuel, unless immediate steps were taken by the parties locally interested to obtain a supply of coal to be sold at reasonable prices. It, however, appeared that at that time a cargo of coal was expected. On the previous day, the 20th November, there was an ordinary meeting of the Clifden Board of Guardians, and after they had disposed of the ordinary business of the Board they formed themselves into a Committee to consider the question, and the charge against Mr. Robinson was that though he had signed the memorial to the Government agreed to by the meeting of which he was the chairman, some time previously, asking for public assistance, he absented himself from a meeting which proposed that local efforts should be made for the same object. He did not understand the sneers that had been cast against him for asking for public assistance, It was not the first time it had been done in Ireland, and he should like to know how many Members, English, Irish, and Scotch, had not done the same thing in order to get their respective constituents relieved in some shape or other in the remission of some tax, which was pretty much the same thing. As the hon. Member for Galway, who moved for the Return, did not intend to found such a charge against Mr. Robinson, it was not necessary for him further to enter into it. The insinuation that Mr. Robinson purposely absented himself from that meeting was most unjust. The correspondence showed that the meeting referred to was an impromptu meeting, and there was no intention o holding it but for Dr. Brodie's visit. Moreover Mr. Robinson could not by possibility have known of the meeting, and it should he home in mind that at that very time Mr. Robinson was engaged in a similar object on Clare island, he having gone there to inquire into the condition of the people, and to make arrangements for employing them and supplying them with fuel during the winter. Now, what had been done by those in the locality who had brought these charges against Mr. Robinson? Only one-fourth of Clifden Union belonged to the Law Life Assurance Company, and what, he asked, had been done by the owners of the remaining three-fourths of the Union? If they subscribed anything they had hid their light under a bushel, and had taken care not to let the public or Mr. Robinson know what they had done. All he could see of a subscription on the occasion was what was contained in a letter from Dr. Lyons of Dublin. Dr. Lyons suggested that £100 or £150 should be raised, and he expressed his readiness to contribute his share, or even above it, but it appeared that the Committee abstained from putting their hands into their own pockets because they were waiting for the Society to come forward and to set an example of "judicious liberality and enlightened philanthropy" to others in the district. All, however, they did was to direct the clerk to write a letter to the Company, informing them of the resolution that had been agreed to, and calling upon them to supply the necessary funds, amounting to £200, with which to enable the committee to carry out their good intentions. The Company had only a small property in that part of the Union, and it was but natural they should expect others to make an effort with them. The Company objected to their money being spent on the whole of the Union, but they handed over the amount named to Mr. Robinson to be divided in the proportion they named. For some time before this the Company had been in communication with Mr. Robinson on the best mode of meeting the contemplated distress, and relief works had been begun before anything was said about it. Dr. Brodie, in his Report, said he saw some of the works partially executed; and it was right the House should know why it was the works were stopped, and how it was the men earned but 3¾d. per day, and it would have been better if he had written to Mr. Robinson for an explanation before he embodied it in his Report. Mr. Robinson was anxious to employ the people as much as possible on their own holdings, and he set them at task work at the ordinary rate of remuneration; but the people objected to task work, and insisted on day work. They were then in a position to stand out if they did not get their own terms, because, as Dr. Brodie stated, the distress had not then begun. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Galway would favour the House with the amount of money subscribed by the other owners of property. He did not mean with the amount received by the Clifden committee, for no doubt they had received subscriptions from many sources, including that estimable body the Society of Friends, who never failed to send money to any part of Ireland in which there was great distress. The Law Life Society expended £200 for fuel alone, independently of the employment which they gave; and if the other proprietors had subscribed in the same proportion they would have given £600. The Secretary of State, in a communication to Mr. Bockett, said he had received private letters commenting on the conduct of Mr. Robinson. If the right hon. Gentleman considered those letters to be private he ought to have kept them private; but as they were mentioned in the Parliamentary papers, he ought to publish them, in order to give Mr. Robinson an opportunity of showing up the mendacity of- his secret assailants. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mallow said he had the greatest confidence in his correspondents, who were tenants on the property, and who had written to him, but whose names he did not like to state; but the Parliamentary Return from which the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted showed the extraordinary inaccuracy of his correspondent's statement on the subject of the thousand ejectments at one session, for by the Return it appeared that since the Law Life Society became owners of the estate there had been only 191 ejectments against 700 people. [Mr. GREGORY: The one thousand ejectments occurred in a year not included in the Return.] If these ejectments occurred in 1851 they occurred before the Law Life Society got possession of the estate. [Mr. GREGORY: They were mortgagees in possession.] He contended that no charge could he justly laid against the Law Life Society, except that of their being absentee proprietors in company with the owners of a large portion of the land of Ireland, including much of his own county. No doubt absenteeism was one of the great evils of Ireland. There was no greater. It was the chief cause of the misery and the backward condition of that country. He believed it would be better to have a very indifferent resident landlord than the best absentee proprietor; but that was a matter which the House of Commons could not deal with. In this free country we could not say that a man must live in a particular place; and he believed the inevitable result of the forced sale of those estates which the hon. and learned Member suggested would be that they would fall into the hands of other absentee proprietors, who would not manage them half as well as the Law Life Society did. In consequence of the successive bad seasons which had been experienced in Ireland, the present would be a bad time to force a sale of land in that country, and he had heard that on those portions of the estates which the Law Life Society had sold the rents had been nearly doubled, in addition to the tenants being obliged to pay the poor rates and cess. If the remaining portions of the estates were sold now they would be bought by land speculators, by land jobbers or land sharks, as they were called, who would double the rents and sell their purchases to other capitalists, who would be 10th to reduce the rental on what they had bought. Under such circumstances, the condition of the tenants would be very much worse than it was tinder the Law Life Society.

