said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that a Mr. Holden having been so injured as to lose the sight of an eye has been discharged from the Dockyard at Chatham on a gratuity of £8, and by whom tins gratuity was awarded? He had only to modify this Question so far as to say that he saw it stated in the newspapers, from which only he knew anything of the case, that the man had lost the sight not of one eye only, but of both.

said, that he had inquired into this case, and had found that it had been greatly exaggerated. The Mr. Holden alluded to was a hired workman at Chatham on day pay of 4s. 6d., not belonging to the establishment, "but liable to be discharged on a week's notice. He had been employed between five and six years; and about five years ago, not long after he was hired, lost the sight of one eye by a wound from a small piece of copper. This did not interfere with his employment on full wages ever since. In February last he was discharged on the reduction of numbers in the dockyards, and he applied to be retained. This was refused; but his papers were sent to the Treasury for a gratuity in consequence of the accident in 1865, and the Treasury awarded £8. The surgeon was of opinion that his capacity for work was "only slightly impaired." He now claimed more on the ground that the sight of the other eye was impaired. Having been yesterday summoned before the dockyard authorities to explain the matter, he confessed that he purposely concealed this in the hope of being retained in the service. They were, therefore, in the position of having been employing a man who concealed his disability for work until he was discharged, when he made it the ground of claim for a larger gratuity. He (Mr. Childers), however, ordered his papers to be again sent to the Treasury, with the additional facts now reported, for their consideration. The Admiralty had nothing whatever to do with these awards of gratuity.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been given to the provisions of the Dublin Carriage Act, 1853, as compared with the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, and to ask, why the Licence Duties on Stage and Job Carriages continues fixed at £8 per annum in Dublin, while in London they do not exceed £2 2s.; why the penalty for various offences under the Dublin Act should be £10, while the penalty in London for a similar offence is only £5; and, whether he is disposed to recommend the Commissioners of Police in Dublin, in pursuance of the powers vested in them by the seventh section of the Dublin Act, to reduce the Licence Duties on all carriages to a uniform amount, say £1 1s. and thus get rid of the vexatious anomaly under which a job carriage proprietor has lately been fined £1 1s. (a penalty mitigated from £10) because he attached an eight pound badge to a carriage which only required a five pound badge?

in reply, said, it appeared from a Report which he had received from the Commissioners of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, that his hon. Friend was not correct in supposing the carriage duties in Dublin were higher than those in London; they were, on the contrary, considerably lower on the whole. £2 2s. was the amount paid in London under the Act of last Session; but a sum of £2 had to be paid in addition for a plate, and 7s. 6d. for each horse, making the duty payable for cabs in London more than £5; whereas in Dublin they paid only an annual duty of £1 4s., at which rate Dublin was, he believed, very well and cheaply supplied with cab accommodation. As to those job carriages on which a higher duty was paid, his hon. Friend must be aware that their charges were higher than those of ordinary cabs, and they were generally employed on special occasions, and generally made a good thing out of their job. If, for instance, his hon. Friend wished during the Recess to visit Punchestown Races, and engaged a carriage and pair for the purpose, he would find that he would get very well out of the transaction if he were only charged £5. In reply to the second Question, he had to state that the penalty of £10 for offences under the Dublin Act was a maximum figure; that the magistrates had full power to reduce the penalty, which was scarcely ever inflicted to the full extent, except under aggravated circumstances. The loss to the Revenue which would be involved in the reduction suggested in his hon. Friend's Question was in itself by no means an unimportant matter for consideration; but, independently of that, it did not appear to the Government there was any good ground for making such a reduction. With respect to the conviction to which his hon. Friend referred, there could be no doubt that the use of an £8 badge in the case of a carriage which required only a £5 badge was clearly illegal. The magistrate was, therefore, perfectly justified in inflicting a punishment under the circumstances.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received a Memorial from the Teachers and Students in connection with Artizan Science Classes in Birmingham, in which they object to the concessions just granted to the Brassfounders of that town under the 12th Clause of the Schedule of "The Factory Acts Extension Act, 1867;" and stating that the continued success of those classes, which date their existence from the passing of the Act of 1867, depends entirely upon the opportunities which a uniform hour of closing factories affords for attending the studies with regularity and certainty; and, if he has any objection to lay the Memorial upon the Table of the House, and to state the reasons which induced him to grant the concessions to the Brass-founders?

said, in reply, that he had received a memorial to the effect stated in the Question, and should have no objection to lay it on the Table if his hon. Friend thought it worth his while to press for it, though it was only of five or six lines, and contained little, if anything, more than what was stated in the Question. His hon. Friend was doubtless aware that the very onerous and critical duty of making variations in the time for which certain trades should work, according to their usages and customs, was laid on the Secretary of State, and the whole country was put under the charge of two Inspectors of Factories. He had accordingly requested the two Inspectors of Factories to go through all the cases in which any change had been applied for; and on examining this particular case they had thought, from the evidence given, that the customs used in the trade required that some change should be made, to this extent—that instead of working from six to six they should work from seven to seven.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, considering the increasing numbers of the frequenters of the Park on horseback, and the importance of not diminishing the space for that exercise and enjoyment, he will reconsider his decision to debar them from riding along the Western portion of Rotten Row, on the South side of Kensington Gardens, which has hitherto been open to the public, which affords the best view of the monument of the late Prince Consort, and gives an access to Kensington without passing along the carriage road?

said, in reply, that he could assure his hon. Friend that the regulation alluded to had not been made without sufficient consideration. The interest of those who rode on horseback in the Park had been very much considered. Only three years ago a new road was made, exclusively for their benefit, of the length of 1,447 yards, on the north side of the Park; and, when this improvement was contemplated, Rotten Row itself was extended by the length of 1,300 yards, and this was done expressly with a view to the new arrangement. With respect to the inhabitants of houses in the immediate vicinity of the particular spot referred to, no doubt they would have to turn a little aside when riding, but it would give them the most agreeable part of the Park for their recreation. With respect to the best view of the Prince Consort's monument his hon. Friend was entirely in error, and could not have been in that direction lately, or he would have discovered that the face of the memorial looked in the opposite direction to what he supposed, being not towards the north but towards the south. The frequenters of this part of the Park would be able to ride along the front, where they would have a beautiful view of it. He would also remind his hon. Friend that regard should be had to the interests of those who walked in the Park as well as of those who rode in it, and that justice should be done to both parties.

said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in "The Pall Mall Gazette," "Waterford Mail," and other newspapers, to the effect that Mr. Goold, R.M., had been removed from Waterford to Now Ross in consequence of errors committed by him in his capacity of Stipendiary Magistrate during the late Election at Waterford; if so, whether there is any foundation for such a statement?

In answer, Sir, to my hon. Friend, I have to say there is no foundation whatever for the report to which he refers. I believe that Mr. Goold, during the late Waterford Election, was, unfortunately, confined to the house by illness.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in accordance to the promise of the late Commissioner of Works, any and what steps are to be taken for the improvement in the comfort of the Ladies' Gallery, and whether a tea room will be added?

said, in reply, that the question of making improvements in the Houses of Parliament was under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, and Her Majesty's Government therefore deferred submitting any special Vote with reference to the Houses of Parliament until that Committee had made its Report. As soon as that Report had been made it would be his duty to submit to Her Majesty's Government a proposal to give effect to the wishes expressed on the question, in a manner which he trusted would be satisfactory. He hoped there would not be only a tea room but a toilette room.

said, he would suggest that it would add greatly to the convenience of Members if the Chairman would, from time to time, read the clause, as amended, down to the last Amendment adopted.

said, he hoped the First Minister of the Crown would use his influence with the Speaker to procure the printing each day, with the Votes, of the amended clauses, as far as they were agreed to. The Committee would then know better what they were discussing.

said, he thought it would be hardly convenient to print part of a clause; but if the Committee arrived at the end of the clause to-day, the whole of it might be printed.

said, that even if a portion of the clause were printed with the Amendments, the country would see what had really been adopted.

said, they had voted up to £50 in the previous part of the clause, and the whole Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), last night, depended upon their having disposed of this part.

said, he only moved the Amendment pro formâ, and would withdraw it.

