said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government, now that the Oaths hitherto taken by Members of Parliament have been replaced by a simple and uniform Oath, to introduce a Bill in the present Session to substitute a similar form of Oath for that now required to be taken by all persons accepting municipal or other offices in Ireland?

said, he would beg to supplement the question by asking whether the Government will abolish the Oath of Allegiance now taken by others than persons holding office in Ireland, and substitute a new Oath of Allegiance?

said, in reply, that the Government did not propose to introduce any Bill at present for the object mentioned by the hon. Members; but they proposed and had decided to issue a Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the oaths taken in this country, of reviewing them, and of deciding what oaths ought to be altered, as contain- ing anything unnecessary or objectionable. He might add that the inquiry would include the case to which the question of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. O'Reilly), appeared to refer—namely, oaths taken by the students of Maynooth.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in accordance with the Special Report of the City Traffic Committee, the Commissioners of Police in their respective districts, have been instructed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to submit regulations for the traffic of the Metropolis?

said, in reply, that his hon. Friend must have misunderstood the purport of the Report of the Committee. They reported that the Bill was too limited in its operation, but they recommended that a general measure should be proposed which should regulate the traffic throughout the metropolis. It would be the duty of the Government to prepare a Bill for this purpose, but regulations could have no force without Parliamentary sanction.

said, he wished to know whether the Government itself intend to take charge of the Bill?

said, that was their intention in accordance with the statement he had already made.

said, he would beg to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, who had a Notice on the Paper relating to Reciprocity Treaties, to have the goodness to postpone it, and give notice of the terms of the Resolution he proposed.

, in reply, said, his complaint was that a treaty involving a trade of £10,000,000 sterling and certain fishery and navigation rights had been allowed to terminate without a single scrap of information being laid before the House. He should be very sorry, however, although his notice had been on the Paper for several weeks, to give any inconvenience to the hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, postpone it for the present, and place on the Paper a copy of the Resolution he propose to move, fixing another day when a discussion could take place on the subject.

Sir, I stated on Friday night—or rather, to be more accurate, at daybreak on Saturday morning—that I would to-day, with the permission of the House, make known the views of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the course of the most important parts of public business with which they are concerned; and of course after such a division as that which took place at the time I have named, it is right that I should explicitly state the view which Her Majesty'3 Government take of their position. Her Majesty's Government have not seen in that division any reason or warrant for their desisting from the effort in which they are engaged to pass into law a measure with reference to the Representation of the People. They understand their position—not to dwell for a moment upon the slight numerical difference between the majority and the minority—to be as follows: One moiety of the House was prepared to accede to the proposal of the Government to enter upon the consideration of the Franchise Bill, upon the under- standing which subsisted before the second reading—that is to say, the understanding, or rather the pledge, which was given by the Government, that they would introduce into the House before proposing to go into Committee on the Franchise Bill, a Bill relating to the Re-distribution of Seats and Bills relating to the subject of Reform in Scotland and in Ireland. The other moiety of the House did not declare itself unwilling to enter on the consideration of the Franchise Bill, but, on the contrary, acquiesced without a division in the Motion for the second reading, when it had become the substantive and main Question; but they interposed an important condition—I must not understand the Amendment differently, though its terms were hardly adhered to by those who supported it—namely, that before considering the question of the Franchise the House must have before it the whole intentions of the Government with respect to Parliamentary Reform. By the whole intentions of the Government I understand—although there are other points of great importance—our intentions with regard to the re-distribution of seats; and, no doubt, as collateral to that, our intentions with respect to the question of boundaries, as well as the arrangements for reforming the representation in Ireland and Scotland. The position in which we stand, therefore, appears to be this—that the whole House is agreed in the disposition to take into consideration the measure of Parliamentary Reform before it on receiving that information—of course, without the smallest prejudice to the course any hon. Members may think it right to take when in possession of that information. I stated in the course of the debate on Friday night that Her Majesty's Government would be very unwilling to quarrel upon any mere question of procedure with those who might be agreed with them in regard to the main objects which they have in view. Nothing has occurred, and, indeed, nothing could very well occur, between that time and this to give us any further information as to the views or wishes of the House or any part of the House with respect to questions of procedure—in fact, I think it is obvious that hon. Gentlemen whose minds may still be open upon that subject to any further view, may naturally be waiting for the production of the Government Bill with reference to the re-distribution of seats. That being so, we have come to the conclusion that our present duty is a very simple one. It is to lose no time in producing the plan we shall recommend to the House with respect to the re-distribution of seats. Now, that cannot be done till after Thursday next, because after the arrangements that hare been made as to the Financial Statement, it would not, I think, be convenient for the despatch of public business generally that that statement should be further delayed. What we propose, therefore, is, that on Monday next I shall ask leave—postponing for that purpose the Orders of the Day—to bring in a Bill for the Re-distribution of Seats. In concurrence with that step, I shall also propose to place for Monday next the Motion for the Committee on the Franchise Bill; of course, not with the view of asking the House to go into Committee at that time, for till that day we are not in a position to arrive at any clear view, or to ask the House to adopt any clear view, with regard to the precise day for moving that the Speaker do leave the Chair on that Bill. I have nothing else to say so far as regards the question of Parliamentary Reform. And the House will therefore be good enough to understand that I propose on Thursday next in Committee of Ways and Means, to make the usual Financial Statement. And I will venture to offer an observation on that subject, which is intended entirely for the convenience of the House, and which they will please to put in practice according as they see fit. The old and regular practice of the House, until quite recently, was this—that after the Financial Statement an opportunity was given to hon. Members of rising in pretty quick succession one after the other, to put Questions to the Minister with respect to any point requiring explanation. There was very great convenience in that practice, because it brought the whole matter into a very small compass, and enabled Gentlemen to obtain at once whatever information they might desire. Of late years there has been a tendency to substitute for that practice a general debate upon the Budget; and the consequence is that hon. Gentlemen have often great difficulty in putting Questions which, if they had had the opportunity of putting, the whole plan would have gone forth to the country in a more complete and intelligible form. Of course, I should not think of questioning the liberty, or offering any advice to hon. Gentlemen, as to limiting the privileges of debate, in any way whatever; but I would respectfully submit that it would be for the convenience of the House if after the Financial Statement those Members whose object is not to enter into a general discussion, but to put Questions with a view to obtaining information, are allowed to take precedence in obtaining such information. There is another very important subject on which I answered the noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) the other night, when he asked me whether I was able to decide upon the plan I proposed to submit to the House on the subject of Church Rates, I wish to say that I am not able to-day to announce any result of such communications as I have held with hon. Members in regard to Church Rates, but I hope on Thursday to be able to make some announcement on the subject.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Franchise and Re-distribution Bills together, or to carry the two Bills separately?

My intention is confined for the present to the Notice I have given; because, as I have already stated, I do not think, as far as we are able to judge, that hon. Members themselves are in the most favourable position to form their own judgment until our Re-distribution Bill shall have been introduced. When that shall have been introduced, we do not wish to fetter our own discretion, or in the slightest degree to fetter the discretion of any Member of the House, as to any further procedure.

Ireland having been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to know what are the intentions of the Government, with relation to dealing with the franchise in that country? I do not ask what they are going to do, for I do not want them to do anything, but whether they intend to introduce a Bill relating to the franchise as well as to the re-distribution of seats in Ireland.

The best answer I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, that I hope the Bill relating to Ireland—which I trust may be introduced on Monday—will be, as far as the intentions of the Government are concerned, a complete measure.

said, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to intimate to the House that he would proceed with the Re-distribution Bill paripassu with the Franchise Bill. ["No, no!"] What he wished to ask was, in the first place, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the House a sufficient opportunity of considering the Re-distribution Bill?—and whether, in the next place, he would take the second reading of that Bill before asking the House to go into Committee on the Franchise Bill? It seemed to him very desirable that the Re-distribution Bill, and also a Bill for regulating and defining the boundaries of boroughs, should pass the second reading before the House were asked to go into Committee on the Franchise Bill.

It may be taken for granted—and if it is not I have no hesitation in saying—that the Government will make no attempt to deprive Members of this House of due time for considering their course after our plan with regard to the re-distribution of seats is before them. By placing it on the table, and taking as much time as is necessary, it will put both themselves and us in the best position for considering any ulterior measures.

reminded the House that there was an unimportant part of the Kingdom called Scotland, and he begged to ask whether the Franchise Bill for Scotland would be read a second time before or after the other parts of the scheme were proceeded with.

The Reform Bill for Scotland will, I have no doubt, be introduced on Monday night by my hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate; but with regard to its further stages, I would rather give no pledge at present.