said, that as a director of the Law Life Society, he wished to express his regret that instead of attacks being made in that House, founded on information furnished by correspondents whose names were not mentioned, it would have been much better to have communicated the facts to the Directors, and in the first instance to have ascertained their correctness. The Society desired to do everything in its power to improve the condition of its tenants. The Society had already spent thousands in constructing roads, in aiding charities, and in erecting a church on their property; it had done everything a resident landlord could do, and a great many things which no absentee proprietor did to make their tenantry happy. The Directors had never received any complaint from any tenant, and if there had been any complaint instead of these anonymous letters—

said, that the letters were not anonymous; the writers had all signed their names; and though he had not read them to the House he had made himself responsible for the respectability and trustworthiness of the writers,

said, the letters were anonymous as far as the House was concerned. When the hon. Gentleman read an extract from Dr. Brodie's report, it would have been but candid if he had read the whole of Mr. Beckett's letter in reply, and which was considered satisfactory by the Secretary of State in 1861. About the same time the Clifton Fuel Fund Society Bent a vote of thanks to the Law Life Association for their assistance: when the next season of distress came, in May, 1863, the Society's solicitor had written to the local agent, some days before the communication from the Home Secretary had been received, directing the agent to provide employment for the tenants in order to alleviate the distress. From that time to the present no complaint had ever reached the Society so far as he was aware. It had been said, "Sell the estates;" but it was not so easy. If the hon. arid learned Member for Mallow would find a buyer, he for one should be thankful. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, knew that joint-stock companies were beginning to look after landed estates in Ireland, and knowing this and seeing repeated notices in the paper, from February last to the present time against the Law Life Society, he began to think they had something to do with the idea of a joint-stock company wishing to buy these estates. The Society had no disposition to retain the estates, they had been an annoyance and not a pleasure, and if any of the hon. Gentleman's friends were willing to become purchasers, the estates were for sale at a fairvaluation.

said, he bad had no communication directly or indirectly with any persons anxious to purchase property in Ireland, and he had brought the subject under the notice of the House without the smallest reference to any-such object.