said, that the object of his Amendment to leave out sub-Section 4 had practically the same effect as that of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), with this exception that he took the higher stand of £100 valuation instead of £50; and, although the decision of the Committee last night might be considered final, he should move it, and offer a few remarks in doing so. His sole object in supporting the Bill as he had done was to afford protection to a class of tenants who, from peculiar circumstances connected with the tenure of land in Ireland, were exposed to the harsh and arbitrary exercise of a power which had, he was glad to say, been of late years rarely used against them. Now, he could not regard tenants of over £100 valuation, as coming under that class; and he thought that, in legislation of this exceedingly exceptional nature, care should be taken not to extend its action further than was absolutely required. So far as this Bill proposed to afford protection to the really weak against the unjustifiable exercise of strength he would support it; but by so much as it exceeded the requirements for affording that protection, in that proportion must he regard it as partaking of the elements of injustice. When that limit was passed this measure ceased to be one of protection to the tenant, and became one of penal, harsh, and unjust enactment against the landlord. He could not regard the tenant holding at a value of £100 and over as requiring that protection, or as being at all helplessly exposed to the arbitrary will of the landlord; and if he could do no more, he must at least enter his solemn protest against that injustice. He therefore begged to move to leave out sub-Section 4, and down to "reclamation of land," in line 35, inclusive.

said, it was now proposed to raise, in the same portion of the Bill which related primarily and directly to tenancies to be created after the passing of the Act, the selfsame question upon which a Division was taken last night, though on a different figure, £100 being now the limit proposed instead of £50. He thought it his duty to defer to what had fallen from the head of the Government, who, as he understood, said that those who thought some limitation necessary in the part of the clause relating to existing tenancies would do better to raise the question at a later part of the clause, and not interfere with the arrangement proposed by the Government relating to tenancies to be hereafter created. On the whole, then, he deprecated a new debate now upon a new figure of limitation, when it would be open to those who thought some limitation necessary hereafter to consider the question upon its own merits. He submitted that it would be better to defer the question now raised until they reached the portion of the clause relating to existing tenancies.

said, he had heard nothing in the debate last night to show that tenant-farmers in Ireland with holdings above £50 were not responsible and substantial men. They had voted, however, on this question last night, and. had been beaten. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said he was far as the poles asunder from him (Colonel Barttelot); but they were rather nearer together in the Division last night than they had hitherto been, and he ventured to think they would be still nearer before they had done with the Bill. Nobody could deny that the man who paid a rental of £50 a year was able to take care of himself, and as they ascended the scale the Irish tenants were still better able to do so. The doctrine laid down in the Bill was, that it was necessary in Ireland to protect poor men who could not protect themselves, and the Committee would be departing from this principle if they protected men who were in a position to protect themselves, and did that in Ireland which was no more necessary than it would be in England and Scotland. The moment they reached a point at which protection was not needed they ought to stop; and if they went beyond it, they would be committing gross injustice to landlords and tenants, and injuring the welfare of the whole community. Contrast the position of a tenant-farmer in Ireland at £50 with that of a farmer in England or Scotland. The Irish tenant had no tithes to pay, and, although he might be called upon to pay the other dues, he paid only half the poor rate, and he got labour far cheaper than could be had in this country. The Irish farmer could got labourers when he required them far more easily than the English tenant could; and all these things, with regard to which the Irish farmer was in a better position than the English farmer, ought to be taken into account. It struck him last night that the proposal about free contract failed to supply this deficiency. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) was prepared to supply it; because he wished to move that from £50 to £75 rent the compensation should be two years' rent, from £75 to £100 one year's rent, and that the operation of the clause should cease at a rent of £100. He thought that in the eyes of the First Minister of the Crown this would be right and just, for the right hon. Gentleman would not say that a man paying £100 and more was not in a responsible position and capable of taking care of himself, and therefore to go beyond this limit would be to do great injustice to the landlords of the country.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) said last night that in this clause they were dealing simply with prospective arrangements. If that were so, he agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it would be better to postpone the question of existing tenancies till a future stage. But his belief was that the Government intended this clause to be retrospective, and retrospective in a most important manner. Suppose, for instance, that a tenant had a farm upon the usual indefinite holding, to continue till it was determined by notice on one side or the other—suppose that he paid his rent half-yearly, that he had been in occupation for five years, and was still in occupation. If the clause were to apply to a case of this kind, it would be clearly retrospective; because though it might be said that this was a tenancy from year to year, yet the farmer really held on a contract which began five years ago. He asked the Government clearly to state whether their clause applied to a case of this description.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) would press his Amendment, and give himself and others an opportunity of distinctly entering their protest against this 4th sub-section, for it embodied monstrous propositions. Compensation for disturbance was monstrous, and interference with contract was monstrous; they were monstrous in the sense of being new and unheard of; the 31 years' lease not covering reclamation of land was monstrous; and, therefore, he and others would take every opportunity of protesting against such legislation. It came to this, that tenants paying £100 a year and upwards, were in such a position of subserviency to this tyrannical power which had been exercised, that it required a Prime Minister with a large majority to save these men from their tyrants, and to override the rights of property. He was very much surprised last night to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), which was conceived in a very different spirit from that he delivered a few nights ago. The hon. and learned Member, possessing influence on the Liberal side of the House, was almost the only one those on his (Lord Elcho's) side, in such a minority, could look to for the protection of the rights of property and for resistance to the dictatorship of the First Minister of the Crown. It was with something more than astonishment that he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman, influenced by what had been said as to something the Government intended to do at a future time, walk out of the House before the Division, instead of leading into the Lobby those who were ready to follow him upon this question. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said last night the Amendment of the Government did not satisfy him, the question arose what did satisfy him. What was the promise of the Government which had so marvellous an effect on the hon. and learned Member for Richmond that, whereas he was most strongly against going beyond £50, he was nevertheless prepared to assent to what the Government were going to propose? The Committee did not know what it was; they had received no intimation of it; and, therefore, it was the duty of every Member who valued the rights of property to support the right hon. and learned Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headlam). It must not be supposed that those who stood up for the rights of property had no feelings for the poor, or that feeling for the poor was monopolized by the First Minister of the Crown. They were sent to Parliament to maintain certain principles which were found in our legislation, and one of these was the security of property, which by these proposals would be monstrously infringed; and that would not be for the advantage of the poor. Therefore, he would use every opportunity of protesting against these proposals in the most emphatic manner, and if the hon. Member for Carlow divided the Committee he would vote with him. In the meantime, he wished to ask either the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chief Secretary for Ireland to state what change they proposed to make.

said, no one was better aware than he was that the course which he took last night was a course which very seldom ought to be taken, and one, even when justified, fairly exposed to observation and criticism. He took that course simply because it appeared to him to be, under all the circum- stances, most in accordance with that very duty which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had assigned him, and as the course which would least diminish any little chance he had of exercising any useful influence for the public good, either with those who sat on the Ministerial Bench or those who sat near him. The latter certainly were not of opinion that, upon the issue then raised, in the light in which it was put by the First Minister of the Crown, they could reconcile it with their sense of duty and their sincere desire to carry the Bill forward to vote against the Government. He was one of those who thought they never ought to give votes which they would not give if they expected to be in a majority. If there were, upon any point, just ground for thinking that the cardinal principles of property were, intentionally or unintentionally, invaded by the Bill, and that the ulterior consequences of the legislation proposed would be of greater importance than the object immediately aimed at, it might be the duty of himself, and others who agreed with him, however unwillingly, to go into the Lobby against the Government, even after the intimation which his right hon. Friend made last night; but that would be their duty only if their conviction was clear that the particular issue on which the vote was about to be taken was one which necessarily involved so important a principle. He was, down to that moment, quite as ignorant as his noble Friend of what the Government thought might be done, consistently with the principle of the Bill, to limit its application with regard to present tenancies. His right hon. Friend had shown, in the early part of the previous evening, a sincere desire to meet, to a considerable extent, the suggestions made to improve the Bill, and had done what seemed sufficient, both to the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball), and to himself, with respect to what he would call the future, by which he meant, in the language of the first part of the 3rd clause, "tenancies created after the passing this Act;" and the words of the clause, as far as the Committee had yet gone, grammatically related only to such tenancies. His right hon. Friend stated that he reluctantly consented to exclude from the operation of the clause, so far as it restricted the power of making future contracts, all tenants above £50, and that he attributed some importance to leaving the scale in operation in cases where the contracting parties, in contracts made after the passing of the Act, did not think fit to exclude themselves from its operation. He distinctly understood his right hon. Friend to say that he should regard in the same point of view any reasonable proposition to limit the operation of the Act, whether in one way or another, which might appear necessary to prevent injustice, when they arrived at the subsequent part of this clause, which alone introduced existing tenancies, and made them subject to it—namely, the part which provided that—

"The tenant of any holding held by him under a tenancy from year to year existing at the time of the passing of this Act shall, if disturbed by the act of his immediate landlord, be entitled to compensation under, and subject to, the provisions of this section."