I do not wish to act irregularly, and I shall, therefore, conclude with a Motion. I wish to say that I think, on the whole, the course taken by Her Majesty's Government seems to be undoubtedly the right and the proper one; because it must be borne in mind that now that the Bill for the Reduction of the Franchise has been read a second time, the whole House is agreed upon the principle; for the minority which, on Friday night, divided in support of the Amendment of my noble Friend the Member for Chester (Earl Grosvenor), expressed their desire to consider a measure of Reform which would lead to a settlement of the question, and also a desire of seeing the scheme which the Government proposed to submit to the House. These two objects will now really be achieved, as before we go into Committee we shall have the scheme of Her Majesty's Government before us. Now, the settlement of this question depends altogether upon the Bill about to be submitted to the House; and, of course, not having that Bill before us, and having no idea of what it is to contain, it is impossible to express any opinion now whether the two Bills together will afford any chance of a settlement of the question or any prospect or basis for a settlement. I am one of those, in common with a great many Members on this side of the House, who supported Her Majesty's Government on Friday night; but I am one of the section who think that this question ought to be considered as a whole. I gave my support to the Government and voted against the Amendment of my noble Friend because their plan appeared to me the only feasible mode in which we could see some prospect of coming to a settlement. It is quite clear at any rate, that if the Amendment had been successful, and the Government had gone out of office and the Bill had been lost, we should have been as far off any chance of a settlement as ever. Now, Sir, I am inclined to agree with what fell from an hon. Member the other evening, who said that no satisfactory settlement of the question could be arrived at by Parliament without the consent and the co-operation of the Conservative party. I think the powers of resistance to any measure of this kind in quiet times like ours are so great that unless terms of conciliation are held out to all parties there is very little likelihood of those powers of resistance being overcome. I think it is to the interest of Gentlemen opposite that a proper and reasonable settlement of this important question should be arrived at; and I cannot help thinking that if the measure to be introduced next week is a fair one, fairly weighing the opposite interests of the country, and taking into consideration what cannot be justly neglected—namely, the claims of the landed interest to have at least some share in the re-distribution of seats—I cannot but think that if the question of the re-distribution of seats be treated in some such way, it may afford a basis for a settlement of the question. There are two grievances in respect to this question—the grievance of the great unrepresented towns and portions of towns, those places which have sprung up chiefly in the North of England and one or two in the South of England, and which have no representation in this House. According to our old fashioned Constitution, had the same circumstances occurred 200 years since, those places would have at once had writs sent down to them for the election of Members to this House. Another grievance is that the counties, in proportion to their wealth, their taxation, and their population, are very much leas represented than the boroughs. I cannot help thinking that much of the resistance offered to the Franchise Bill by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the past debate has been in consequence of their alarm and uneasiness arising from the supposition that these claims of the landed interest would not meet with fair consideration unless the whole question was brought before us. When this question, as a whole, comes before the House, it will be perfectly competent for the House to deal with it as a whole. They will have power to submit the two Bills to the same Committee—for there is a Standing Order enabling that to be done—there is a power in this House which enables them to direct a Committee to join two Bills in one; so that when the House is in possession of the scheme, if it is a good one, or admits of being turned into a good one, by reasonable alterations, they can pass it, for I apprehend the Government is not prepared to stand upon the ipsissima verba of every section and item of the Bill. Surely this is not a bad opportunity for Members interested in and desirous of obtaining a fair settlement upon reasonable terms to try and see whether we cannot come to some agreement on the subject. I think the probability of such a settlement being come to depends upon the spirit in which we and in which hon. Gentlemen opposite approach this question. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not offer resistance to the measure simply because it is proposed by Gentlemen on this side, but will consider it with a view to the public interests, and with a view to the settlement of the matter. I cannot conceive any worse position for hon. Gentlemen opposite as a party either in the country or in the House than for this question to remain upon the table of the House, and to allow it to be a trouble to them whenever they have a chance of attaining power, and to be a stick in the hands of the Liberal party to thrash them with whenever they come into office. I must say I think there is a fund of good sense in this House which would enable us, if we approached it in a proper manner, to settle this question, I expressed my opinion in the early part of this Session, and I adhere to it now, that the Government made a great mistake in the mode in which they first approached this matter; but that, of course, is a question of judgment in which, perhaps, they were as well able to form an opinion as I was. At any rate, that mistake is now remedied—we are now to have the whole scheme before us, and we can now see whether it is possible to come to some common understanding on the subject and arrive at a fair settlement. I beg, in conclusion, to move the adjournment of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Reform Bill for Scotland about to be introduced would, like the Irish Bill, be a complete measure, involving a re-distribution of seats as well as a reduction of the franchise? It was not to be supposed that a re-distribution of seats was not required in Scotland. In Sutherlandshire, for instance, there were only 200 electors, almost all of whom were tenants of one individual. That county might very fairly be united to Caithness-shire, and the Member for Sutherlandshire might with propriety be transferred to the City of Glasgow. He there fore wished to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate to the subject when he introduced the question.

took the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question on the subject of the Reform Bill. They had heard much talk about standing or falling by the Bill, and when Government had so miserable a majority he thought in his ignorance that they would resign. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to his mind the impression that if they went into Committee upon the Bill, and the House in the exercise of its wisdom should agree to an increase in the borough franchise, such a Resolution would be accepted by the Government as fatal to the Bill. He wished to know whether that would be the case or not—whether if the House were to put the borough franchise at £8, the Government would consider such a result as fatal to the Bill, and, therefore, that the natural consequences would follow?

I understand the meaning of standing or falling by the Bill to be this—that as long as the Bill stands we stand. If the Bill falls we fall. But the view we take is that the Bill still stands. With regard to the question of any alterations to be made in the Bill in Committee, I did not intend to convey, and I believe I did not convey, anything as to what clauses we consider important and vital, or what clauses are unimportant. That is a matter which I conceive to be entirely out of the province of the short explanation I have made to-day, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not draw any inference as to this question from it.

said, he rose, in this rather premature discussion upon the Bill which they had not yet seen, to echo the wishes and the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). He trusted that before they again had reason to "destroy their bridges" and to "burn their boats" they should arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the question. If the present opportunity were not made use of, he feared that the consequences might be serious. In his opinion, the party to which he belonged made a great mistake in not going into Committee upon the Reform Bill which was before the House in 1859, and he earnestly hoped that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would not now make a similar mistake.

I wish to say a few words as to the promise which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to lay before the House some clauses which he will propose to add to the Church Rates Abolition Bill. We have now heard that it will be impossible for him to make his statement before Thursday next, and the Bill for the total Abolition of Church Rates stands for Committee for the following Wednesday. This being so, it will be impossible for the country in this short time to make up their minds upon the matter. If the result of the negotiations between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill (Mr. Hardcastle) should be that the Government will become responsible for the Bill; and indeed under the circumstances I do not see how it is possible for the Bill of a private Member to be amended by the Government before going into Committee without their making themselves responsible for it, I think that my suggestion is a reasonable one. However that may be, I would entreat the right hon. Gentleman to make some arrangement to give the country time to consider his proposal.

I fully agree with what the noble Lord has stated. I promised that I would state on Thursday what the Government would or would not do in this matter. Nothing would be so objectionable as that we should not give all persons both inside and outside of the House time to consider the clauses proposed to be introduced. I will, therefore, intercede with the hon. Gentleman and endeavour to arrive at some arrangement to secure the object of the noble Lord.

said, he was glad to see this Vote inserted in the Estimates, for it was quite time that the University of London should have not only a name, but a local habitation. He wished, however, to know where it was intended to erect the proposed building?

replied, that the site would be on the northern side of the garden of Burlington House. As Burling- ton House had been purchased by the country for the purposes of science and art, it seemed to be a most appropriate spot for the erection of the London University.

said, the University of London had been of immense use in this country, and had rendered good service to the cause of education and science; but still, those whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject could see no building in which the University was maintained. It was at present located in the two wings of the court-yard of Burlington House, and the rooms were totally inadequate for the examinations annually conducted there. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that further rooms should be provided, and it appeared essential that the University should be placed in a more commodious building. The University of London, he might remark, was founded in consequence of an address from that House to the Crown. It was founded by a charter, and was made a Government establishment from its very beginning. The Government undertook to provide a building in which I it might carry on its operations. It had been removed from Somerset House to Burlington House, and the time had now come when it was necessary that sufficient accommodation should be provided in the neighbourhood of that building.

thought a better site for the University might have been found on the new Thames Embankment, where every one might have been able to see the building.

asked, what architectural arrangements had been made.

said, that a calculation had been made as to the amount of accommodation that would be required, but no steps had yet been taken to obtain an architectural elevation. It was necessary to take a Vote before any decision could be come to.

further asked, whether it was intended to take any pains at all as to the architecture?

thought the back of Burlington House was not a site worthy of such a building.

said, the rooms now used by the University belonged to the Royal Society, and were used for the meetings of the Royal Society on Thursday evenings. All that the University wanted was a convenient building in which examinations might be held and degrees conferred. Though he should like to see the building on the Thames Embankment, it was obvious that the central position of Burlington House, which was convenient of access, was well adapted to the purpose—indeed, he did not know of any better place.

inquired how far the allotting of the ground in Cork Street for the London University would affect the removal, which had been long anticipated, of the National Gallery to Burlington House? Some years ago it was proposed to locate the National Gallery in Burlington House Gardens, and to leave the site in Trafalgar Square wholly to the Royal Academy; but this sensible and cheap plan had been overthrown in the House. It was then understood that the Royal Academy was to go to Burlington House Gardens, and that the National Gallery was to be rebuilt in Trafalgar Square, and although that did not seem to be quite the cheapest and most practical plan, at any rate it provided two sites for the two buildings. If the National Gallery was to be rebuilt, and the London University was to take the Cork Street front, what was to be done with the Royal Academy? Was it to go to Brompton to that large Yorkshire pie, which was to be called the Hall of Science and Art, in which a good many gentlemen had invested sums varying from a hundred to a thousand pounds, and which would, no doubt, be a source of great amusement, if, possibly, not of dividend? Where was the Royal Academy to be located if not in Burlington House Gardens or Trafalgar Square?

had been under the impression that this outlay of £20,000 was for the London University, but it had just been explained that it was merely for class-rooms, in which the University of London was to conduct its examinations.

observed, that the University of London was only an examining body.

said, that rather strengthened his argument. The building was not to be of a character of any great magnificence. The requirements of the University were at present satisfied by the use of a large room in Burlington House; and, if so, he wanted to know how it could be necessary to spend £65,000 for any such purpose, and why it was necessary to fix upon one of the most valuable sites in London for the building?

, as a graduate of the University of London, wished to say that the rooms it now occupied were totally inadequate for its purpose. Some of them who presented themselves for degrees were examined in a rifle shed; and some were sent to taverns and other places where they could not be under the eye of the examiner. There was a vast amount of business to be transacted daily by the registrar and other officers of the University, and the present rooms were totally inadequate for the purpose. In the course of a year there were some seventy or eighty examination days. The University required a building in a central, but not a noisy situation, and one that was easily accessible. It had been decided by successive Governments that the University ought to have a building of its own, in the same manner as the Queen's University in Ireland possessed one; and, as the University was dependent upon the House, it was a reasonable proposal to erect a building at a cost of £65,000, of which £20,000 was to be spent this year.

said, that there was no objection to the University having a building, but there was an objection to that building occupying the site which it was expected that either the National Gallery or the Academy would have had. Thirty years ago, when University College was provided with a building, the design of Mr. Wilkins consisted of a centre and two deep wings. The wings were as yet unbuilt, he supposed because they had not yet been wanted; but now, why not build them and give them to the London University? That would be the most sensible and cheapest way of meeting the requirements of the University, and would be a compliment to its oldest College.

replied, that the students who came to the examinations at the London University came from many Colleges, and belonged to different religious denominations, and surely the hon. Gentleman would not wish the building used for those examinations to be made an adjunct to a College founded upon particular principles. Such a proposal would be most distasteful to the members of King's College; and it was one which had never before been suggested. Last year, the University examined more than 1,000 students, on thirteen different occasions, the examinations extending over fifty or sixty days. The accommodation now provided was entirely insufficient. The University asked for proper rooms for meetings of the senate and for business offices, a large hall for examinations, which should not be less than the large hall in Burlington House, and a smaller examination hall, with the necessary class and anterooms. It would be impossible to construct a building to meet the requirements of the University for a less sum than that now asked for.