said, when the notice of his hon. Friend was put upon the paper, he had put himself in communication with gentlemen upon the spot for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any foundation for the complaints made of the oppressive conduct of the Law Life Assurance Company in the management of their Irish property. He had no desire to join in a cry against the owners of any estate. He should be very glad to have received favourable reports of the management of the Society; but he was bound to say that he had received a great number of letters from landowners and others of the highest position, and not one of them was favourable to the management of the Society, The accounts in question proceeded from landowners who were as high Conservatives as any Members of that House, and it was impossible that he could disregard them. So far from there being the ideal paradise in Mayo which the noble Lord the Member for Mayo had depicted, one gentleman wrote that in the summer, when the Society was said to have behaved with so much munificence, he was himself obliged to feed many of their tenants. He had also obtained a Return from the Clerk of the Peace of Galway, which showed that since the Law Life Society had had to deal with the management of the estates in Gal-way, there had been 3,158 ejectments. In reply to the noble Lord, who said that persons purchasing land from the Company generally raised the rents, be might further state that he had received a letter from a gentleman of undoubted veracity, in which he said that those persons who had purchased from the Company had not, as was alleged, raised the rents of the tenants save in rare instances; whereas the Society, instead of having simply raised their own rents somewhat above the low ebb at which they stood at the time of the famine, had, as he was informed, increased them in many instances to more than double the rate of the Ordnance valuation, which afforded a good test of what land was really worth, rents in general varying some 25 per cent over that valuation. Now, as to the liberality of the Society which had been so praised. On the 24th October, 1861, a meeting was held, over which Mr. Robinson, the agent of the Law Life Assurance Society, presided, at which a resolution was agreed to setting forth the great destitution which existed in the western districts of Galway. Mr. Robinson wrote that famine, with all its concomitant horrors, was inevitable. On the 21st November Dr. Brodie was sent down to see what was going on in the way of relief in that part of the world, and he reported at that time, one month after it had been declared that famine was inevi- table, that nothing was doing by the Law Life Assurance Society. The agent was authorized, they say, to give employment; but how does Dr. Brodie describe that employment and its remuneration. He says the men were employed in making ditches, at that inclement season of the year, badly clad, with no fuel or food to return to, at 3½d. per day. It was not till the 20th of December the solicitor of the Law Life Assurance Society said that they had put £200 at the disposal of Mr. Robinson for the purchase of fuel, and made arrangements for the employment of useful labourers at 1s. 1½d. a day, and that was only done by the pressure and remonstrance of the Home Secretary. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland saying to him in that lobby that their conduct was atrocious. He remembered it well. He, for one, trusted that the Law Life Assurance Society would fulfil their intention of selling their land as soon as possible. It was said it would be a satisfaction to themselves, and he was sure that it would be a satisfaction to that part of the world, from which he trusted they would soon be severed.

said; that as he had been so pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Gal way, he felt bound to say a few words on the subject, although after the able statement of his noble Friend the Member for Mayo (Lord John Browne), it was hardly necessary that he should do so. It was true that in 1861 he had to pass through the county in which the property alluded to was situated, and he upon that occasion heard that the estates of the Society were very badly managed. The statements on the subject came, he believed, principally from his hon. Friend the Member for Galway, who told him that the tenants on those estates had a standing notice to quit always hanging over their heads; that was to say, that they were not only yearly tenants, but that, at the expiration of each year, they might be called upon to quit without further notice. [Mr. GREGORY: I never heard that until the other day, and I never spoke about it to the right hon. Gentleman in my life.] Now, that statement he believed to be wholly unfounded. The tenants of the Society certainly were yearly tenants, but they were entitled to have six months' notice, and that would be the case with any property in" the hands of a company or association desirous of selling their property. There could, he understood, be no doubt that the Law Life Society held the property against their will, and that they were all through anxious to meet with a purchaser for it. He believed that it could not but have struck hon. Members that a more irregular discussion had never been brought before the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway had referred to a variety of letters which he had received. He would not term them anonymous, but the hon. Member had only distinctly referred to one, and that was the instance of a shopkeeper in Galway, who took a portion of the property from the Law Life Assurance Company at a rental of £12 a year, and who was deprived of the land at the end of three years without obtaining any advantage from the money which he had expended upon the land during his occupation. No one could give better evidence upon the question as to the management of property in Mayo than his noble Friend the Member for the county, and his noble Friend had completely replied to the arguments of the hon. Member for Mallow. He believed he was right in stating that, out of the very large property held by the Law Life Assurance Company, they had sold land to the value of about £80,000. He believed, also, that in every instance the rental of the land disposed of had been more than doubled. The tenants of the property which had been sold had actually come to Mr. Robinson, the agent of the Company, or had written to the Committee in London, and had urged the Company not to sell the property, because the value of their tenancy would become very much deteriorated by a change of landlords. He desired to allude to another point, and that was the question of ejectment. The House was in possession of Returns upon the subject, moved for by the hon. Member for Galway himself; but the hon. Member had not taken his figures from those Returns, but had referred to ejectments which had taken place two years anterior, and the House was consequently deprived of the opportunity of testing the accuracy of his figures. In the Return which was before the House, they would find that the ejectments entered and the number of defendants at the suit of the Law Life Assurance Company were remarkably few as compared with the number throughout the whole of Ireland. He believed that in the whole of Ireland the ejectments had perhaps exceeded 6,000 in number, but in 1863 the defendants in cases of ejectment at the suit of the Law Life Assurance Company only numbered thirty-five. To properly appreciate the difference it was necessary for the House to bear in mind that the property of the Law Life Assurance Company in Ireland exceeded 130,000 acres, and that it was situated in a very remote and impoverished district. In 1861 he had received very serious accounts of the distress—he might almost say famine—which existed in the western parts of Ireland, and with the full concurrence of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government he paid a visit to that district for the purpose of ascertaining the real state of affairs. On that occasion he traversed a good portion of the property of the Law Life Assurance Company, and his impression was that the distress existing among the tenants on that property was greater than elsewhere. On returning to Dublin he did not hesitate to-write to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by whom a letter was written to the Law Life Assurance Company. The result was that the Company not only sent out instructions to their local agent to obtain immediate employment for the labourers upon the estates, but also sent £200 to be expended in the purchase of fuel, and to be devoted to the benefit of the poor. He believed that the Law Life Assurance Company acted on that occasion as liberally and as generously as could be expected of them, and that their conduct during that period of severe pressure and want would bare comparison with the behaviour of any of the other landlords in that part of the country. He would appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for Galway in confirmation of that opinion. He must say that he believed that the discussion had been brought forward in an unusual manner, for the purpose of creating dissatisfaction and a feeling of hostility against a Society which held a vast quantity of land in Galway and Mayo against their own will, and who were prepared to sell the land at the present moment if any persons would come forward and offer them an amount at all adequate to its value. He understood that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mallow did not intend to take any further steps with regard to the matter, but that he was content with the discussion which had already been elicited; but he did hope that when the hon. Gentleman took part in any future discussions of a similar nature he would abstain from in- dulging in criticisms upon the condact of individuals or companies unless they were based on a better foundation than could he claimed for his remarks that evening, He confessed that at first his opinion had been similar to that entertained by the hon. Member for Galway, but on a fuller examination he became convinced that his opinion was unfounded, and that the Company were prepared to do everything which was consistent with their duties as landlords.