At the present moment he was under the strongest impression that if they drew the line at £50 after the passing of the Act, and then gave freedom of contract, they could not interfere with all existing contracts and say that they should be subject to the scale. His right hon. Friend intimated that the Government would endeavour to meet the views of those who felt a difficulty with regard to this point. When or how that was to be done he did not know; but the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) had a Notice of a Motion on the Paper, which would on that portion of the clause renew the question about the £50 tenant, and make it necessary for the Government to declare their views. He was most anxious not to stick at a figure, or anything else, which did not involve a principle; but he adhered to what he had before said, that to require a landlord to pay £250 in cases where there was no justification for requiring him to pay anything, was not, to him, satisfactory. All he could say further was, that no man in the House would be more disposed than himself to regard it as a public calamity, that anything should happen which would throw this matter into a state of confusion and prevent a measure being passed on this subject. He would not personally be a party to anything which invaded the security of property, or which could not be reconciled with the principles of justice; but, on the other hand, he would not, in opposition to the Government, in whom he placed general confidence, and whom he desired to support to the utmost of his power, do anything which would prevent the passing of a Bill which he thought necessary, unless such a course should be absolutely forced on him for the sake of maintaining what he deemed vital principles.

said, he did not rise to discuss the many monstrous things of which the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had spoken, and some of which he was happy to know the House had sanctioned by a large majority; but he should be sorry indeed if the House were to legislate on this subject from the point of view of the noble Lord, which only showed that the noble Lord was blind to the more monstrous things that already existed in Ireland. [Lord ELCHO: Name them.] He could assure the noble Lord that if the House were not prepared to sanction those things which he called monstrous, but which they called wise and humane provisions, they would see more monstrous things still in Ireland. The noble Lord asked what were the limitations which the Government proposed to make with respect to the part of the clause they were now dealing with. The noble Lord could not have been in his place last night. In reply, he would state that the Government agreed to the proposition of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) that in no case should the maximum payment for eviction exceed £250. The Government also stated that, under the Bill as it stood, the line in respect to the power of entering into free contracts had been drawn at £100, and that they now proposed to reduce the line to £50; so that in the case of all persons holding land above £50 a year they should be at liberty to contract themselves out of the provisions of the Act. With regard to what had been said as to the distinction between existing and future tenancies, he would point out that at present the Committee was dealing with future tenancies, and, as they went further on, the occasion would naturally arise for considering the question of existing tenancies, and it would be for the Government to consider whether any change in that matter could be acceded to; but what was announced by the First Minister of the Crown came to this—that in all cases there would be freedom of contract above £50 valuation, whether in case of existing or future tenancies, to enable parties to contract themselves out of the provisions of this Act. He was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Colonel Barttelot) state that the Irish tenant above £50 valuation was, to all intents and purposes, as able to take care of himself as an English or Scotch tenant. Now, he believed that every Irish Member would be ready to maintain that it was a delusion to suppose that they were on an equal footing. At the same time, he admitted that an Irish tenant at £100 or £50 was in a bettor position than a smaller tenant, and required less protection, and, accordingly, the clause had been adapted to suit that state of circumstances. With that view it was proposed that the very outside amount which the Court could award under the head of damages for improper and capricious eviction in such a case should be one or two years' rent, or a sum not exceeding £250. Such a provision was important, for though causeless evictions did not happen every day, they happened often enough to create a great feeling of alarm and insecurity among the tenantry. The scale of compensation provided by the clause was not excessive; on the contrary, it was so moderate that landlords would have no difficulty in making arrangements with their tenants. The advantages offered were not such as to induce any enterprizing tenant to refuse a fair lease.

said, he regarded the intimation which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) of the reasons which had induced him to take the course he did last night as amounting to this—that he preferred consulting his apprehensions as to what the First Minister would do if the Committee did not sanction the proposal of the Government, rather than, the pure dictates of his reason. No one on that side complained of the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but most Members must feel that they had arrived at a very unsatisfactory state of affairs when important decisions on that Bill were arrived at not on the merits of the questions submitted to them, but in accordance with apprehensions as to what might or might not be the future course of the Government if the Committee decided according to their deliberate convictions. With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it was true compensation had been limited to the somewhat arbitrary sum of £250; but the hon. and learned Member for Richmond had expressed his strong opposition to the limits so proposed. The proposed substitution of one year's rent for two years' was no doubt a concession as to degree, but none as to principle. The concessions proposed by the Government, and that proposed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) and accepted by the Government, rather complicated what was already a most complicated measure; and they ought to take every means in their power to diminish instead of increasing the complication of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) reserved to himself the right of considering the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford when they came to it; but from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he inferred that the Government would accept that Amendment. What, then, was the corpus about which they were actually fighting? It seemed to him the veriest shadow. For the sake of simplicity and eliminating unnecessary phraseology and complication from the clause, they ought to assent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh). His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had stated that in vindicating the rights of property they were taking the best course for promoting the real interests of the peasantry and poor of Ireland, and he quite concurred in that statement. It was because he believed that to the landlords of Ireland, and not to the tenant-farmers, the peasantry had to look for the social and material improvement of their condition that he protested against this impediment put in the way of the free management of their estates. He therefore gave his support to this Amendment.

said, he thought the Government should take warning when noble Lords and Gentlemen opposite got up and thanked them for their concessions on this Bill. When the Bill was introduced he said it was not agreed on, and would not work for the benefit of the people of Ireland as he believed the Government were anxious it should. But every step that had been taken in the line of concession weakened the Bill, and would weaken the cause of the Government in Ireland, especially when the people found that those concessions were not made to the Irish Members, but to the English Members, who were legislating for Ireland with England in the background, They ought to be very much obliged to English Gentlemen for the great care they were taking of the property of Irish landlords. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) seemed to think that a £50 tenant was able to take care of himself; but he, for one, had great doubts on the subject. Many hon. Members in that House, like himself, had a number of small tenants, and he asserted deliberately that, as a class, rent was scarcely ever lost through them. A small tenant felt his precarious position so keenly, and was so anxious to keep his small holding, that he exerted every energy he possessed to stand well with his landlord. But a £50 tenant very often was not so industrious or so hardworking, and, if he fell behind with his payments, could not so readily got assistance from his friends to make up his rent. He hoped the Government would stand firm on this point and not weaken the Bill by any further concessions; for he was sorry to say that, as it stood, the Bill, he feared, would have little effect in Ireland, and any further weakening of its provisions would lead the people of Ireland to think that the Irish Members in the House of Commons had but a small voice in this matter. [Cries of "Oh!"] He was not; contending for the establishment of any distinctions between Members of the House elected in different portions of the United Kingdom, for they were all members of the same Empire; but he was speaking of the light in which the action of the House of Commons would be viewed at the other side of the water. It would be said that legislation beneficently intended by the Government had been weakened and frittered away by the English Members, who were looking not to the immediate circumstances of Ireland, but to the possible result of such legislation hereafter upon their own estates in England. He did not believe that the operation of the Bill would entail upon the Irish landlords anything like the burdens which were represented. Estates there nomi- nally sold for 20 years' purchase frequently proved to be of a letting value which would reduce the purchase-money to 17 years' purchase, more especially as there was not just now much competition of English capital, which was a comfort; then there was the year's rent falling due, which should be taken into account. So that, practically, if seven years' rent had to be allowed to every tenant upon the estate, with a view of getting rid of them, the landlord would not be paying more than three or four years' rent out of his own pocket. That was to say, after compensating and evicting all the tenants, he would have his estate for 24 years' purchase, against at least 34 years' purchase in England. Moreover, there were few Irish landlords in the position of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory) and himself who would object to assist their tenants to emigrate if they went voluntarily, and believed that by doing so they were bettering their position. But what the Irish tenants objected to, and what lay at the bottom of the discontent in Ireland, was the attempt to better them against their will. A man had no right to insist on another's living in a large house in Belgravia if he preferred to live in a small one anywhere else. It was the interference that the tenants objected to. On this point he hoped the Government would not yield one iota more; they had already yielded more than the supporters of the Bill desired.

Sir, my hon. Friend, who has just sat down, in his zeal to prevent further concessions has gone far to cut the ground from under our feet; for he has drawn such a flattering picture of the financial position of the Irish landlords, and of their willingness to give pecuniary help to their tenants out of their own pockets, that the Bill seems to be hardly necessary.

said, he had been only speaking of himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory).