was surprised to hear an argument which savoured so of religious intolerance proceeding from such a quarter, and did not see why physical contiguity should affect religious principles. If they built the walls thick enough between the old building and the new wings, there was no fear of the students of the Protestant King's College of London, or the Roman Catholic students of Oscott, being contaminated with any religious rinderpest. He mentioned the fact that he, who was, he flattered him self, not particularly latitudinarian, had been a party to negotiations for transferring an architectural museum to University College, as a good site for an artistic collection.

had always understood that a considerable sum of money had been paid for Burlington House, and that the building now belonged to the nation. He had also always understood that the Royal Academy was to be established on that site; but if the Royal Society had acquired rights there, it would be well for the House to know the fact; and he thought that, before proceeding further, the House ought to be told more about the plan which was to be adopted.

observed, that the London University had enlarged its operations of late years. Its importance was daily increasing, and it was absolutely necessary that it should have a new building, where its examinations could be properly conducted. The estimate had been framed with the view of giving all the accommodation which the Senate of the London University required, and of constructing a building of such dignity as was befitting for a University. It was a mistake to suppose that the erection of this building in the Garden of Burlington House would at all interfere with the arrangements made with respect to the Royal Academy. The site was no less than three acres in extent, and the building would be erected, not on the Quadrangle, but on the northern side of Burlington Gardens. This was the site which the authorities of the University most desired, while the Royal Academy only wanted the Piccadilly front. They did not wish to go to the Thames Embankment, where probably the noise would be so great that the business could not be properly conducted; nor did they desire to go to Grower Street, even supposing the site in that quarter were not private property. They wanted to have a Building of their own, and not to be associated with University College, for such an association would keep up the delusion that the London University was nothing but a College.

confessed that he felt very jealous of any allotment on the site of Burlington House, for he thought that the requirements of the Royal Academy ought to be first considered. The Senate of the London University only wanted rooms on certain occasions, but the Royal Academy was a permanent institution, and was to be removed from another locality.

repeated, that the portion of the site proposed to be given to the Senate of the University of London was totally different from that on which the Building of the Royal Academy would be constructed, and that there was not the slightest danger of the two Buildings interfering with each other.

thought it would be very disadvantageous to the metropolis that the buildings on the important site in question should be overcrowded; and he wished to know whether the main building of Burlington House, facing Piccadilly, was to be devoted to the Royal Academy?

was of opinion that before this Vote was agreed to, the House should be in possession of some general scheme for occupying the ground facing Piccadilly and the Gardens behind. He thought it would be desirable for the Government to postpone the Vote for the present.

said, that the arrangement with respect to the Royal Academy was, that their Building was to have a front next Piccadilly, with a row of galleries running along the east side of the ground. The Vote now under consideration referred to the appropriation of a portion of the Gardens on the west side.

observed, that already three or four different societies were located in Burlington House, and, as it was now proposed to have buildings in Burlington Gardens, it became very important to know whether the available space would not be too crowded. It might, eventually, be found necessary to buy up houses in order to open the locality.

suggested that the Vote should be deferred till a uniform scheme was produced for the whole building. At the same time, he must say anything would be an improvement on the dead wall which had so long disgraced Piccadilly.

admitted that the suggestion for deferring this Vote till a scheme was produced for the disposal of the whole of Burlington House was certainly not in the face of it unreasonable. He ventured, however, to hope that the proposal would not be insisted on, for a reason which he would presently state. But, first of all, he must say that the caution about not crowding buildings, though very good and sound, must be taken with some reserve. The Government having expended large sums for the acquisition of valuable sites in London, a necessity existed for making an economical use of them. The country would not be satisfied if, after having given a large sum for Burlington House, although he thought it an extremely advantageous purchase, its accommodation were not properly taken advantage of. Besides providing for the University of London and the Royal Academy, the available space would do a great deal more. It was necessary to take this Vote, because the case of the University of London was urgent in point of time. If they were not allowed to take a Vote until they could produce a plan for the appropriation of the whole site, there would be a loss of a whole year, and even then the object in view would not be attained. The Royal Academy was going to build out of its own funds, and it would require a good deal of time to settle the mode of filling up the intermediate portion of the site. The great question related to the frontages to the north and south. Though great architectural questions might not be involved, there would be a good deal of adjustment and arrangement of details, involving either a very wasteful or economical apportionment of space. Suppose, for instance, that half a dozen learned societies held meetings more or less numerous, to propose that each should have halls adapted to its purpose would necessarily require a great deal of space. It might, however, be possible to let the several bodies use the same large halls, but that arrangement would require a good deal of time. On that account he should like the Committee to pass this Vote. But he accompanied that with this arrangement. His right hon. Friend had already the ground plan prepared, and there would be no difficulty in immediately proceeding with the preparation of the designs, so as to give hon. Gentlemen what opportunities for criticism they might desire before any step was taken in the erection of the buildings.

hoped the Vote would be postponed. He protested against the extravagant expenditure of money drawn in part from the taxation of Ireland upon the embellishment of London. He could not see why they should have selected so expensive a site for the London University. He could not see that the site offered any particular advantage, except its proximity to the Arcade and the Blue Posts; and, in fact, it would be better out of London.

wished to know who was to be the architect of these buildings? Burlington House was the work of a very eminent architect; and it would be a matter of very great regret if Lord Burlington's fine front were pulled down without something very good being substituted for it.

agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Burlington House was a valuable site, and ought to be made the most of; but could not conceive a more extraordinary proposal than that of having different styles for the two fronts. Surely the best plan would be to have one plan and one style of architecture. Burlington House ought not to be sacrificed, however, unless it was absolutely necessary, which he did not think had been proved.

did not attach so much importance to the two fronts being in one style, as they would be some distance apart. Burlington House was a fine specimen of its style, and every endeavour should be made to preserve it. He would throw out one more suggestion before this desultory discussion closed—that the First Commissioner of Works, who had acquired daily instalments of popularity in proportion as he had added architect upon architect to the competition for the New Courts of Justice, should make a sort of "Consolation Stakes" for the design of this University building wherever it might be placed for three or four of the architects who had been excluded from the competition of those courts.

wished to know if he was correct in understanding that no plan had been drawn out?

suggested that as only £10,000 was proposed for a similar object in Ireland the present Vote should be reduced to that sum.

, in explanation, said, the matter had occupied a great deal of his attention, and that of his architectural adviser, Mr. Pennethorne; and, though he had not thought it necessary to mature the plans before the House sanctioned the principle that the London University was to have an adequate building, he could assure the House that the plans would be completed before any of the work was commenced, and he would promise to place them within the reach of hon. Members, so as to show the portion that would be occupied by the Royal Academy on the southern side, that occupied by the London University at the northern end, and the intermediate space which would accommodate the learned societies. The plan might be executed at different times, but the whole would be settled before any part was commenced. The Royal Academy building would be designed by their own architect, subject to the approval of the Board of Works, and care would be taken that it harmonized in character and general arrangements with the University building. They need not be identical in style, but all the buildings that would cover the site would be viewed as one composition.

thought it would be much better to have but one architect for the whole building.

was surprised at the hon. Member's wishing to confine the work to one man, either by imposing the Board of Works' architect on the Royal Academy or vice versâ. It was surely sufficient to have the two architects work in concert.

wished to know how far this system was to be continued, and whether the Government intended to propose grants for Colleges in all the large towns, like the Lyceums in France? He could not see what distinction could be drawn between the metropolis and other large towns, and, whereas he had always understood that only the education of the poor was to be aided out of the public purse, this grant introduced a new principle. If the London University was wanted, as he believed it was, and if the Government withheld their hand, he was sure that benefactors would come forward as in the case of other great national institutions, and that a sufficient sum would be raised to locate it. At present it appeared to be an airy being, which, though it had a name, had no habitation.

said, the Vote did not involve the principle of grants towards the foundation of Colleges in London and elsewhere. The London University had been in existence some years, and was an essential part of the educational institutions of the country, and what was now proposed to be done was in reality only carrying out what Parliament had agreed to twenty-five years ago, but there was no intention of founding other establishments out of the public purse.

had had no answer to his question as to the Vote to the London University being £67,000, while that to Ireland, under precisely similar circumstances, was only £10,000.

explained that the London University had from 1,000 to 1,100 students, while the Irish University had about 300, and the accommodation required for the two institutions was therefore very different.

, observing that this was a large sum of money, asked how it was to be laid out, and to what purpose it was proposed that the Chapter House, when restored, should be applied?

thought the Vote was a very moderate one, for the restoration of perhaps the most beautiful and venerable of our ecclesiastical buildings—a building in which that House had sat for 300 out of its 600 years, and which was therefore, as none other could be, identified with both Church and State. The I work of restoring it was promoted by Dean Trench and now by Dean Stanley, and it would, he thought, be a crying scandal if Parliament refused to carry that work into effect.

wished to know to whom the Chapter House belonged.

said, it was the property of the Government, into whose hands it had come after the dissolution of the monasteries, when it was taken possession of by the Crown. It had been used for a long time as a record office, but since the erection of the new building in Fetter Lane it was no longer required for that purpose, and it was thought desirable to restore the building.

asked, to what use it was intended to devote the building when restored? Was it to be given back to the Abbey, and who was the architect to be employed in its restoration?

replied, that the Government deemed it to be their duty when asking the House from time to time to vote money for the construction of new buildings of befitting splendour not to lay themselves open to the charge of being guilty of waste, and barbarism by allowing one of the most beautiful edifices ever erected to remain unrestored to a state worthy of its origin, its authors, and the period to which it belonged. The Government had not entered upon the consideration of the use to which the building might be applied—and they now only asked the House to recognize the propriety of its restoration—and the House would be competent to pronounce any opinion it might please as to the use to which the building should hereafter be put. The architect to be employed was Mr. Scott, who, as the Committee was well aware, had devoted much of his time to the acquisition of a knowledge of the Abbey—which for many years had occupied the first place in his mind—and everything connected with it, and whose appointment, therefore, must be regarded as highly satisfactory.

took occasion to say that several complaints had been made of the irregularity of the Irish mails between London and Dublin, and also of the high rate of the fares charged between the two capitals, which were only a few shillings less than those charged between London and Cork. The contractors for the former service saved, he believed, £20,000 a year, owing to their being able to evade the payment of the fines to which they were liable for non-punctuality in the performance of their contract, owing to the fact that the Harbour at Holyhead was not completed, and it was of importance, therefore, to know when the works would be finished and when the contract held by the service would expire.

said, he could not say exactly at that moment when the contract would terminate. He had been in communication with the contractors with the view of fixing upon a proper system of penalties, and he hoped to make some arrangements on the subject which would be satisfactory. As to the works at Holyhead harbour their construction was attended with considerable difficulty. Of late there had been successful endeavours to carry out the contracts.

hoped that in future good bargains would be made for the public, and that fines would be inflicted upon both the railway and the marine company for non-fulfilment of their respective contracts. Many works had been carried out for the purpose of facilitating landing, but he did not look upon them as permanent, as most likely they would be swept away some time or another; and, in fact, vessels moored to them were in danger every stormy night.

wished to call attention to the small sum that was expended in Ireland for Parks and other public works. He admitted that the agricultural districts were equally neglected in this respect.

asked the Attorney General for Ireland whether there was any intention on the part of Government to erect a new Probate Court in Dublin? The question had been put by the hon. Member for Sligo to the Attorney General for Ireland last Session, and the reply was that the matter was then under the consideration of Government. He wished to know if any steps had been taken in the matter. The-existing Probate Court was universally condemned by the Judges, the bar, and the public.