said, he wished to bear testimony to the exceedingly good management of the property held by the Law Life Assurance Company, and to express his regret very much that the discussion had been brought forward. He had had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Robinson some years ago, and although that Gentleman was politically opposed to him, he believed his management of the property with which he had been intrusted was entitled to the highest credit.

looked upon the discussion as one possessing great interest, but still most bewildering in its contradictions. The right hon. Baronet, in reference to the conduct of the Law Life Assurance Company, had used language which would hardly have been Parliamentary if spoken on the floor of the House, but which, spoken in the lobby, did honour to the generous impulse of his feelings. On that occasion he designated the conduct of the Law Life Assurance Company as "atrocious," and he now gave it the highest possible praise. [Sir ROBEET PEEL: No. I deny having said so.] I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Galway must have been suffering from some strange defect of memory. [Sir ROBEET PEEL: Hear, hear!] It was, however, certain that his hon. Friend still laboured under the impression that the word had been used by the right hon. Baronet. [Mr. GREGORY: Hear, hear!] For his own part, he must say that if the description of the property given by his hon. Friend were correct, he I should be fully inclined to endorse the opinion attributed to the right hon. Baronet on the occasion referred to. Regarding it from the must favourable point if view, it did not present a very pleasing aspect. There was much boasting of the lavish employment given by this great and generous Company; but it turned out that the splendid wages of 3½d. per day were earned by the fortunate people on the estate. The last speaker (Mr. Murray) took credit for the Company for having just ordered £100 of additional work— £100 of work spread over a property of forty miles in extent! Certainly that was a noble instance of liberality. But the real truth was, that the state of things described as existing on the property in question was not as exceptional as it was stated to be; for it had been proved not long since before a Committee upstairs, that it was the custom in a certain district in Donegal to serve notice to quit every year upon the wretched tenants, thus holding them utterly at the mercy of the landlords, who used that terrible power as a screw for raising the rents upon their helpless victims. Nor was the reason given by the tenants of the Law Life Assurance Company for not improving their dwellings limited to their case; it was common to a vast number of properties in Ireland, on which the tenants, holding by the most uncertain and precarious tenure — from year to year—were liable to have their rent raised in case they improved their farms or dwellings, or to have the fruits of their industry given to others. The discussion was of this value, that it enabled the House to obtain glimpses of many of the causes of that misery which Englishmen found it so difficult to account for and understand. For instance, the noble Lord the Member for Mayo (Lord John Browne) asserted, and no doubt truly, that the Mayo property of the Company was quite as well managed as the other absentee properties in his county. If so, what a picture of the evils of absenteeism —of the misery and wretchedness which it brought upon Ireland! Englishmen were constantly asking what were the causes of the misery and wretchedness of the Irish people. In the triumphant vindication of the Company might be traced one cause; for it was confidently asserted that this property was no worse managed than that of other absentee proprietors. He believed in his soul that absenteeism was one of the most hideous of the curses that afflicted Ireland; and, until Parliament had the courage to grapple with it, as well as with the land question, they could not get at the root of the evil, and certainly could not restore peace or prosperity to that country. He did not say that absentees should be deprived of their property—of course, no such notion could enter his mind; but he did say that absentees should have a special tax placed upon them—that they should be taxed to a larger amount than other proprietors—that they should be made to pay some compensation for the injuries they inflicted, and for the loss which those from whom they derived their incomes suffered in having everything drained from the land and the people. The wealth of the country was spent in splendour and luxury in England, or on the Continent, while those from whom that wealth was raised were left to the mercy of an agent, good or bad — were left without encouragement or guidance, deprived of all protection or support. It and the land question were no doubt questions of grave difficulty; but until statesmen at both sides of the House and men of all parties resolved on dealing with such questions in a bold and energetic spirit, the country would continue to be filled with misery and discontent, and the people would fly from its shores in despair. This was a