I hope and have no doubt he speaks for other Irish landlords as well. My hon. Friend entreats us not to give way any more. It would be inconsistent with our duty to agree to a general pledge of that character, because our pledge to the House is that we will look at all Amendments on their merits; and, consequently, were I to give him the assurance for which he asks I might be entangling myself in charges of breach of faith. But, looking at the question before us, the Government have not the slightest intention or idea of giving way, and I will state reasons for that decision which ought, I think, to be satisfactory. My hon. Friend said that if this portion of the Bill were to be, as he said, further weakened the effect would be very much to damage the cause of the Government in Ireland. Well, that I believe is true; but it is a very small part of the truth. It is not only a question of damaging the cause of the Government—that would be insignificant; but it is also a question of damaging the cause of the Imperial Parliament. For I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the whole of this discussion, we ought to bear in mind that we are dealing with a country which unfortunately wants that confidence—and I am afraid derives from history grounds for wanting that confidence—which the people of England and Scotland have for many generations been able to repose in Parliament. I, therefore, entirely assent to the principle which my hon. Friend lays down with regard to the solemn nature of the considerations that bear upon the manner in which we are to adjust the terms of the compact which Parliament is virtually about to make with the occupiers in Ireland. But let us look at the Bill. I make no complaint of the opposition of my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who thinks the principle of the Bill monstrous, and who objected to it fairly upon the second reading. But I am addressing a House that assented generally to the second reading of the Bill, and still more warmly endorsed it in the speeches which were delivered. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) says we have arrived at a deplorable position in which hon. Members vote not because they approve the clause itself, but because of some declaration which the Government have made with regard to it. But the noble Lord has not accurately stated the facts. He said that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) objected to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson). [Lord JOHN MANNERS: He did so.] Not a word of it. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: Oh, yes, he did.] Not a word of it—not one word of it. I will show that there was an unfortunate misapprehension, not only in the mind of the noble Lord, but of many hon. Members, as to the arguments which were addressed to the House. I do not recollect a case in which a vote of that kind was given under similar circumstances. To clear the ground it is necessary to observe that we are not at this moment dealing with the case of present tenancies. ["Oh! oh!"] We have not voted a word in this clause that touches present tenancies at all. The objections taken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and by my hon. and learned Friend behind me were retrospective objections applying to a portion of the clause entirely separate from that with which we are now dealing. Therefore, let hon. Gentlemen observe that present tenancies have nothing to do either with the vote we are now about to give or the vote which we gave last night. And I wish that part of the question had been better understood. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Dr. Ball) declared that, in his judgment, the prospective question was sufficiently met by the concession which the Government had made. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) stated that the provision for free contract from £50 upwards was sufficient for merely prospective tenancies, and it is for them alone that we are now legislating. I must own that after these declarations—though I have no right to make any I complaint on the subject—I was greatly disappointed at the vote given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Dr. Ball), and at the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend left the House. I frankly confess that after the statements made by two such authorities? that the proposals of the Government upon this point sufficiently met the requirements of justice, it was disappointing to find the Amendment supported by the vote and authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and supported, if not by the vote, at least by the inaction, neutrality, and departure from the House of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond. Now, Sir, what has happened in addition to that? We have agreed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Banbury. That Amendment is a very important one, because it provides practically that the sum which is to be the maximum that any tenant under £100 can in certain cases obtain shall be the maximum that any tenant over £100 can obtain. In point of policy hon. Gentlemen must feel that there is some force in our plea that, as you go upward, the argument of fear and necessity becomes weaker; but we are dealing with the agricultural population as a whole, as it would not be wise by a severe and sharp provision drawn at a certain point to strike the most important part of the tenantry of Ireland altogether out of the scope of the provisions of the Bill; and, consequently, we have accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend, which meets, I think, every objection that can fairly be taken to including very large tenancies. Now, the noble Lord opposite says we are fighting for a shadow. If that be so it will be easy for him not to join in the fight. We, however, do not think that is the case. We believe that morally it is very important, that politically it is very important, and that it is material to the success of the measure we have at heart. But still if the noble Lord thinks that it is fighting for a shadow, the best thing he can do is to vote with us; or, if he does not like to do that, to pursue the course adopted by my hon. and learned Friend last evening. Now, the concession of free contract is admitted in substance to meet the cases. That concession has been made, and as far as we are concerned irrevocably made, for every man above £50, and, under those circumstances, I trust that the Committee will sustain the decision which we arrived at last night.

As I have been referred to in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), I feel bound to say that I certainly did vote last night, because I conceived that the question which was then put, and which is now again to be put, did involve the retrospective compensation to persons holding existing tenancies. I find that the clause as printed provides as follows:—

"The tenant of any holding held by him under a tenancy from year to year existing at the time of the passing of this Act shall, if disturbed by the act of his immediate landlord, be entitled to compensation under, and subject to, the provisions of this section."

Unless the right hon. Gentleman is pre- pared to alter the language of this portion of the clause, it is as plain as possible that the preceding words "above £100" will be governed by them. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is prepared to make the concession, and state that the section shall retrospectively be confined to tenancies of under £50 valuation, I am prepared to admit that in contesting this we should be dividing on a matter of no consequence. If you insert in the clause some such provision, all existing tenancies above £50 would be excluded, and you would not be dealing with the past, but legislating simply in those cases where, in the future, the landlord remains silent. As to them, if you give me freedom in the future, I do not lay any stress upon the matter; but unless the right hon. Gentleman says, in plain terms, that he will insert in the 22nd line of the 4th page, "under £50 valuation," it is idle to tell me I am not voting on retrospective legislation. It certainly seems to me that the question as to what concessions generally the Government are prepared to make ought to have great weight in determining what vote we shall give, in particular instances, and there are two or three matters on which it would have thrown some light if the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his opinion. Thus, the term of 31 years provided in this clause to exempt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer); proposes to reduce to 14. I propose to reduce it to 21, because a 21 years' lease is a very frequent term granted, and because I think that will be a very fair limit. It would probably much affect the votes of Members on this side of the House if they knew what was to be done as to this, and I repeat that, until we have got a substantial declaration as to what is intended with reference to that part of the clause which relates to past holdings, it cannot be said that we are not voting on the subject of retrospective legislation.

said, they were simply wasting precious hours in the discussion of what it was perfectly clear would have to be discussed over again. The debate on this point would property arise when they came to the 25th line of page 4. It would be impossible to get the clause through the Committee at all if there was such a great waste of time over it.

said, he hoped the advice he was about to give would not be misunderstood. It seemed to him that they could come to a much more satisfactory discussion upon this question at a subsequent portion of the clause, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Kavanagh) would not press his Amendment.

said, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the arguments in favour of the Amendment he was about to propose had been so fully debated in the previous evening, and had been so reinforced by the Government in the course of the afternoon, that he should content himself with moving in page 3, line 18, after "rent," to insert "but in no case shall the compensation exceed the sum of £250."

said, he should be the last man to interpose any difficulty in the way of securing to tenants in Ireland compensation for improvements which they might have made on their farms; but then he wished to have some explanation of what was meant by the words "reclamation of land." There was a want of precision in the use of those words both in the Bill itself and in the proposed Amendment, and it looked as if they had been employed designedly. In the 40th clause, and there only, he believed the word "waste" was used to qualify the word "lands," probably because it was found absolutely necessary, in making a provision for the application of public funds for a public object, that object should be somewhat clearly defined. But the words "reclamation of land," used in the other clauses of the Bill, were very general, and he did not find any light was thrown upon them, even in the Interpretation Clause. Turning to previous legislation on such subjects, he had ascertained that in the Acts of 23 & 24 Vict., constant reference was made to "waste lands," instead of general terms being used, as in the present instance. Now, in Ireland farm labourers would be allowed to cultivate small plots of land, on which they would grow crops of potatoes, receiving no payment from the farmer in whose employment they happened to be for the reclamation thus effected, and which would be a positive advantage to him, inasmuch as he would, in the event of his being disturbed in his holding, be able to bring in a bill against his landlord for work on which he himself had not spent a penny, and which had been nothing to him but a source of profit. He thought, therefore, it was desirable to amend the Bill by the use of some more definite words than the words "reclamation of land."

said, he objected to the Amendment, inasmuch as it had left no provision at all for enabling certain classes of the tenantry to claim compensation for general improvement under the Act.

explained that in making the observations which he had made on the previous evening, to the effect that, after the course taken by the Government, he would withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper, he had misunderstood what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, and was glad to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to express his regret for having used those words.