, in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland, could not give a full reply to the question.

observed, that these buildings were very nearly completed. It was very important that the records should be got in at once, and, therefore, he hoped everything would be done to carry out that object.

could assure the hon. and gallant Member that everything that the Treasury could do to forward the completion of the buildings had been and should be done.

said, that some difficulty had occurred in obtaining a desirable site for the erection of these buildings. The Government had asked for such a sum as would be necessary to carry out the building when a proper site was obtained.

said, that the law had imposed upon Government the duty of repairing the canal, but had not directed in what manner they were to dispose of it when the repairs were completed. When completed it would have either to be sold or transferred to the counties. He expected, however, that some arrangement would shortly be come to in reference to it.

observed that, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure for coals for the Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons remained about the worst ventilated room in which he ever had the good or ill fortune to sit. The atmosphere was particularly cold when it should be warm and was particularly warm when it should be cool. The bad effect of the air upon Members was such that they had continually to leave the House, and "a House of Commons headache" had become almost proverbial. That headache was supposed by some to be produced by the amount of gas burnt in the building, but the cause of this distressing malady was that the cold air was pumped in on the feet and legs, by which process the blood was forced into the head and the result was a violent headache. It was useless to have his seat pasted up and made comfortable, as the rush for seats in the new House of Commons was so great that a comfortable seat would be sure to be seized on. Hon. Members were obliged to leave their places to go and stand by the fire to warm themselves. That had been the state of things for the first two months of the Session ever since he had been in that House. The Speaker had, he supposed, succumbed at last to these evils, and it was to be hoped that something would now be done to remedy them. Those who sat on the Treasury Bench were, of course, not so much afflicted by these inconveniences, because they seemed to be so very crowded that they kept each other warm—to say nothing of the effect of official zeal and other considerations which he need not more particularly mention. But those who sat below the gangway suffered far more seriously; and before they met again in another Session the ventilation of the House ought to be placed in a more satisfactory condition. The system of lighting that House was also defective, and it contrasted unfavourably with the mode adopted in the other House of Parliament. In the ceiling there was a dull, opaque light, between which and the House a screen was interposed, so as to produce an atmosphere like that of London streets on a dismal November day. That was a state of things disgraceful to those who were responsible for it.

had never known till then the meaning of the phrase as to some hon. Members being "out in the cold;" but no doubt the complaints which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had just made would receive the attention of the officials charged with the ventilation and other arrangements of the House. Care would be taken to communicate with them on these matters.

said, it was the wish of the Government as far as possible to substitute payment by salary instead of by bill to the solicitors employed in this department, as being a more economical arrangement.

thought that the sums allowed to the Inspectors for travelling expenses—£600 each per annum—were excessive. Considering the nature of the duties performed, he believed that, as a rule, the visit of an Inspector to a workhouse took place about once in two years.

said, that when he first saw the amounts placed under that head he held an opinion similar to that which had fallen from the hon. Member for Chippenham. He found, however, on inquiry, that the amounts were perfectly justifiable, and, not as he at first supposed, excessive.

thought it would be advisable to establish a branch Audit Office in Dublin for Irish business, by which means the delay and the expense attendant upon the transmissions of all documents to London would be obviated.

said, that for some years past the business of this department had gradually been more and more concentrated, and he could not promise the hon. and learned Baronet that such a provision as he suggested should be included in any legislation during the present Session.

remarked that the work of the Commission for which the Vote was required had virtually come to an end, except that it had occasionally to supply information to the public. He thought the Vote was, therefore, excessive.

recommended an increase in the sums charged by the Office. An eminent person connected with the Court of Chancery had expressed surprise to him at the moderation of their fees on an occasion when he had effected an exchange of land through the Commission. He had also heard that the Commissioners were very deficient in fire-proof rooms.

said, he was not aware that the Commissioners were deficient in fire-proof rooms; and with respect to the objection raised to the following Vote, he explained that the whole amount was paid back into the Exchequer every year.

was about to make some observations, when an hon. Member moved that the House be counted. More than forty Members were, however, speedily gathered in the House, and the hon. Member proceeded to state that he had heard very general dissatisfaction expressed at the fact that the Board of Lunacy Commissioners was not directly responsible to the House. He had noticed that any department so situated invariably became unpopular. It was so with the Poor Law Board before the present arrangement was come to.

said, at this meeting, attended by chairmen from all parts of the country, there was not found one to defend the constitution of the Board; and he thought the subject should receive the attention of the Government.

said, that the whole question of the constitution of the Lunacy Commissions for the three kingdoms was deserving of consideration. In Ireland the Lunacy Commission took charge of the administration of lunatics altogether. The Scotch system had not been long enough in operation to enable the Government to say whether it was better than the others, but in a short time it would probably be the duty of the Government to make some inquiry into the subject.

said, he believed these roads had been taken under the charge of the Government, and the tolls on them were abolished in consequence of the Rebecca riots. He wondered whether any Rebecca riots in the neighbourhood of London would have the same effect. He wished to know what proportion the costs of inspection were to the whole sum disbursed?

was not in a position to give the exact percentage, but it was extremely small.

bore testimony to the excellent way in which the South Wales roads were managed, first by Colonel Harness, and more recently by General Wrotham.

wished to know how it was that the Registrar General of England had a salary of £1,000 a year, while the Registrars General of Scotland and Ireland had only salaries amounting to £150 a year each.

explained that the duties of the Registrars General of Scot land and Ireland were little more than nominal, while every one knew that the duties of the Registrar General of England were varied and onerous.

said, as far as he knew the duties of this Commission were not very onerous. They consisted principally in receiving reports from the managers of the various charities, and in granting or refusing applications for the exchange of lands. This was another instance of a case where a Commission was much needed in the first instance and did good work, but which was continued after all need for it had ceased.

said, he had in various ways, especially in connection with the work of education, been brought into contact with the Charity Commissioners, and he differed from the hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down. He believed that their duties were very heavy, and required great tact, skill, and industry. For instance, they were often called to settle a scheme of education for a school, or for the details of management of another charity, in cases which were not contentious, and the decision required great care and deliberation. He had been connected with a charity school in his own county where reference was made to them, and the correspondence in that case was exceedingly voluminous, and was conducted by the Commissioners with great punctuality and attention.

stated that the question under the consideration of the Committee was discussed some years ago, when the Government promised to bring forward a scheme by which charitable funds should be subject to a certain percentage, so as to cover the expense of the Commission, It was difficult to understand why a Commission instituted for the purpose of ministering to the follies of people who in former times left money for charity should be maintained at the public expense. The money these people had left ought to defray all the expenses connected with its administration. Those charitable funds had no right to receive one farthing from the public Exchequer, for the origin of most of them was the gratification of an extremely idle vanity.

said, that he thought few hon. Members would coincide in the views of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down as to the character of English charities. He believed that those charities constituted one of the most magnificent features of the country. He experienced the greatest possible gratitude towards those who had in former times set aside portions of their wealth for the public benefit, and he did not think it unreasonable that a Commission should be appointed in order to check the management of charitable bequests. It was to the interest of this great country that such funds should be properly administered, and he believed that the Charity Commissioners exercised a salutary influence on the trustees.

questioned the propriety of burdening the country with the cost of a Commission for the purpose of looking after the property of any individual; and he observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown that it was very doubtful whether these charities did more harm or more good.

said, he would not enter into the question whether the charities referred to were good or bad, but he would state that the charges of the Commission, when the duties discharged by it were fully considered, did not appear excessive. With regard to the desirability of recovering the expense of the Commission by charges on charitable funds, he thought that was a question worthy of consideration, and he would ascertain what inquiry had been made by the Government into that matter previous to his entering the office he now held.

thought that more Commissioners were employed than were necessary to discharge the work devolving upon them.

did not concur with the hon. Member for Chippenham, and stated again that the charges of the Commission were not excessive.

desired to know what were the duties of the officers on board the quarantine hulks, when, owing to the absence of disease or of an epidemic of any kind, a state of quarantine was unnecessary.

said, this establishment was but a skeleton, and formed one of the smallest which could be kept up if it was the intention of Parliament to maintain quarantine. There were differences of opinion upon that subject, but at present Parliament retained the system, and made the Privy Council responsible for its observance. Under these circumstances, it would not be prudent to dispense with this Vote. As long as Parliament thought fit to make Government responsible, if anything were to happen which could be prevented by quarantine, the House would be very indignant if there should be any neglect on the part of the authorities. The sum that was asked, £444, was not very large.

said, he did not think the House knew why this establishment was kept up. He had been in countries where quarantine was carried out with great strictness, but he should like to ask how quarantine was to be applied here. In the Mediterranean, and wherever quarantine was carried out efficiently, there are officers in each port to examine every ship. But what organization was there in this country to carry quarantine regulations into effect? The rinderpest had been imported, and so might cholera at any time. In Bristol, the other day, a man had been brought in stricken down with cholera. There was no organization in this country which for one moment could keep put such a disease as cholera, which was now impending. As long as we had free trade, and men could enter the country without any difficulty whatever, a Vote of £444 would not keep out contagious disease.