grave- and solemn question—not a trumpery question about Yeomanry cavalry —but one which concerned the very existence of the Irish people. And until Englishmen had the courage to deal with it, they would be held responsible by the civilized world for the unhappiness and misery of Ireland; for they could not free themselves from that responsibility, inasmuch as the affairs of Ireland were managed by an English Parliament. Ireland was still, and would for years continue to be, an agricultural country; and, until manufactures were spread over the south and west of that country, the prosperity or poverty of its people would altogether depend upon the chance of a good or a bad harvest; and, therefore, the necessity of giving protection to the tenant for the fruits of his industry, and thus alone could he be induced to put forth those energies which would increase the productive power of the soil, and fill the land with plenty and content. He did not desire to make any special accusation against this special proprietary; he was quite content to allow the House to form its own judgment from the conflicting statements it had heard. Enough had been said to show that great and grievous evils existed in Ireland, and that it was the duty of Parliament to grapple with them without delay, so as, if possible, to afford that poor country some gleam of sunshine — some glimpse of a brighter and better state of things — after the long years of sorrow and misery it had passed through.

said, that he could not conceive why the hon. Member for Dungarvan, to whose remarks he had listened with attention and interest, should have dragged him into this discussion by referring to the question of the Yeomanry.

said, that he was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made some sneering remark upon something which he said.

I never spoke a word.

Then, Sir, I beg to apologize.

said, he doubted very much whether any company could hold land except for its corporate purposes. He was at a loss for a cause to which to attribute the extraordinary Parliamentary indecency of which the Chief Secretary had been guilty in coming forward to defend this company, and treating the hon. Member for Galway scarcely with courtesy.

said, he had to remind the hon. Member that he had already ad dressed the House.

said, that he was under the impression that, according to the new rule, a Member could on Friday evening speak on every subject that was introduced.

said, that the hon. Member for Mallow had moved no Amendment, and therefore the Question before the House was the same as that upon which the hon. Member for Cork had already spoken.

said, he wished to call attention to the instructions issued to the Police Commissioners, as to the suppression of public meetings in the parks, and to the powers assumed by subordinate members of the Force in suppressing the meeting at Primrose Hill. One reason for his soliciting attention to the matter was, that he had last Session moved for some Returns, and introduced a Bill in reference to the police. He did not intend to discuss the questions connected with the Garibaldi meetings held in 1862 and the present year, or with the right exercised from time immemorial of discussing public matters in the public parks. But it certainly was an unfortunate coincidence that that gentleman, Garibaldi, with whom the inhabitants of London and the people of this country generally felt so deep a sympathy, should have been the cause, unwittingly, of the greatest injury which the inhabitants of the metropolis had sustained for years past. With the question as to the authority of the Government or of the Ranger of the parks to say what way the parks should be used by the public lie would not deal, because that question more properly belonged to the representatives of the metropolis. But what he did venture to refer to was the position assumed by the Chief Commissioner of Police, which rendered it immaterial whether the public enjoyed the right of meeting in the parks or not, for his instructions rendered it impossible that in the parks they could any longer enjoy the right of free discussion. If the instructions contained in these Returns were tacitly sanctioned, he ventured to say that no police force on the Continent would more arbitrarily set itself above the law or act in more direct antagonism to the public interests than that commanded by Sir Richard Mayne. He should justify that statement by a reference to the Return which had been made in pursuance of his Motion. The House would recollect that in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Marylebone as to the recent suppression of a meeting on Primrose Hill relating to Garibaldi, the right hon. Gentleman said, the police had stopped that meeting because they supposed the order issued two years ago by Sir Richard Mayne as to riotous assemblages in the parks justified them in doing so. Now, the Returns to which he had alluded contained two papers only; one a printed notice addressed to the public, and the oilier a private order addressed to the police in furtherance of that notice. In the printed nonce, which was dated October 9, 1862, Sir Richard Mayne paid—