said, he would beg to assure the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) that the Government used the words "reclamation of land" in the Bill with no dark design, as he seemed to suppose. The words were retrospective as well as prospective—the words "reclamation of land," and not of "waste lands," and he could not well imagine that a Judge, assisted by an agricultural expert, a first class valuator, could have any difficulty in pronouncing what was or was not the reclamation of land. If any serious difficulty should be raised hereafter it might be possible to meet it by way of definition; but he could not see any reason for changing the words at this part of the Bill.

said, that through the neglect of a tenant, land that had been once reclaimed, and upon which compensation had been paid, might lapse into a state in which it could be again reclaimed, and he wished to know whether it could be made the subject of another charge. As he understood the definition, it implied improvement rather than recovering from a state of nature, and, if so, he did not see why it should not be classed with other agricultural improvements.

said, he meant that, as the words were retrospective as well as prospective, they, of course, applied both to waste lands and to those that had been reclaimed. If it were possible that lands could be allowed to relapse like the old cotton lands of Virginia, a case might arise which would be left to the decision of a Court.

said, the right hon. Gentleman evidently thought the words were ambiguous, and, if reclamation were to be classed with permanent holdings, there ought to be a definition to guard against trivial and light improvements in the condition of the soil. Would reclamation mean drainage, which in two or three years would repay its cost?

said he thought not. He might refer to the definitions of improvement of land given in the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, of which there were no loss than 12, and one was "reclamation of land," which showed that the meaning of the term was well understood.

having pointed out that any amendment which was to be made in the Amendment must be made after the omission of the words proposed to be left out, and before the insertion of others, and that what was involved in the reclamation of land could be more conveniently discussed at that later stage, put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he would beg lo remind the Committee that the greater part of Scotland had been reclaimed under a system of 19 years' leases, which, were considered sufficiently long to enable the tenants to recoup themselves. It seemed to him that it ought to be clearly laid down in the Bill where reclamation of land should cease, for at present the matter was so indefinite that it might go back to the date of the Flood. He would submit that a line ought to be drawn at 20 years.

said, that there was no phrase in the English language that was better understood in Ireland than that of "reclamation of land."

said, it would be better if the subject of the reclamation of land were dealt with when they came to the 4th clause.

said, that Mr. Curling, the agent of the Earl of Devon, stated before a Select Committee of that House five years ago, that he attached such immense importance to reclamation, of mountain land especially, which was like creating new land, that he would give a lease of 60 years to anyone engaged in that process.

said, he thought that the proposed proviso would place the small tenant under £10 in the position of getting seven years' rent for eviction and for minor improvements conjoined, though the Government had at one time suggested that seven years' rent should be given for eviction alone.

said, that the proposal now made by the Government as being on the whole most fair was that in the case of a tenant under £10 valuation being evicted he might claim seven years' rent, and in addition compensation for permanent buildings and reclamation of land; but if the tenant claimed compensation for minor improvements then he would receive only five years' rent on eviction. The improvements made by that class of tenants were very little indeed.

said, that by the 4th clause compensation was to be given for improvements made within 20 years; but with regard to compensation for the reclamation of land there was no limit as to time. He thought some definition ought to be given of what was deemed reclamation, for many would think taking up grass land and turning it into arable reclamation, though he might call it waste.

said, he did not think there was any difficulty in the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), but it was somewhat prematurely put. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have overlooked one of the important provisoes to Clause 4, with respect to all existing improvements, including reclamations. When they reached that point there would be ample opportunity for discussion.

said, he could not see the connection between permanent buildings and reclamation. Everyone knew what permanent buildings were, but reclamations of land had no necessary connection with permanent improvements. They all knew how soon reclamations might revert to a state of absolute barrenness. A tenant might pare and burn the land, take two crops of potatoes, followed by oats, and he might then lay it down in what he would call permanent grass, by sowing a few hay seeds; but in about 10 years it would become as barren as ever it was before. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire said, a tenant in the course of a 31 years' lease might have to reclaim the "reclaimed land" three times over. He trusted that the Committee would divide on the question, so as to ensure the separation of reclaimed land from permanent buildings.

said, he would not withhold from the tenant compensation or security for compensation for any improvements on the land in respect of agriculture; but he objected to what was so excessively indefinite as reclamations of land being mixed up with what were so well denned as permanent buildings. Everyone acquainted with Ireland must have noticed that the land was scored over with the marks of old potatoe ridges which had been abandoned in consequence of the disease of the plant. It was for the Committee to decide whether the fact that such pieces of land had been cultivated thirty or forty years ago was to confer a claim of the same nature as permanent improvements. He should therefore move to leave out the words "reclamation of land."

said, he thought they might raise precisely the same number of questions as to what were "permanent buildings." What were "permanent buildings?" A house, a pigsty, or a wall? They could not define them. "Reclamations of land" were as well understood as "permanent buildings." They belonged to a class of improvements as well known as embanking, enclosure, or fencing. These subtle criticisms were altogether misplaced.

said, he apprehended that these two species of improvements coming before a Judge would stand in one and the same light; if a tenant claimed for a house which was in ruins, he would get no compensation; and so a person claiming compensation for land he had reclaimed, but which had again fallen into wilderness, would got none.