wanted an explanation of this item. In Loudon the expenditure under this head was only £20, notwithstanding the number of persons that arrived there and the vast trade which it carried on. At Portsmouth, where nobody arrived, £800 was expended on the establishment, which consisted of eight mariners doing nothing, one mate looking after them, and one superintendent. At Rochester, where nobody went except at a general election, there was a mate looking after four ma- riners, and the expenditure amounted to £369; and at Southampton, where people did land, there were no mariners, mate, or superintendent, but there was a medical officer, who could be of no use without mariners to attend to the vessels on their arrival. In fact, from the nature of the expenditure, the whole thing was what might be familiarly described as a little job.

said, the superintendent, mate, and mariners at Portsmouth formed the crew of the hulk stationed in the Solent to receive persons from ships coming from abroad in a dangerous condition. The officer at Southampton was a medical superintendent, and it was his duty to visit ships coming from abroad and to send persons who might be suffering from dangerous diseases to the hulk at Portsmouth. The same was the case with the hulk at Rochester, which received invalids from vessels off the Nore. He could not give a satisfactory explanation just then of the small expenditure in London, but he should look into the subject.

hoped the Government would not give up the quarantine establishment, as it might be made a most useful instrument for the prevention of disease. At Odessa and the towns north of the Black Sea, where plague used to rage at one time, quarantine had been established during the last thirty years and there was no plague there now. The same was the case at Constantinople; where as soon as they introduced a strict system of quarantine the plague came to an end. In Malta the system was attended with similar success. With such undeniable facts before us we ought not to be in a hurry to abandon quarantine in deference to some new-fangled notions.

said, the sum asked for was either too much or too little—one or other conclusion was inevitable. In the northern ports there were no quarantine establishments at all. He considered that this subject called for the attention of the Executive before they prepared another Vote for the approval of that House.

said, that was a proper occasion for asking the Government what course as to the enforcement of quarantine regulations they intended to take with regard to the impending visitation of cholera. He would remind the House that last year when cholera was raging along the Mediterranean, Sicily, which, from the filthy habits of the people, was of all places that which cholera was likely to devastate, was guarded by a strict quarantine, and the consequence was that the island was entirely exempt. He had seen in a blue book, which had been laid upon the table of the House, that the authorities in that island invariably adopted a system of regulations which would deserve the attention of Her Majesty's Government in case this country were to be visited. He did not know what the Government were doing in this matter, but he hoped some Member of it would rise and explain the nature of the precautions which they in-tended to take.

thought that this Vote ought to be seriously discussed by the Committee. If the cholera was approaching much more effectual measures should be taken than this Vote would allow. If the whole of the ports of the United Kingdom were left open, with the exception of Rochester and Portsmouth, there was, in point of fact, no quarantine at all. Liverpool and the other great trading ports, not to speak of Ireland, which seemed never to be thought of, were all left open to the disease. There ought to be a medical officer in every port to inspect vessels coming in. He had seen at Zante four men hanged by Sir Thomas Maitland for breaking the quarantine regulations. He did not wish to see such a stringent exercise of the law in this country; but it was just now of peculiar importance that stringent quarantine regulations should be enforced, if it were true that the cholera had arrived in Holland and was likely to visit these shores. He hoped, then, the Committee would be informed what precautions were to be taken, and why Portsmouth and Rochester should be sealed while all the other ports were left open.

said, the hulks in the Medway and the Solent were, as he had stated, for the reception of persons afflicted with certain dangerous diseases who might arrive in the Thames or at Southampton, and £200 a year for medical attendance at the latter place was money well laid out; for a very large number of persons arrived at Southampton, and it was desirable that they should be looked after. As ports were known to be infected, no doubt they would be proclaimed. The Privy Council was armed with very great powers, and when the time should come for their exercise proper precautions would be taken. He was sorry he had no authority to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Maldon. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) who had charge of such matters was, unfortunately, absent in consequence of family affliction.

inquired whether Rotterdam had been proclaimed.

said, he was uncertain of the fact, but he thought not.

said, that the great means of preventing the invasion of cholera was the establishment of a permament board of medical officers, who should have power to carry out a proper system of quarantine in the different ports of the kingdom. When the cattle disease was in its most dangerous stage Government appointed officers to examine the cattle on their being landed, and surely where the lives of men were imperilled they might show some extra zeal for the preservation of the public health.

regretted that the Secretary to the Treasury had failed to answer a question of considerable importance that he had put—namely, what the officials who had charge of the hulks did when there were no sick persons on board? It was but seldom necessary that persons afflicted with disease should be sent to these hulks. He entirely agreed with the observation of the hon. Member for Sunderland that this expenditure was either too much or too little. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would take the earliest opportunity of informing himself or of refreshing his memory on the subject. As to the financial reformers, he hoped the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White), who had made a financial speech on a former occasion, and other Gentlemen who had spoke in favour of economy, would attend when the Votes were under discussion, and step by step endeavour to reduce the public expenditure.

admitted that the subject was one which be had not very much studied; but he promised that the matter should be looked into, and he hoped to be able to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman in a few days.

observed, that in the case of other Estimates they often found there was a balance not disposed of; but he had never known anything to be returned out of the amount voted for secret service. How was it that use was always found for the entire sum taken in this Vote?

expressed his opinion that a very large sum might be saved in the expenditure on Parliamentary Returns. Hon. Members must know that frequently a very large expense was incurred for Returns, giving details which were already in the possession of the House. He stated that he believed that a saving of £20,000 could be effected in this way, and he would recommend that for this object there should be some supervision of this outlay on the part of the Government.

agreed with the hon. Member that it would be most desirable to limit the number of those Returns; but there was very great difficulty in the way of the Government interfering in the matter. If the Government attempted to interfere with a Member when he called for a Return, it would be supposed that there was something to conceal, and that under the plea of economy the Government sought to keep back information. But if hon. Members before moving for Returns would be good enough to inquire whether the information which they sought to obtain was not already to be found in other papers, a considerable saving might be effected. In illustration of this, he might observe that some time ago an hon. Member came to him and showed him a copy of a Motion which he proposed to make for a Return. That Return would have cost £500; but he was able to show the hon. Gentleman that by means of Returns already granted by Parliament, the information which he required might be drawn up on a small sheet of paper. The Printing Committee could no doubt prevent a good deal of unnecessary printing, but he felt convinced that it was in the power of hon. Members to effect a very considerable economy in this item of the public expenditure. It was, however, worthy of remark that the House of Commons spent much less on Returns than Congress in America did. He believed the reason of this was that Congress printed for the constituencies, while the House of Commons generally printed for itself. At the same time, he repeated that a considerable saving might be effected if hon. Members made closer inquiries before moving for Returns.

observed, that the greater number of the Returns ordered by that House were unopposed Returns. If the various Departments of the Government did what the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Childers) did in the case which he had mentioned, hon. Members intending to move for Returns would be shown that in many cases those Returns were unnecessary, and there would thus be a considerable check upon unnecessary printing, without any imputation of a desire to refuse information being incurred.

remarked that the sum spent for printing having reference to Ireland was disproportionately small as compared with the amounts expended for English and Scotch purposes.

observed, that hon. Members were overwhelmed with the immense amount of papers which were delivered at their houses every day. He could scarcely imagine that many of these papers, such as those which related to Railway and Canal Bills were required by Members, and therefore he presumed that many of them must be furnished by direction of the Printing Committee.

said, that ever since he had been in the House he had been accustomed to discussions upon the subject of printed Returns. Members were constantly led to move for them at the instance of individuals, and frequently it turned out that the object in view was personal and not public. It would be well if any hon. Member who was thus set in motion insisted upon knowing with what object the information was sought. He observed that under the head of "Correspondence" as large an amount was claimed for the Irish police as for all the military forces in Ireland. This, he thought, required some explanation, and generally he was of opinion that the official correspondence ought to be subject to supervision with a view to reducing its expenditure and bulk.

quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that the apparently trifling expenses of individual stations swelled into something very large when multiplied by the number of establishments maintained by us in all parts of the world. And it would be well, he thought, if the heads of departments could agree upon some uniform principle of action. Meanwhile, as to the general control, the Executive had done their best by appointing a controller of stationery, whose interference to his own knowledge in the short interval that he had been connected with the Treasury, had checked expenditure to a large amount that otherwise would have taken place without anyone being the wiser.

, observing that a new Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill was promised, said, that it was a feature of all so-called bankruptcy reforms that new places were created, and the former officials handsomely pensioned off. He suggested that in any future Bill a clause should be introduced providing that if the amended scheme did not work well, the officials appointed under it should not be entitled to superannuation.

inquired, whether any consideration had been given to that portion of the Bill, lately passed, by which the salaries of the registrars, high bailiffs, and treasurers had been to a certain extent abolished.

said, the Bill referred to did not abolish the offices, but only empowered the Treasury not to fill them up as they fell vacant. A certain number of officers might, under that Act, be retired upon certain conditions.

called attention to what seemed to he the enormous charge of £15,000 for the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges.

called attention to the enormous expense of the County Courts in England, amounting in the whole to £166,267, while the travelling expenses of the Judges came to no less than £15,000 a year. In Ireland the expenses of the County Courts amounted to only £40,000; and out of that sum upwards of £13,000 were received in the shape of fees; so that the total charge to the public was only between £26,000 and £27,000.

complained that in Ireland public officers in general were not so highly paid as in England.

said, that in Ireland the building and repairing of the court houses were paid for out of the county rates, while in England that charge was met by the Consolidated Fund. He did not think that was a fair arrangement for Ireland.

said, the question as to charges on the Consolidated Fund and charges on local rates had been inquired into by a Parliamentary Committee last year, and he should decline to enter upon it on the present occasion. As to the travelling expenses of the Judges, considering the large number of these Judges—more than sixty, in fact—and that they were travelling for three-quarters of a year, he did not think that the amount was extravagant. The expenses, however, of the County Courts were not, he admitted, in a satisfactory state, but as they intended to dispense with the treasurers and high bailiffs, these changes, along with some others, would effect a saving of something like £70,000. As to the comparative expense of the English and Irish County Courts, he might remark that the Irish people did not go to law very much about small sums of money, and considering the costs attending the administration of justice generally throughout the United Kingdom, he did not think that the amount required for England was larger in proportion to the extent of business involved than it was in Ireland.