"Whereas numbers of persons have been in the habit of assembling and holding meetings on Sundays in Hyde Park and the other parks in the metropolis for the purpose of delivering and hearing speeches, and for the public discussion of popular and exciting topics."

He had looked through all the Police Acts relating to the metropolis, and had not found anything authorizing Sir Richard Mayne to use those words, or to sit in judgment as to what were "popular and exciting topics." The notice went on to say—

"And whereas such meetings are inconsistent with the purposes for which the parks are thrown open to, and used by, the public,"

—that statement was made without a particle of authority—

"and the excitement occasioned by such discussions at such meetings has frequently led to tumults and disorders so as to endanger the public peace; and on last Sunday and the Sunday before large numbers of persons assembled in Hyde Park for the purposes assigned, and when so assembled conducted themselves in a disorderly and riotous manner, so as to endanger the public peace, and by the use of sticks and throwing stones and other missiles, committed many violent assaults upon persons quietly passing along the parks, and interrupted the thoroughfares."

That portion of the notice was wholly at variance with the facts. It was perfectly well known that the persons assembled to discuss the subject of Garibaldi brought neither sticks or stones, but came for a perfectly legitimate purpose. Those, on the contrary, who came, he believed, from Connemara in some instances to prevent discussion, were the persons who brought these weapons with them. It would be well that the Chief Commissioner for Works, or some other Member of the Government, having had his attention directed to that misstatement, should offer some explanation on the point. In the police order dated the 11th of October, the members of the force were told that—

"Meetings for the purpose of delivering or hearing speeches, or for the public discussion of popular and exciting topics, are not to be allowed on Sundays in any of the Parks.

The House would observe that the order was limited to Sundays, and yet the police, professedly acting in obedience to the order, put down the last meeting, which was held on Saturday. The terms of the order moreover allowed individual constables to put such a construction upon them as they thought likely to he gratifying to their superiors. He trusted that the House would agree that the Chief Commissioner of Police, intrusted with the duty of carrying out the laws for the benefit of the subject, had set an example of the most glaring and flagrant illegality. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if any person was aggrieved he had the remedy in his own hands, as he could prosecute the police-constahle for assault, but that proceeding had been anticipated and provided against by Sir Richard Mayne. The 10th paragraph of instructions ran thus—

"It is desirable to avoid taking persons into custody, either for addressing meetings or for joining one which is prohibited."

Nothing could be more astute than that direction. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Read the whole paragraph.] He had read the whole paragraph. He wanted to know what business Sir Richard Mayne had to interfere with any person unless he took him into custody, and thus gave him an opportunity of questioning the legality of the act. The other paragraphs of that remarkable order of Sir Richard Mayne were directed to the instruction of the police how to prevent public meetings, and that it was which gave significance to the tenth paragraph, which prevented any person aggrieved from testing the legality of the acts of the police. By the last paragraph, the police were

"Specially cautioned not to notice any offensive or angry language used towards them; if required to interfere they are to do so with the necessary vigour to effect the object, but to show great forbearance towards all not actually engaged in the commission of illegal acts."