in rising to bring forward the Amendment of which he had given notice, said, that upon it the discussion would probably last beyond the hour of adjournment, and he therefore offered to the Government that they should proceed with the two next paragraphs, and proposed himself to postpone his Amendment until after Easter. ["No, no!"] As this proposal was not acceded to he would proceed to move it, and the first observation he had to make was that it had attracted a degree of attention, and assumed an importance which he, for one, certainly never had attached to it. The circumstances which had given rise to this importance were partly the desultory conversation that occurred on Thursday last upon the subject of this Amendment, and partly the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown had unnecessarily, and, as he thought, with some precipitancy, before any opportunity had been given for explaining the Amendment, interposed an opinion that it was against the principle of the Bill. The Solicitor General, also, had felt in duty bound to endorse that sentiment. When he put the Notice on the Paper nothing was further from his intention than to do anything to attack the principle of the Bill. He never dreamt that it was a principle of the Bill that a tenant under lease should be exonerated from the duty of giving up peaceable possession of the demised land at the end of his term; nor had he ever dreamt that it was against the principle of the Bill that a landlord resuming possession of his land at the termination of a lease should be deemed to be disturbing a tenant within the meaning of the Act. It might be asked what was his object in moving the proviso. He had given notice of it originally, because in this Bill the House had been doing much to shake well-established usages, and to interfere with principles recognized in all past times. It seemed right and fair, accordingly, to bring before the mind of every tenant-farmer in Ireland who might not be supposed to know accurately what was the law, and might suppose that many other things were shaken besides those which were dealt with in the Bill, the fact that the duty of giving up the land which he held at the end of his lease was one from which he was not to be exonerated. It was also duo to the landlord that it should be distinctly made known that he would not be acting as a disturber in doing that which at all times heretofore had been legal and regular. The discussions which had recently been held showed clearly the necessity of some such provision as he had suggested; for his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) avowed that he had read the Bill upon the assumption that it was not intended to make the landlord a disturber if he claimed his land upon the expiration of his lease. The interpretation put upon the clause by the Government being exactly opposed to that which he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond had put upon it, it was due not loss to the Government than to the tenantry of Ireland that all possibility of misconception should be removed. he would explain as clearly and as shortly as he could the existing law upon the subject; and, speaking in the presence of many of his hon. and learned Friends, if he fell into the slightest inaccuracy they would at once correct him. If any person took land from another for a definite and stated period it was his duty to relinquish the land at the end of that time, and the landlord was perfectly entitled to take possession of it when that time arrived. Whether the period were long or short, and whether the rent were great or small, in every such case the landlord was not under any legal obligation to give notice to quit, but the tenancy determined, ipso facto, on the conclusion of the term. That was a matter of substance, and not a mere technicality, for it proved distinctly that the tenancy determined without any such notice being given. If, for instance, a landlord let land for a period of five years from the 1st of January, 1870, terminating on the 1st of January, 1875, the landlord, as soon as that contract was entered into, was at perfect liberty to let the land from the 1st of January, 1875, to another person; and, if he did so, the tenant for the five years would be bound to yield up possession on the day named to the person who was to succeed him, without any previous notice to quit having been given by the landlord. On the other hand, the tenant was entitled to go out at the end of his term without giving to the landlord any notice of his intention to do so. The rights of both parties were perfectly equal—it was assumed that they both understood the law; and, of course, the same power of giving notice to quit existed for both parties. If, however, the tenant did not go out at the expiraration of his term, but remained in occupation, and paid a year's rent, which was accepted by the landlord, then, under these circumstances, a contract of a now and entirely different nature was built up and implied by the law from the conduct of the parties, the tenancy, instead of being for a fixed and stated period, was hold to be for an indefinite period, continuing until one or other of the parties gave to the other a notice to quit; and, consequently, the tenancy being brought to a close by the notice to quit, the giving of this notice became an act of disturbance on the part of the landlord. This was a matter so familiar to all who had knowledge of the subject that he felt almost ashamed to quote authorities upon the point. But, as it was necessary that the matter should be clearly understood, he might refer to the definition to be found at page 305 of Woodfall's Law of Landlord and Tenant. Something had been said in the course of the discussion as to a lease for a year and a day; but precisely the same rule applied to a tenancy for the shortest period known to the law. There were thousands of cases in London of tenancies lasting for a week. Where lodgings were taken merely for a week, and nothing more was said as to the relations of parties, the tenancy expired at the end of the week; but if the tenant continued in occupation after the end of the week, paying weekly rent, then the law built up precisely the same kind of implied contract, which might last for an indefinite period of time, and was only to be terminated by a notice to quit. And here, again, the notice to quit determining the tenancy constituted an act of disturbance on the part of the landlord. On referring to the valuable Blue Book upon the tenure of land in other countries which had been laid before the House, he found that the state of the law was precisely similar in France, Belgium, Schleswig-Holstein, and other countries of Europe. Which form of lease was generally adopted in the State of Maine would be found at the end of this volume, by which it appeared that a tenant in that country bound himself to give up and peaceably quit the lands at the end of the term. Observe, therefore, the nature and character of the proposed legislation. If an Irishman should expatriate himself, and going over to the State of Maine, should take land there, he would enter into a covenant peaceably to quit and give up his land at the end of the term, and, what is more, he would by the laws of that country, be bound to fulfil his covenant; but, under the legislation now proposed, if an Irishman remaining in Ireland should, with a reckless disregard of his own interests, enter into a covenant that he would give up the land he took at the end of the term for which he took it, the law would step in and say that he should not be bound by such a contract, that he required protection, and that such a contract should be deemed against public policy, and ought not to be enforced. Could anything more startling be conceived than legislation of this character? What, however, he had stated was the result of the proposed legislation. But he objected not only to the result, but to the manner in which that result was arrived at. It was not by clear and distinct legislation on the subject, but it was obtained by putting a forced and unnatural meaning on the words—"disturbed in his holding by the act of the landlord." Those words could not with any propriety be held to mean the resumption of the land by a landlord at the end of a lease. He would defy his right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to show from any work of authority on law that the word "disturbance" had ever been applied to such a thing as the landlord entering upon the possession of his own land. He would even go further and say that colloquially it bore no such meaning. Under these circumstances he had fully expected that when he proposed his proviso Her Majesty's Government would have said that his proposal contained nothing but truisms; and, consequently, he was startled at the sudden and precipitant statement from the Treasury Bench that something so simple was contrary to the whole principle of the Bill. He had explained his own view of the matter, and he would now advert to what he understood was the exact intention of the Government. He apprehended that with respect to leases executed after the passing of this Act, a totally different principle was intended to prevail from that which now existed, and that the relation between the landlord and the tenant would be altered—that the landlord would be unable to let his land at the end of the term for which he had leased it, and would be unable himself to resume possession of it, and that the tenant would cease to be bound to give it up at the end of the term. Those new principles were, however, only to apply to leases made after a certain date, so that the same words would have different meanings according to the date of the document. Was it wise that they should have two sets of leases in which similar words were differently interpreted; that, for instance, a man who in October, 1869, entered into a lease for five years, should be bound to go out at the end of that time, but that if he entered into the lease in January, 1870, he should not be bound to go out. He would ask the Committee whether they could conceive any state of things more absurd or more likely to produce confusion and injustice? He believed, too, that such distinctions were calculated to make all law and all contracts uncertain, and to inflict unmixed mischief on the tenant himself instead of conferring upon him any benefit. He could understand it if they were to say that the Irish tenant was a person who could not be trusted to look after his own interests, and therefore that he should not be allowed to make a lease, or enter into a covenant; but to pass an Act of Parliament to say that both parties might enter into a contract, but that that contract should bear an interpreta- tion intended by neither, was, in his opinion, in the highest degree absurd. It was for the benefit of all parties that the law should be clear, distinct, and intelligible, that contracts should be interpreted according to their meaning, and that the Irish tenant should know and understand the nature and extent of his obligations. It was with these objects that he moved the proviso on the Bill, sure that if the Committee consented to its introduction they would be proceeding for once in the progress of this Bill on firm and substantial ground which, would not crumble away beneath them. He therefore begged to move, in page 3, line 35, after "land," to insert—

"Provided always, That nothing in this Act contained shall exonerate a tenant under lease from the duty of giving up peaceable possession of the demised land at the end of the term, nor shall a landlord resuming possession at the termination of a lease be deemed to be disturbing a tenant within the meaning of this Act."

said, that his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Headlam) had stated that he intended to make the Bill clear and distinct. One thing, at any rate, was clear and distinct—that if his right hon. Friend's Amendment was carried the Bill would be utterly useless. His right hon. Friend had occupied a great deal of time in proving what, as far as he was aware, no human being had ever disputed—that if persons entered into a contract it was their duty to abide by it. Nobody ever questioned the doctrine that if a man took land for a certain number of years under a lease he was bound to quit at the end of the term: it was equally certain that if he took land as a tenant from year to year on the condition that he should quit on a six months' notice, that on the expiration of six months after receiving the notice he was bound to quit. His right hon. Friend had urged that a landlord who entered upon possession of his land at the termination of his lease could not be regarded as a disturber, but he (the Attorney General) went further and contended that a landlord entering after notice upon land held from year to year could not be regarded as a disturber. If that were so the right hon. Gentleman's argument fell to the ground, because it was entirely based upon a distinction which did not exist. The question involved in the Bill was one of policy. The Government had never denied that they were asking Parliament to deal with the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland on different principles from those which prevailed in England; and if they were not justified in adopting that exceptional course for the sake of giving not fixity, but greater security of tenure, the Bill ought to have been rejected on the second reading. The clause before the Committee provided in substance that, with respect to tenants from year to year and having only short leases, the landlord who entered into possession should pay a certain amount in the shape of damages or compensation—he did not care which it was called—under circumstances which had been explained over and over again. The landlord would have the same right to enter that he had now; he might take possession of the land immediately on the termination of the lease, but their object was to give compensation for eviction and also for improvements where the land lord entered into possession of the land, unless he gave leases of a certain duration. As the Bill now stood, in the case of a 31 years' lease the tenant would have no claim; and also in the case of 21 years' lease, under certain circumstances, he would have none. These were provisions which they would subsequently come to and discuss; but what he was now anxious to point out to the Committee was, that the effect of the Amendment would be, that any lease, however short, whether for 12 months or only for a week, would disentitle the tenant to any claim whatever for compensation. That was altogether contrary to the principle of the Bill, and if it were once affirmed, any further discussion of the clause would be idle. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

said, he trusted that he might be allowed to say a few words in support of the proviso of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam). The Government had every right to be anxious and solicitous about their Bill. They had every right to be jealous of the beautiful structure of this clause, lest what the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had called a miscellaneous cargo might be imported. But was the Government clause incapable of misconstruction? He thought not; and, therefore, he was desirous that a provision like that before the Committee should be introduced. It had been said that for Ireland they must have exceptional legislation, and as- suredly the language of the clause was exceptional—exceptional even to a learned lawyer, as had been admitted—and he did not know what it meant. He asked, therefore, that a distinct interpretation should be furnished, otherwise, instead of this being a message of peace, it would be likely to prove a message of war to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government made an appeal last night to his followers, which was not implicitly obeyed. He wished the right hon. Gentleman could have seen the faces behind him. They went into the Lobby with him, but they came out discontented men, feeling that they had voted against their convictions. They asked for a reason, but no reason had been vouchsafed to them. It was for the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to justify this peculiar proponal for legislation. Such legislation ought to be clear and understandable, and conformable to reason, rather than that force of numbers upon which the right hon. Gentleman depended. Let him remember the vote of Thursday. The state of things before him reminded him of a passage which he had read History of the Crimean War, and which ran thus—

"In their English way, half sportive, half surly, our young soldiers began shooting easy shots into the big, solid mass of infantry which was solemnly marching against them. The column was not unsteady, but it was perhaps an over-drilled body of men unskilfully or weakly handled. At all events, those who wielded it were unable to make its strength toll against clusters of English lads who stood facing it merrily, teasing it with rifle balls. Soon the column was ordered or suffered to yield, and, since it Cell back to a spot where the ground was hollow, it lapsed nearly or quite out of sight. Portions of the column—mainly those in the centre and in rear—became discomposed and unsettled."