commented upon the fact of the police force being in reality a standing army in Ireland, and thought it unjust that the people of Ireland should be compelled to pay half the expense of it. It appeared to him that it would be only fair to place the whole expense of it upon the Consolidated Fund.

concurred with the hon. Member for Leitrim, and said he intended to bring the question of the police force in Ireland before the House when the Report of the Commission in reference to the subject was laid before the House.

called attention to the great want of precaution in licensing drivers of cabs and other public vehicles. On one occasion, wishing to go from Westminster to the City, he was driven over Westminster Bridge and then brought to a standstill, as the driver did not know the route, and on inquiry it appeared that he was a stranger to London. On Saturday afternoon, in Newgate Street, he saw a cab conveying a number of pigs' car-cases. He thought that that was not a proper purpose to put a vehicle to which was usually intended for the conveyance of human beings. These were but two of many instances showing want of precaution which had recently come within his experience and observation, indeed, lately he had been on the watch for them. He believed, that as a class, the drivers of cabs were better than they used to be, and he did not receive from them anything like the incivility he once did. Possibly one reason was he knew the fares as well as the drivers did, and when he tendered the correct amount, without asking a question, they saw it was useless to attempt extortion. It was very seldom he met with insolence; and his complaint was that men were allowed to drive who did not know London, and who did not know the rules of the road. They all knew that cabs were used to convey fever and other patients to the hospitals.

corroborated the state- ment of the hon. Member for London regarding the dangerous uses to which cabs were often applied. He had the authority of medical men connected with some of our hospitals for stating that many infectious diseases were propagated by the improper use of public cabs to convey patients to hospitals.

did not see how Government could prevent cabs being used for such a purpose. He was told that it had been found impracticable to provide conveyances for patients by subscription; and it was rather too much to expect the Government to supply them.

said, Parliament might enact that they should be provided by each parish, and might attach a penalty to the improper use of public cabs.

said, nothing was more disgraceful in England than the condition of the cabs and cab-horses in the streets of London. He thought if the salaries of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were increased by £500 a year each, so that they might be enabled to employ inspectors who could look after these things, we should have better horses and better cabs.

gave an instance of the ignorance of cab drivers in many cases as to the localities to which they were asked to drive. Upon one occasion last year, or the year before, he engaged a cab at the bottom of Waterloo Place to take him to Harley Street. The driver wished to know where Harley Street was, and on being informed that it led out of Cavendish Square he asked, "Where is Cavendish Square?" He (Sir Stafford Northcote) told him that it was in the direction of Regent Street, whereupon the man asked, "Which way is Regent Street?" adding, as he pointed towards the Strand, "Is it that way?"

, in reference to the danger to which people were subjected who hired cabs which had been previously occupied by persons suffering from contagious diseases, suggested that the Poor Law Board should enable unions throughout the country to provide cabs for persons suffering from such diseases. That course had been followed by the guardians in the borough which he represented, and, while it was inexpensive, he had no doubt it was most protective.

gave another instance of ignorance of cabmen, which had happened to himself within the last three hours. He and a friend had chartered a cab to bring them to the House of Commons, but it was only after a severe struggle that they prevented the driver from taking them to Doctors' Commons, and even when by means of constant directions he brought the cab to the Houses of Parliament, he would insist upon driving past the House of Commons and taking his fare on to the House of Lords.

said, that in proposing to the House, on the part of the Government, a fresh measure upon the important question of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, he was quite aware of the great delicacy and difficulty of the subject they had in hand, and he knew very well the ill-success which attempts at such legislation had met with for many years past, although they had been made by men of great ability and earnestness. But although this was the case, he had at least this consolation, that the House during the last twenty years had over and over again recognized the existence in Ireland of evils requiring a remedy, and had admitted its bounden duty to see that such a remedy should be found. Those proposals had been made from time to time by many eminent and honest men—by one who might be termed the patriarch of the question—he referred to Mr. Sharman Crawford, by Mr. Serjeant Shee, by Mr. Napier—for whose authority Gentlemen opposite would, he had no doubt, have the most profound reverence; by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, and by other Gentlemen. The House, upon these various invitations, had constantly admitted the propriety of considering the subject, and had agreed to important and even courageous measures with respect to it. He had especially in his mind the measures of 1853, which were founded in all their essential provisions upon the Bills of Mr. Napier, who represented the party opposite, then in power—Bills which were successfully carried through the House, though they eventually failed to pass the other branch of the Legislature. More than that, legislation on that great question was, whatever might be thought of its results, carried through and reduced into the form of an Act of Parliament by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies in 1860. In speaking of that Act which, as was proved by the Committee which was last year presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, had not been effectual for the purpose intended, he desired to pay a tribute of justice to his right hon. Friend. That Act admitted important principles, in itself a fact of immense importance in a question of that sort. It was large, benevolent, and beneficent in its intentions. It was framed with all the consideration, care, and conscientious knowledge of the subject which distinguished his right hon. Friend in every matter which he touched. We knew, however, by experience—and it was easy to be wise after the event—that surrounded as it was by every kind of safeguard and precaution justifiable in a case of exceptional legislation, had turned out to be practically a dead letter. Such was the state of things which had led his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork to move for his Committee last Session, and which, of course, obliged the Government readily to assent to the inquiry. It was, he might add, that state of things which now made it the duty of the Government to bring forward some measure which by simplifying the Act of 1860 should carry out the just and wise intentions which that Act had in view, and give motion and vitality to its enactments. It had been felt in all the attempts at legislation on the subject that there was a vital difference between the circumstances of England and Scotland, on the one hand, and Ireland on the other, with respect to the relation of landlord and tenant which justified and demanded at the hands of the House of Commons an exceptional mode of legislation for the last-mentioned country. That difference lay at the foundation of all the past attempts at legislation which had been made, and was at once the justification and constituted the duty of the Government in bringing forward the present measure. In fact, the only resemblance he knew of between the tenure of land in Great Britain and Ireland was that in both countries, which differed therein from al- most all the rest of the civilized world, the tenure of the tenant was short, precarious, and uncertain. But that state of things, anomalous as it might be, different as it was from the practice in other countries, had not produced in Great Britain those disadvantages by which it was attended in Ireland. It was commonly and most truly said that there was the essential distinction between the practice in England and Ireland that in this country the permanent improvement, and, he must say, the requisites for the cultivation and decent habitation of a farm, were provided by the landlord out of his own capital, whereas they were in Ireland left for the most part to the industry and the outlay of the tenant. These were facts with which the House was familiar, which lay at the root of all legislation on the subject, which had been so long ago as the time of the Report of the Devon Commission most strongly and emphatically stated by that important authority, and which were in a great degree as true to-day as they were then. The difference between the state of things in the two countries went even further, because, though it was the fact that the landlords in this country and in Scotland had done great things in the improvement of their estates, it was equally true that great things had been accomplished by English and Scotch tenants. That was accounted for by the happy circumstance that in this country there prevailed, and had prevailed for centuries and generations, an amount of hereditary confidence between the landlord and tenant which did not exist in Ireland, nor, he believed, in any other country in Europe—a confidence amounting, as stated by Adam Smith, to the production of a result nowhere else to be found in Europe—that of a tenant holding by a precarious tenure venturing to make improvements on his farm, trusting simply to the honour and generosity of the landlord. Such a state of things did not exist in Ireland. He would not go into the causes which led to that being so, and to trace which would require that he should enter into a historic review. It was sufficient to say that, as hon. Members knew very well, there was not that confidence between landlord and tenant in Ireland, that community of feeling, that mutual respect, that identity of race and religion which had produced in this country that happy, but most exceptional, state of things to which he had adverted. The consequence was that it was not to be ex- pected that identical laws would produce equally good effects in two countries in which the circumstances to which they were applied were so entirely different. That contrast of facts was fully admitted by the Act of 1860. We had, however, learnt much from the experience drawn from the six years since that Act had passed. That Act laid down important principles, but it was hampered in its operations and precautions and safeguards which it was now found had prevented it from attaining the object for which it was passed. That Act consisted of three parts. The first dealt with the improvements of the landlord, and he found that that portion of the Act had been brought into operation to a very insignificant degree. It was impossible, however, to say that the landlords had refused to make use of it from any indisposition to improve their estates, so far as they could prudently do so. There were, indeed, facts to the contrary. The House was aware what use the landlords in Ireland had made of those admirable powers for the improvement of land which were given under the supervision of the Board of Works. Since the Act giving those powers had passed, there had been no less than 5,000 applications from Irish landlords for the use of £5,000,000 for the improvement of their estates. Those applications went far beyond the funds at the disposal of the Board of Works, but nearly £2,000,000 had been used for the improvement of their I estates by the Irish landlords. It was clearly, therefore, from no indisposition to effect such improvements that the land-lords had not availed themselves of the first portion of the Act of 1860. He hoped by dispensing with the trouble and expense which the present state of the law necessitated—so far as was possible—that a different result would be produced. The next part of the Act of 1860 was that which dealt with leasing powers. That part also laid down a most comprehensive and important principle—the principle that no private settlement should be allowed to stand in the way of a proper and beneficial leasing power; but the Act surrounded that principle with restrictions which rendered it in the same way inoperative. He proposed to reserve the necessity of applying to a Court as at present in order to obtain its adjudication to cases in which the successor to an estate should raise an objection, but at the same time to extend the terms of the leasing power given by the Act of 1860. The leases which that Act enabled the limited owner to grant were leases of twenty-one years in the case of ordinary agricultural leases, and forty-one years for building or reclamation leases. He proposed to extend those terms to thirty-one and sixty-one years respectively. The terms which he proposed were those which were proposed by Mr. Napier in his Bill, and which that House had on a former occasion sanctioned, though they were afterwards cut down to a lower figure in another place. Those powers were only enabling powers, and there would be no compulsion on the landlord to grant one term of lease rather than another, but he thought it was wise and safe that the limited owner should possess the power of giving longer leases if he thought right. It was sometimes said that it was a mistake to encourage the granting of long leases in Ireland. His own belief was that that objection was founded upon an idea totally inaccurate. No doubt in old times long leases at low rentals did lead to that system of middle letting which had been the curse of the country. When the farming of land was in the hands of an oppressed and despised class the notion was prevalent that there was nothing respectable in Ireland except the possession of land and living in idleness. That, coupled with the war prices, gave rise to an extravagant and unnatural competition for land. But all that had passed away now. There had been a gratifying and remarkable improvement in the management of land; subletting had been greatly discouraged; profit rents had become almost impossible, and industrious, honest farming was preferred to the old idle life of the Irish squireen. There was no reason to have any fears of the operation of long leases and good tenures in Ireland. On the contrary, he believed that their effect would be most beneficial to the interests of the country. He now came to the third and most important provision of the Act of 1860—namely, that which dealt with the tenants' improvements. There was no longer any doubt that the tenants in Ireland were willing to improve the lands they held. Every one who knew anything of Ireland was aware that, while labouring under all sorts of difficulties, and in the face of great discouragement, the small Irish cottiers had comparatively speaking done wonders in this respect. He never went through the country without wondering at the improvements which had been made by the farmers themselves. Houses had been built, fences put up, fields drained, and waste lands reclaimed—of course, not to anything like the extent to which they could wish to see such improvements carried out, but still to a degree very remarkable under the circumstances. Thus, since 1841, 2,000,000 acres of wild land had been re-claimed and made profitable, and there could be no doubt that the greatest portion of it had been done by the tenants, showing that at least there had been no want of industry or of capital on their part. It was also a remarkable fact, showing the improvement that had taken place in the condition of the tenant farmers in Ireland, that since 1850 the deposits of small farmers in the Irish joint-stock banks had increased from £5,000,000 to £17,000,000. Nevertheless, the Act of 1860 had not succeeded in inducing the tenants to make any satisfactory use of the facilities offered them for improving their farms, and after the experience of the working of that Act, and after the important evidence given before the Committee of last year, there could be little doubt of the failure of that Act to do what it was intended to effect. There could be no doubt as to what had been the reason of its failure. It placed several obstacles in the way of tenants wishing to make improvements; for instance, there were the trouble and cost of an application to a court of justice in every case; there was the inadequacy of the compensation provided, and there was the mode of providing the compensation by an inquiry; and there was the very great obstacle that in every instance before the improvement could be made notice had to be given by the tenant to the landlord, which would act as an invitation to dissent on the landlord's part, and which, in the unanimous opinion of all acquainted with Irish tenant farmers, had operated, and would operate as a total bar to the success of the Act. Acting upon the experience thus gained, the proposed Act had been more simply constructed. Starting with the great leading fact that in Ireland the permanent improvement in farms—the essentials requisite for the farms, which no one in England would call improvements, and which would be performed by the landlord in this country—are executed by the tenants—the Act proposed to bring the general rule of law into accordance with the actual state of facts, and thus in accordance with the natural equity of the case. At the same time, it was pro- posed to interfere in no way with the perfect freedom of contract between landlord and tenant; but the Act provided that, in the absence of any written contract to the contrary, the tenant shall, by the general rule of law, have a limited beneficial interest in the permanent improvements executed at his own cost. It was proposed to do away with the notice, and to require no preliminary adjudication—as it was clear that all such requirements would render the Act totally inoperative. The Bill went on to provide that should the tenant, after having executed such improvements, and in the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, be dispossessed by his landlord, he should have a right to a lump sum by way of compensation equivalent to the increased letting value such improvements should have given to the land. The Government proposed that in the event of the landlord and tenant failing to come to an agreement as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the latter, in case he should be so dispossessed, either party was to have the right of applying to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, who were to send down a competent valuer to the farm, who would be empowered to examine the improvements made, and to require documentary and oral evidence to be laid before him from all parties able to give it, and then to make his award. It was also proposed that in case either party should be dissatisfied with such award, there was to be a right of appeal to the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions—such Chairman to sit as a County Court Judge without a jury, and to decide finally upon the appeal. Those rights were limited both in point of amount and of time. The limitation in point of amount would be £5 per statute acre, while the limit in point of time would be forty-one years for buildings, &c., and thirty-one years for other improvements on the land, after which the tenant would lose his right to compensation. The effect of that would be that the holder of fifty acres would be entitled to make a claim of £250, and not more. Great difficulties were sometimes said to arise in ascertaining the amount to which the tenant should be entitled after a lapse of years, but he believed the difficulties suggested were far overstated, as the very course laid down by the Bill was being followed every day by private agreement between the parties. The valuer, who was to act in cases of private arbitration, would be a professional man ac- quainted with the matters with which he would have to deal, and he would have all necessary evidence before him as to the increased value of the land. It was, of course, impossible to look for a perfect system, and the proposed one was intended to provide a general arbitrator, approved by authority, who, upon the whole, would settle fairly the question between the two parties. How would the case stand? The tenant would have added to the landlords' property certain requisites for its proper cultivation; the landlord would have by his own act dispossessed the tenant; and the latter would then have a certain claim under that Bill to compensation in money. The law under those circumstances implying a contract would fairly imply the consent of the landlord to improvements which he had allowed to be effected. The landlord either by himself or through the incoming tenant would pay the fair amount of compensation to the dispossessed tenant. The evicted tenant would not go forth into the world a starving man, perhaps to become a Ribandman, or a rebel, but would carry with him, to start him in life afresh, a certain sum of money, the fruit of his own exertions or outlay. In return the landlord would have an improved farm, bringing him in a higher rent. The country would find a better system of agriculture adopted on that farm; probably there would be also a decent dwelling for a happier family, and certainly contentment and confidence would be spread throughout the neighbourhood. In these matters it seemed to him that the indirect operation of a law was often as important as its direct operation. He was deeply convinced that the operation of such legislation as they now proposed, even when it did not secure any definite remuneration to a particular tenant, would yet have a most important and essential influence upon public opinion in Ireland. Because, while it would leave the landlord and tenant at perfect liberty to regulate their own affairs by written contract, it would, as was their wish, place the law of the country on the side of natural equity and justice. Without entering into the different clauses of the Bill, which would soon be in the hands of hon. Members, he would only then describe one important clause, which was this—they proposed to take away the right of distress as far as the general operation of the law was concerned, that was to say, putting an end to the right of distress in all cases where it was not given to the landlord by the terms of a written agreement between him and the tenant. These in general terms were the provisions of the Bill which on the part of the Government he ventured to lay before the House. He earnestly and sincerely trusted that these proposals would be received both by those who represented the tenant and by those who represented the landlord in that House in the spirit in which they were offered. He had every reason to believe that those hon. Gentlemen who specially represented the tenant were anxious to see that question settled upon fair and reasonable terms, and were really desirous not to keep open, but to close that political sore. Although he had not the advantage of being present at a very important interview which had recently taken place between many Irish Members and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he knew that the opinion then expressed was such as to give the greatest encouragement to the Government in its attempt now to settle that question on a reasonable basis. He trusted that those Members specially representing the interests of the Irish landlords in that House would be ready to meet the advances so made to them by the especial advocates of the tenants. He hoped that Bill would have the good fortune to be a sort of convenient half-way house, where two parties starting as they did from opposite points of view might meet in harmony and accord; and it would be a great satisfaction to the Government and a real happiness to himself and his hon. and learned Friends who, with himself, were specially charged with that measure if they should succeed in any degree in producing by legislation, as far as legislation could do it, a security and protection to the industry of the Irish cultivator, and if by so doing they could in any measure attain that greatest of all objects, as he believed, which that House could set before itself—namely, the increase of domestic comfort, of active industry, of attachment to law and of loyalty to the Crown, among the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