Thus Sir Richard Mayne was pleased to say that any person not committing an illegal act was to be treated with forbearance. It was well to recollect who were the persons to whom the carrying out of these orders was intrusted. He could speak from his own personal knowledge, being connected with a society comprising Members of the other House of Parliament, whose attention had been attracted to the conduct of the police, and he could say that their conduct was not satisfactory. But he would cite better authority. Mr. Selfe, a well-known metropolitan magistrate, referring to a case which came before him, said the police sergeant had been too officious. He had seen so many cases of similar misconduct that he intended to keep a record of all such cases, and upon another occasion the same magistrate said that, speaking generally, it would be well if constables were not so officious, and were to refrain from ill using persons. And yet these were the constables who were justified by the right hon. Gentleman for applying an order made to prevent meetings on Sundays to a meeting held on a Saturday. Mr. Yardley, also a magistrate, said, day after day persons were brought before him who ought never to have been taken into custody. A still higher authority, Mr. Baron Bramwell, said, in relation to a case tried before him, that the police were a stupid set of men. In conclusion, lie hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation how it was that he justified orders which indicated an assumption of authority on the part of the police which was dangerous to the liberty of the subject, and was calculated to bring the law and the administration of justice into contempt.

said, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the inconvenience which was caused to the people of the metropolis by the course he, on behalf of the Government, had pursued upon the Question. His hon. Friend who had called attention to the subject had done so, perhaps, not in a very lucid mariner, so that its real importance might not be apparent to hon. Gentlemen. It really was a serious Question, what were the precise rights of the people in the parks of this metropolis, as great inconvenience had resulted from the people being left by the Government under a misconception upon that point. It was the duty of the Government upon a Question of the kind to state clearly and distinctly what were their views, so that the people ought to be under no misapprehension as to their rights in the parks. It was not for him to suggest what those rights were, but for the Government to state what authority they claimed over the parks and over the people who went into them for any purpose. Would the right hon. Baronet explain whether the public had a right to go into the parks and to assemble there to discuss any public question. It could not be allowed that it should be left to Sir Richard Mayne or to any subordinate person to say that people should assemble for one purpose but not for another—that 50.000 persons might assemble on Primrose Hill to plant a tree in honour of Shakespeare, but that they should not assemble there to express an opinion about Garibaldi. There must be some principle governing all meetings, but if there was to be a discretion, it must be intrusted to some other authority than Sir Richard Mayne. He wanted to know in whom that discretion was vested. Was it in the Home Secretary or in the Chief Commissioner of Works? A capricious application of the rule made for Sunday meetings to Saturday meetings left the Question in a position which involved danger to the peace of the metropolis.