And lot him mark what followed—

"Upon his retreat he met on the road a lone man—a lone man on foot, walking away from the field. He looked, and came to make out that this lone pedestrian was Prince Gortschakoff—Prince Gortschakoff, the chief to whom he had intrusted the command of the whole centre and the whole light wing of his army. 'What is this?' 'What is the matter?' 'Why are you on foot?' Why are you alone?' These, as was natural, were the questions hurled at Prince Gortschakoff by his troubled, amazed commander."

With every hope that the parallel might not be further realized, he should give his cordial support to the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, the Committee had now to learn that a man who signed a contract to give up his holding at the end of his term, quietly and peaceably, according to the usual covenant of leases, was to be absolved from the contract when the time came for carrying it into effect. It was well to learn gradually what was the intention and scope of the Bill. On the one hand, for the first time, he believed, in legal history, the Government were seeking to enforce an imperfect moral obligation by legal enactment, while, on the other hand, they were seeking to set aside a perfect moral obligation—a contract in a lease, by the omission of provisions which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) now sought to supply. He hoped the Committee would hold that contracts deliberately entered into by men who were able to protect themselves should be enforced by law, and not be subject to this exceptional course of legislation.

said, he wished to recall the attention of the Committee to the precise position in which they stood. There could be no doubt that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Headlam) was meant to raise a question of principle of very great importance; but the same question of principle was proposed to be raised in a different manner by three Amendments, one of which he had himself placed on the Paper, upon the 3rd sub-section. The Committee would observe that they were now dealing with a portion of the 3rd clause which was prospective only. The retrospective part, at which they had not yet arrived, applicable to present tenancies, left all leases for fixed terms exactly as they stood by law, so that there would be no claim against the landlord upon the termination of any existing lease. It was entirely prospective legislation with which they were dealing now; and whenever landlords and tenants meant hereafter to agree on the terms on which a future tenancy was to be constituted, if they determined on a lease for less than 31 years, the effect of the Act would be to superadd something to the agreement, and to confer on the tenant a right, unless he was permitted to continue in possession of his farm after the expiration of his lease, to prefer a claim to compensation on the footing of what was called loss for quitting his holding. Now, it appeared to him impolitic and unwise, and in no degree whatever necessary, to impose such compulsory terms upon all future contracts between landlord and tenant for fixed leases for less than 31 years; because he thought neither landlord nor tenant would benefit thereby, and the landlord could, by making terms as to rent and in other ways, protect himself; the effect of such legislation being really to discourage by law a fixed term of lease unless for 31 years. He continued to be of opinion that it was not expedient to make a 31 years' lease the minimum lease for the future in Ireland; but he repeated that this was not taking away property from the landlord, because it was prospective only; it was simply proposing to introduce compulsory terms into contracts of a certain description. The question was, in what manner the Committee might best consider the policy of this provision. Originally, he had used the same language as that of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Headlam), and had said he could not conceive why any lease whatever should be interfered with. As far as the principle went, he saw no reason to retract that opinion. Subsequently, however, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) pointed out what had escaped his notice, but was very just and required attention—namely, that the object of the Bill was to protect the small tenants in Ireland with ordinary holdings from year to year; and that if in all future contracts the landlords were permitted to create tenancies, not from year to year, but for a single year, you would have the same kind of complication under the form of a perpetual legal notice to quit. Now, he did not intend to advocate anything which would open the door to an evasion of the spirit and principles upon which this legislation was founded in the class of cases for which it was meant to provide. What he had in view was bonâ fide leases fairly entered into and clearly understood on both sides. Bearing this in mind, he said on a subsequent occasion that he thought a seven years' lease would be a fair term. However, others who were equally desirous with himself to legislate prudently on this subject thought a seven years' lease too short a term. For that reason he had put on the Notice Paper an Amendment proposing to substitute 14 for 31 years as the term which the law should in future recognize as the length of a bonâ fide lease, being sufficient to obviate the necessity of bringing the claim under any exceptional provisions. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) had also put on the Paper a Notice in favour of 21 years. Under these circumstances, he was of opinion the Committee had not arrived at that stage of the Bill when the question might best be raised, and therefore he could not support the present proposition.

said, they had been told that the whole object of the clause was to prevent the arbitrary eviction of small tenants, and he did not see why it should not be limited to that class. The Committee had given those small tenants every protection, and had even, by Clause 3, made them co-proprietors with the present owners of the land to the extent of one-third of their property; what reason could there be for hesitating to declare that a man who had a lease for a certain number of years should, at its expiration, peaceably give up possession of the land let to him by the owner? It was idle to say the Government did not wish to extend the provisions of this measure to England or Scotland, for they might be sure that an impetus had been given to the ideas of men who could see that attacks might be made upon the rights of property. Such ideas were catching. A letter had been written to The Chamber of Agriculture Journal, signed "An Essex Farmer," in which the writer said—

"We have no desire to embarrass the Government by pressing our claim at this moment. Let us see a good Bill passed for Ireland first, and then we can press our claim for a good tenant-right Bill for England, Scotland and Wales."

If a Scotch landowner was to be at liberty to retake possession of a farm at the end of a lease of 19 years; if he might advertise it for reletting, and was not bound to renew the lease to the outgoing tenant, why should leases in Ireland enjoy more favourable terms? He wished to remind the House of what the Postmaster General (the Marquess of Hartington) said at Sheffield last September—

"It is not only the property of Irish landlords which is at stake; it is not only the property of English landlords, but it is property of all kinds which will be at stake; for do not suppose for a moment that any discussion will arise next year, or that any measure can be passed, without principles and doctrines being enunciated equally hostile not only to the interests of landlords, but of capitalists of every description."

Those were very important and almost solemn words; they were spoken by a Member of the Cabinet, and it was astonishing to think that the noble Marquess who uttered them could remain silent while he saw the rights of property gradually melting away. It was not likely that, in the few months that had elapsed, the noble Marquess had changed his sentiments; but if he had done so, would he state to the Committee what were his reasons for having changed them? Hon. Members should recollect that legislation to be effectual must be just; and if the Committee rushed into extremes, they would rue the day when they made a landlord-wrong out of tenant-right. They might be sure that would result in the tenant's ultimate discomfiture, because all the fines and penalties that might be imposed on the landlords would recoil on the occupiers, sooner or later. He protested against the infraction of the rights of property attempted by the Bill, for while he would not have justice denied to the Irish tenants, he thought that in combination therewith justice should not be lost sight of in regard to the landlords.

said, he had been obliged to vote against the Ministry in previous Divisions on this Bill, and as he intended to do so again, not having any doubt that this was the proper course for him to take, he hoped the Committee would allow him to give his reasons. Although the Amendment might be open, as the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had pointed out, to objections as to time, its principle could not be touched, for it was plainly the duty of the Government to insert in the clause words that would limit its action to other than cases of bonâ fide leases. In his opinion the position taken up by the Government had no justification, for if their principle was a good one for Ireland, why—although the Attorney General turned up his eyes with horror at the idea—should not the same measure be extended to England? It was unreasonable to expect hon. Members to believe that a six months' notice to quit was a bad thing in Ireland but a good one in England; and therefore, agreeing as he did with the principle of the mea- sure, he was prepared to go beyond it, and would say that if the Government wished to be consistent they were bound to make the same provision for England as for Ireland. It was fair to argue that the tenure of land was different in the two countries, but before long the Government would be called upon, and justly, to terminate the power of English and Scotch landlords to evict without a cause. When he read the Bill he felt convinced that the Government could not stop at legislating for Ireland, for did they suppose there was no "screw" put upon the tenantry in England? Would it not be found on inquiry that there were hundreds and thousands of cases in England of tenants being obliged to vote and do many things, not according to their own consciences, but in obedience to the will of their landlords, because the latter had the power of turning them out of their farms? Hon. Members should face this matter and not be afraid of it; and as they would have to face it very soon, his respectful advice to them was to do it at once. The Attorney General wished the Committee to believe that a man who held under a six months' notice to quit was not worse off than he who held under a contract. But that did not affect the question, for the Committee were asked to affirm that, from the passing of the Bill, it should be in the power of an Irish tenant to make a contract with his landlord, the binding part of the contract to be wholly on the side of the landlord. There was not a shadow of a reason for what was proposed. If there were men who were fit to contract, let them contract fairly, and let the tenant be as much bound on his side by the terms of the lease as the landlord was bound on his side. It appeared to him that the Interpretation Clause embodied a distinct violation of the principle of freedom of contract, for it contained this definition—

"The term 'tenant' in relation ton, holding shall mean any tenant from year to year and any tenant for a life or lives or for a term of years under a lease or contract for a lease, and where the tenancy of any person having been a tenant under a tenancy which does not disentitle him to compensation under this Act, is determined or expiring, he shall, notwithstanding such determination or expiration, le deemed to be a tenant until he has received the compensation, if any, due to him under this Act."