did not intend at that late hour to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the many details which he had brought before the House, yet he thought it necessary to offer one or two observations in consequence of the very important statements which had just been made. No Member of that House could be more anxious than he was to support any mea- sure in any way calculated to develop the industry of the people of Ireland; but after listening to the lengthened speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he had not found in the plan now proposed that there was anything new. The right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, stated nothing more nor less than was contained in plans which had been over and over again brought before that House, but which from a strong feeling in that and the other House of Parliament that they interfered to a great extent with the rights of property had invariably failed in becoming law. The conduct of the Government on that question seemed to him rather extraordinary. A Bill on the subject now before the House was brought in and passed four years ago by the present Colonial Secretary. Very few proceedings had been taken under that Act. Last year a Committee sat for three months to inquire into its operation, before which witnesses only were examined who were brought forward by Members of the Committee professing to act in the interest of the tenant. At the close of that inquiry a Resolution was proposed and carried by a considerable majority of the Committee, with the full consent of the Colonial Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland as representing the Government, in favour of the principle of the Act of 1860, as embodied in Clauses 38 and 40—namely, that the compensation to the tenant should only be made for such improvements as were executed with the consent of the landlord. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State might be supposed to represent the Government, the House had in the Resolution of that Committee the opinions of Government so late as August last. But from the statement now made by the hon. Gentleman, it appeared that the Government had wholly departed from the opinions they thus recently adopted; for he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that they now proposed that unless there wa3 a special written agreement to the contrary, no notice to the landlord of intended improvements should be necessary to enable the tenant to claim compensation, and that no preliminary proceeding whatever should be requisite to enable the latter at a future time to establish his demand. He should be glad to hear that that was an incorrect description of the present Bill, because he believed that if it was a correct description of it, that measure would share the fate of every previous attempt to settle the question. The provisions of the Bill did not seem to him to be of so great value as the cheers of hon. Members opposite below the gangway would seem to indicate, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that those provisions were only to take effect unless there was no written agreement to the contrary between the landlord and the tenant. If that were so, all he could say was that the course which landlords who objected to their tenants availing themselves of the provisions of the Bill would be forced to take, would be to bind them by a written agreement not to improve. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his belief that the passing of the measure would promote good feeling between landlord and tenant, and restore confidence between all parties. For his part, however, he believed that the moment such a Bill was passed the landlord and tenant from one end of the country to another would be brought into collision; indeed, Lord Athlumney, a former Chief Secretary of Ireland, had frequently pointed out that this would be the effect of all such legislation. He would, therefore, warn the Government of the risk that they were running. He believed that the Act of 1860 might be somewhat improved, and might still be converted into an exceedingly useful measure, but the present proposal involved an entire departure from principles which had for many years been adopted by both Houses of Parliament—so great an interference with the rights of property which might almost be regarded as sacred that it would retard the ultimate settlement of this question, and prove detrimental to the interests of the tenants themselves. The plan was not only destitute of novelty (for it had often been tried though without success), but it was a matter of regret that by the introduction of such measures as this, the House should be called upon to discuss these vexed and difficult questions year after year, creating false hopes, and thereby increasing the agitation which already existed in Ireland on the subject. He believed that the feelings which existed between the landlords and the tenants in Ireland were grossly misrepresented in that House. He believed that no proposal made to a landlord by a tenant to secure to himself fair compensation for bonâ fide improvements had ever been refused, and although much evidence was given last year on this subject, not a single instance of this kind was, as far as he was aware, adduced before the Committee. He believed that the House desired to give every reasonable encouragement to the tenant to improve his land, but he could not see anything in the Government proposal which would conduce to that end. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee had stated some time since that he should regard as a flash in the pan any proposal for compensation which did not also contribute to fixity of tenure, and that he could not extend his sympathy or support to any measure which would not have that effect. Those, however, were objects which the House was not likely to entertain, nor did he believe a Government would ever approve or sanction them. He believed the Bill would conduce to ill-feeling between landlord and tenant, and lead to much litigation and confusion. Although the course proposed by the Government might be attended by a momentary popularity among a certain class, he could not but feel that it was attended with much danger.