Sir, I am glad to have an opportunity of stating what I believe to be the right of the people to the parks. Before I do so, however, I wish to advert to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Peterborough. He has raised two questions—the right of the public generally to assemble in the parks for all purposes, and he has questioned the expediency, and even the legality, of the notice issued in 1862 upon that subject, and the instructions given by the Chief Commissioner for the guidance of the police. He has also raised what I may call a minor question, as to the expediency or legality of interfering with the meeting which was recently held on Primrose Hill. The hon. Gentleman says he has looked through the Police Acts, and in vain endeavoured to find the authority under which Sir Richard Mayne interferes, as he has done, with the people in the parks. But the authority is not contained in the Police Acts at all. The order was issued in October, 1862, and was caused by the riotous assemblies which had then recently taken place in the parks. The Police Acts confer no such authority as the hon. Gentleman referred to on Sir Richard Mayne. But the parks are Royal parks. They are the property of the Crown; and through the liberality and munificence of the Crown, with the desire that the public shall have the enjoyment of the parks, they have been dedicated to the public use — to the use of all classes in the metropolis, and of persons coming to visit the metropolis, subject to certain restrictions and conditions, which are essential to the objects for which the parks have thus been thrown open. The Crown, therefore, has the right to issue regulations with regard to the manner in which the parks are to be used by the public, and the enforcement of these regulations is not left to the mere discretion of the police, but to the Commissioner of Police and the force under his command, acting under the instructions of the Secretary of State. [Mr. WHALLEY: That is not stated in the order.] That is true, but it is not necessary fur the validity of such an order that the authority under which it is made should be stated in it. Really I was not aware that any doubt existed on the subject. I thought it was universally known that the parks were Crown property. Intimations to that effect may be seen constantly exhibited on the park gates, giving notice to all the world that there are certain regulations under which the parks are to be used. The notice issued in October, 1862, although signed by Sir Richard Mayne, was given by the direct authority of myself, as Secretary of State, consequent upon the riotous proceedings which took place at that time, and which were the subject of very general and very just complaint. I am entirely responsible for it. The order referred to Sunday meetings, and distinctly stated that they could not be allowed, because they were utterly inconsistent with the objects for which the parks had been dedicated to the use of the public. The hon. Gentleman said there was a gross mistake in that notice. He said that the persons who came there were peaceably disposed, but others came not so disposed, and actual conflict took place in the park on two or three successive Sundays. Persons came there armed with sticks and stones, and it was absolutely necessary for public order and for the sake of those who used the parks, that such riotous proceedings should he put a stop to, and Sir Richard Mayne gave instructions to the police to give effect to the terms of that notice. These meetings had been held on Sunday, and he limited his instructions to Sunday because on Sunday only had the objectionable proceedings arisen; but the terms of the notice were general, warning the public against such meetings at any time. The hon. Member complains of the terms in which the order was issued, and he is extremely indignant that constables are told not to take people into custody or take notice of any offensive language, but to show great forbearance, because by such conduct persons are deprived of any ground of complaint before a magistrate. Then he complains of the conduct of the police, and quotes remarks made by magistrates with reference to individual cases brought before them, and not with reference to the general conduct of the force. I am very glad to find the hon. Gentleman has no new complaint to make of the conduct of the police since last year, for the passages he has read from Mr. Selfe and other magistrates were all published and circulated last year by the society with which the hon. Gentleman says he is connected. I have already answered the question as to the authority under which public meetings are prohibited in the parks. As to the expediency of that prohibition, I will not now enter into any argument I will only say that I believe it to be conducive to the public interests, and the enjoyment of all persons making use of the parks, that they should not be used for holding such meetings. With regard to Primrose Hill, although not specially alluded to, I may say that it does not stand on the same footing as the other Royal parks, but it is placed by Act of Parliament under the express authority of the Chief Commissioner of Public Works, and under special directions it also is dedicated to the public. It became necessary, therefore, when a tree was to be planted to the memory of Shakespeare, to make application to my right hon. Friend for leave to assemble a large body of people there. On that occasion leave was readily conceded. Then I come to the other case—namely, the meeting to discuss the departure of General Garibaldi. The hon. Gentleman says I justified it with reference to the instructions given in October, 1862. Neither the Secretary of State, nor the Commissioner of Works, nor the Chief Commissioner of Police, gave any directions to the police to interfere with that meeting. I regretted that interference, but I said I believed the Superintendent of Police on the spot conceived that he was acting in the spirit of the notice of October, 1862, prohibiting meetings of an exciting character in the parks. So far from justifying interference, I expressed my regret, and the Chief Commissioner of Police himself intimated to the superintendent on duty there that he had exceeded his duty in interfering with that meeting, and that he ought not to have done so without special instructions. No injury was inflicted on any person, and it is not likely, after the notice Sir Richard Mayne had taken of the proceedings, that any such interference will again occur. I have, I think, answered the question of the hon. Gentleman—Sir Richard Mayne has no authority on these matters. It is the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Works who have the authority, and we are entirely responsible for what we have done.

said, he wished to know, if it were desired to hold a peaceful meeting on Primrose Hill, to take into consideration the rejection of the £6 franchise by that House, whether permission would be given for such a purpose?

The best answer I can give to that question is to state, that when a request was made subsequently to my right hon. Friend to hold a meeting on Primrose Hill, anticipating that it would be a peaceful meeting—and it turned out a very small as well as a peaceful one—permission was given.

said, he would venture to suggest if another meeting should be held to discuss the departure of Gari- baldi it should be held before Sutherland House.

observed, that it was the custom of the Government to make a statement on introducing the Army and Navy Estimates, but not the Miscellaneous, or Civil Service, or Supplemental Votes. He wished, therefore, to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he was prepared to make a statement with reference to the plans of the National Gallery and the result of the negotiations with the Royal Academy, and whether he would allow full time for consideration after the statement be made, before the House was asked to vote money in pursuance of it?

, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, the measure proposed that the class of houses to which it referred should be closed during the hours between one and four o'clock in the morning. Since the Bill had been printed and circulated, the licensed victuallers of the metropolis, whom it chiefly concerned, had held a meeting, and passed resolutions entirely concurring in its object, believing it would be conducive to public morality and not prejudicial to their interests. They and the refreshment housekeepers had made some suggestions as to certain exceptions being made in the case of houses which were licensed for musical and other entertainments. It was desired that there should be a power of granting an occasional licence for such places to be kept open beyond one o'clock; and he should endeavour to prepare a clause for that purpose. He wished also to amend the Bill by including the City of London within its operation, because, though geographically within the metropolitan district, the City was not technically within it.