said, that it was certainly not new to propose a measure for the settlement of this vexed question, and therefore the proposal of the Government might, in that sense, be, as the noble Lord had said, destitute of novelty. The noble Lord had himself been a Member of the Government of Lord Derby, by whom this question had been taken in hand; and he would remind the noble Lord that the preliminary notice to which he now took exception was included in the Bill introduced by that Government—for Mr. Napier's proposal to give compensation for improvements made twenty years before the Act came into operation was of a similar kind, though the benefit of that measure was frittered away. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary evinced a strong disposition to do towards the people of Ireland what was right and just, and he felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would be welcomed in that country with great satisfaction. As an Irish landlord, and speaking in the interest of the tenant farmers of that country, he believed the measure to be an excellent one. He understood the Government to say that in the absence of a contract the presumption of the law was that the improvements were effected by the party by whom they were generally understood to be made, and that the burden of proof was thrown upon those who usually had nothing to do with them. They desired that a rule of law should be applied in Ireland which was consistent with the facts of the case. The state of Ireland was different from that of England. Here the landlord provided everything that was necessary for the tenant; in Ireland he did not; and the presumption of law ought to be that the tenant in such a case had provided himself accordingly. The noble Lord had admitted that there were many defects in the Act of 1860 which he should be glad to see remedied, and by this measure the Government proposed to remedy the defects which were justly complained of in that Act. At present its provisions were inoperative, because they were surrounded by many needless forms, and those needless forms the present measure proposed to get rid of. He would not enter into the details of a measure not yet thoroughly before the House; but he welcomed it as exhibiting a bonâ fide desire to settle this question upon an equitable footing, and to conduce to the establishment of a better state of feeling between all parties.

expressed surprise at the assertion that had been made by hon. Gentlemen, that the systems pursued in England and Ireland with respect to property were entirely opposite. The principle on which this Bill was founded must, if adopted, lead to most disastrous results. He thought it right that the law respecting distress should be the same in England as in Ireland. If the House, however, chose to abolish the law of distress in both countries, let it be abolished, and he would offer no objection. He asked whether hon. Gentlemen expected to impose upon the tenantry of Ireland so far as to induce them to believe they would get a real and substantial benefit by the Bill. In his opinion it would be as hopeless to attempt to empty the Thames at full tide with a teaspoon as to benefit the tenantry of Ireland by such a measure. The principle of this measure was that it should only apply to the case of unwritten contracts; but a contract was a contract whether written or not. The law at present took cognizance of unwritten and merely verbal contracts, and enforced them if they were substantiated. Why could not that course be continued? No such alteration was demanded. And what would be the effect of it? They knew how those things were managed in Ireland. The landlord would send for the tenant and say to him, "A bad law has been passed by that Parliament over the water, and it is now necessary that you sign this paper." And, of course, the tenant would sign it. He would ask of the right hon. Gentleman whether the Bill would he retrospective. [Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE: No!] He supposed, then, that the retrospective wrongs of Ireland were not to he redressed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his measures, had succeeded in diminishing the distilleries and paper mills of Ireland. He, however, would no longer dwell upon the grievances of Ireland so far as the past was concerned. But, with regard to the present measure, who, he asked, would bear the expense of the inquiry, incase a dispute arose? Suppose a landlord said the tenant should only have £2, while the tenant thought he should have £10, at whose expense was the Board of Works to make the inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a very good principle when he said the Bill would encourage a good feeling between landlord and tenant. No desire on his part could be more creditable to him; but the Bill, though doubtless well meant, would be perfectly inefficient in that respect. Nothing was wanted when the landlord, on the whole, was an honest and just man, and did the right thing by his tenant. In Ulster the landlords were, as a rule, good and just in their dealings. He ventured to think it was vain to hope for solid improvement in Ireland in consequence of the provisions of the Bill.

said, the misapprehension which existed with respect to the Bill only showed how unwise it was to discuss its provisions on the Motion for leave to introduce it. He hoped the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth was not speaking the sentiments of the landlords of Ireland when he told the House that if the Bill became law it would be followed by agreements between landlords and tenants to prevent the latter from taking advantage of the powers the Bill proposed to confer upon them. He believed that was not just to the landlords of Ireland, whom the last speaker had, in his opinion, more correctly described. Flagrant instances of injustice on the part of Irish landlords were now and then brought to light, but these he believed were the exception, and not the rule. The right hon. and learned Gentleman complained that this Bill inaugurated different legislation for the two countries. But he was either the author or aider of Bills that proposed to introduce different principles in Ireland from those which prevailed in England. He alluded to the tenant-right in Ulster as likely to he affected by this Bill, but the present measure was only an amendment of Mr. Cardwell's Act, which preserved the Ulster tenant-right unimpaired. He thought that no honest man would find fault with a Bill which was only intended to prevent a bad landlord from doing what no good landlord would think of doing. The Bill implied the consent of the landlord, under certain circumstances, to specific improvements. It was designed to apply a remedy in the absence of a contract or of a lease. When the House had seen the Bill they would be of opinion that it did not interfere with the principles of the Resolution of the Committee of last year.

remarked that as this Bill was stated by the Secretary for Ireland it appeared to him to be a departure from the Act of 1860. The Bill of 1860 was brought in under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Card-well), and Mr. Deasey, at that time the Attorney General for Ireland, and it was admirably adapted to hold the scale fairly between landlord and tenant. Clause 40 of that Act enacted that the owner might within three months after service give notice in writing that he disapproved of the improvements proposed to be made, and no tenant had a right to begin improvements from which the owner dissented. Any legislation which would encourage the tenant to execute improvements without notice or without the consent of the landlord would, in time, improve the landlord out of his estate. The Committee of last year determined that compensation to the tenants should only be secured to improvements made with the consent of the landlord, and he trusted that the Legislature would allow of no departure from that principle. It was exceedingly desirable, whether leases were taken for a shorter or a longer term that written agreements should as far as possible be adopted. He had always been anxious to give every facility and every encouragement for making improvements on land, but he had always opposed, and he would continue to oppose, the execution of improvements without the consent of the landlord.

hoped the House would very seriously consider the matter before it opposed the passing of this Bill, which he trusted would soon become law. The two arguments of the noble Lord who first spoke in opposition to the Bill were, in his opinion, greatly in its favour. The moderation of the provisions of the Bill, and the intention not to interfere with contracts, were the most important arguments that could be adduced in support of the Bill. Whatever might have been the old feudal idea in reference to the relationship between landlord and tenant, it was now held to be an established principle that a free, fair, and mercantile contract should subsist between the parties interested. The great value of the Bill consisted in the proposal to establish what appeared to him an equitable rule of law; and he trusted that it would have an important bearing on the treatment of the tenant by the landlord. He believed that bad landlords in Ireland were few, that they were not the large but small proprietors, and that they were not members of ancient families, but the new men in the land. He did not, however, argue this question either in the interests of the landlord or of the tenant, but in the interest of the commonwealth, with which it was vitally connected. It was important that this matter should be settled upon a fair and equitable basis, for he believed there was no question which so much affected the loyalty and the material improvement of Ireland as that now before the House.

could not feel the confidence expressed by the Secretary for Ireland that this measure was likely to prove successful. On the contrary, he was convinced that the present Bill failed to solve some of the difficulties which were experienced by the Committees appointed to consider the subject in previous years. He wanted to see the question regulated in Ireland as it was in England and Scotland, and such legislation as would facilitate the arrangement of mutual contracts between landlord and tenant, and give the necessary power to each party for enforcing the fulfilment of them. He thought that a simplification of the question might be effected by the adoption of a written contract, which might remove much matter of doubt and complaint. He was puzzled to know the exact tendency of the Bill, especially after the contradictory representations which had been made in reference to it. If improvements were to be made on land without the consent of the landlord, or even without notice being given him of the intentions of the tenant in this respect, he predicted that a state of great confusion would ensue. It was easy to make popular speeches, but the really improving farmer would not be misled by them; and he hoped the House would not imagine that by any simple piece of legislation it was possible to settle all the complicated cases arising in connection with the land in Ireland.

protested against any attempt at discussing a Bill the terms of which were not before the House; but with regard to the principle of the measure he was clearly in its favour. The hon. and learned Member for Wexford asked whether they were going to repeal the Act of 1860. Undoubtedly, as far as the question of notice went, because investigation had shown that not a single case had yet occurred in which advantage could be taken of that provision of the Act. To that extent, it was just and necessary that a different principle should be introduced for Ireland from that which prevailed in England and Scotland. He feared the £5 limit would prove illusory.

had been much surprised to hear the objections urged by the hon. and learned Member for Wexford, seeing that the Act of 1860 had proved a dead letter. This was a Bill to render that a living instead of a dead measure, and to abolish the machinery which had stifled it from its birth. Were the rights of property appealed to by the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth—rights to hold the property improved, and to confiscate the capital which the tenant had honestly spent upon it? He believed the landlords of Ireland, if appealed to, would repudiate any such supposed rights of property. When the Bill was laid before the House it would, he believed, be found to be a good measure for the tenant, and not to interfere unduly with the rights of property. If it tended to make men more contented with their holdings, if it tended to make them stop in the country, and to lay out their money without fear of its being confiscated, some advantage would certainly be gained.

as a landlord thanked the Attorney General for bringing in the Bill. He thought it contained the materials for a fair and workable measure.

said, the Government had redeemed their promise of legislating in this matter in a worthy and honourable manner, and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin to assist the Government to come to a satisfactory solution of this question during the present Session.

expressed his approval of the course taken by the Government in reference to this question.

, while assenting to the Motion, was not to be understood as consenting to open up the arrangements already come to in reference to this matter.