This seemed to him to be a violation of the first principle of the law of contract, and he had, therefore, no hesitation in giving his support to the right hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam).

said, that to avoid the possibility of its being said afterwards that he had assented to a principle which he disapproved, he felt bound to speak, equally in the interests of landlords and tenants, which were identical and inseparable, and to assert that if the Committee violated the essential principles of justice and right, in order to obtain for the tenant a temporary advantage, the certain result would be to involve both parties in loss. ["Divide!"] He must remind those who were so anxious to rush into the Lobby that, rather than stand in the way of the second reading of the Bill, he waived his right to speak upon it; and he therefore trusted hon. Members would restrain their impatience while he discharged a duty to those who returned him to Parliament. Hon. Members were endeavouring to lay on other men's shoulders heavy burdens which they would not touch with one of their own fingers. He would ask whether the principles now enunciated by the hon. and learned Attorney General were to be applied to England and Scotland? On a former occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman argued that the legalization of tenant-right in Ulster was an assimilation of the law of Ireland to that of England and Scotland, and he referred to certain usages in Dublin and elsewhere. Now, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman took another and an opposite ground, and he said that policy rendered it necessary to deviate from the principle which obtained in England. Surely, it was striking at the root of equality between the different portions of the Empire when it was said that what was right in one part of the United Kingdom was not to extend to the inhabitants of another part. Surely this was venturing on a dangerous course; and the hon. and learned Member had assumed, without attempting to show, that there were peculiarities in the case of Ireland which made it politic in legislating for Ireland to deviate from principles that were adopted in England. It had been alleged that one of the main causes of the unsatisfactory state of Ireland was the insecurity of the tenant, owing to the indisposition of the landlords to grant leases; but further inquiry had shown that in the greater portion of Ireland the tenants were not anxious to have leases. What could be more inconsistent than to endeavour to establish a system of covenants which professed to be binding on both parties, if at the very outset we said that one of the parties was not to be bound by the terms of the covenant? If two per-sans were to sign a document defining their relative position for a certain number of years, upon what principle was one of them, at the expiration of the term, to turn round and say to the other—"As the prescribed time has elapsed, I say that you are a disturber," and to summon him to a Court for the assessment of damages? The hon. and learned Attorney General, in order to raise a prejudice, resorted to such a wretched argument as to speak of a lease for a year and a week; could he be serious in suggesting the possibility of a lease for a week? The hon. and learned Gentleman had put that statement forward as a sort of ridiculous hobgoblin to frighten those who were in the habit of following their leader into the Lobby without knowing why or wherefore. When it was found that an hon. Member armed at all points, as was the hon. and learned Member, resorted to such wretched picas as these, everyone must appreciate the weakness of his position. He was glad to find that the protest against undermining the value of leases had not proceeded from that (the Opposition) side of the House only, but that it had proceeded from at least two hon. Members sitting behind the Government Benches. This principle of setting aside the terms and covenants of leases had been introduced into the Bill since the House had assented to the second reading of the measure. The subject had been treated in a very off-hand manner by hon. Members opposite, and he thought that the question ought to be calmly and quietly considered by the Committee before they arrived at any decision with reference to it.

in rising to call attention to negotiations going on for the selection of a site for a waterside Foreign Cattle Market, said, that by an Act passed in 1869 the Corporation of the City of London was authorized to construct such a market; but in case of its failure to do so to the satisfaction of the Privy Council by January, 1872, the project might be taken up by other parties, who would be considered "the local authorities" for that specific purpose. The matter was one of very great importance. In the year 1865, just before the appearance of the cattle plague, no fewer than 300,000 oxen and 900,000 sheep were sold in the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and were, he presumed, consumed in the metropolis. Of those, rather more than one-half of the entire number were imported. If the result of the cattle plague had been to raise the price of meat 1d. per pound, that increase imposed an additional charge of £1,000,000 sterling a year on the meat consumers of the metropolis. The Corporation had solicited offers of sites for a waterside market, and at least four sites had been offered, of which three were on the north side of the Thames. The first was offered by the Victoria Dock Company, and lay at North Woolwich. It consisted of 35 acres of ground contiguous to the river, and in immediate connection with 300 or 400 acres of pasturage land, separated from the other marsh pasture by a wide dyke. Railway communication both with the Cattle Market at Islington, and the Dead Meat Market at Smithfield, was close at hand. The second site was one of 15 acres, contiguous to the upper entrance of the Victoria Dock, and known as Odams Manure Factory, Blackwall. It had a wharf frontage of 700 feet, and the advantage of proximate railway communication. The third site was the surplus land of the Millwall Docks, in the Isle of Dogs. It was 50 acres in extent, was near railways, and had a wharf frontage of 1,200 feet on one side, and 2,000 feet on the other. In addition to those, an offer was made of a small piece of ground—about 12 acres in all—on the south side of the river at Deptford, called Deadman's Dock, and situate immediately above the Government Victualling Yard. These four sites had been submitted to the Common Council, and he understood they had submitted to the Vice President of the Council the piece of ground on the south side of the river at Deptford as that which they desired to take for the purposes of a Foreign Cattle Market. Seeing that that site was so unsuitable and inferior to the others, he himself put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and was followed up by another from the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), in replying to which the right hon Gentleman said, although it was not the business of the Government to find out the best site in or near the metropolis, it was their duty to say that a site would not be satisfactory if it evidently would not; and he went on to state that after hearing the Markets Committee's statement the Privy Council came to the conclusion that there was no reason for objecting to the proposed site at Deptford provided the area was sufficiently large to meet the requirements of the market and to give the necessary wharf accommodation. Now, he (Mr. Samuda) had every confidence in his right hon. Friend's determination to do what was right in that matter; and his present object was to point out to him that even if 14 acres could be obtained at Deptford, they would be wholly inadequate for the requirements of the public and the trade, and also that, whatever quantity of land could be procured there, the south side of the river would not be nearly so suitable a site as on the north side of the Thames. With respect to the comparative advantages of north and south, it was manifest, in the first place, that two - thirds of the consumers lay on the north of the river. In the next place, so completely had the general trade of the metropolis fallen into the course which he stated was most convenient that the majority of all the foreign cattle were disembarked on the north side. Brown's Wharf, Victoria Dock, Blackwall, were the great depôts. Thirdly, the distance between the Mill-wall site and Whitechapel by road might be accomplished with, a light travelling cart in 20 minutes, while to go to the south side by the same conveyance you would have not only to pass over three miles of ground when you reached the other side of the river, but, what was of much more consequence, the whole of the traffic would have to be carried over London Bridge, the management of the traffic over which was already one of the great difficulties of metropolitan regulation. With regard to the amount of acreage required, it was perfectly clear that the City of London had not, in the slightest degree, realized the intentions of the Committee of that House. When the City authorities came to examine the sites on the northern bank of the river, and the large extent of acreage available was pointed out, the reply was that they did not want 15 or 20 acres; an acre and a half would be sufficient for them; all they required was a place large enough to turn in the cattle that might be diseased. Now, the whole object was to keep foreign cattle separate from the Islington market, and when it was recollected that on the average 2,500 foreign cattle and 10,000 sheep were landed every week, it was easy to perceive that even for lairs an acre and a half would be entirely insufficient. At present three-fourths of the foreign cattle came under the ban of the Act applying to infected districts; and if sufficient space were not provided, the shippers could not send them, and the result would be that we should soon be reduced to famine prices. Even supposing there were no quarantine, seeing that the greatest number of foreign arrivals took place in the earlier part of the week, while the latter part of the week was devoted to slaughtering, they must have accommodation sufficient for one week's consumption. He assumed that an acre of ground would be required, as lairage for 300 cattle or 1,000 sheep. Therefore, for 2,500 cattle and 10,000 sheep fully 18 acres were required; while, if they considered the area requisite for roads, slaughterhouses, offices, shops, and the arrangements of a market generally, fully another 18 acres ought to be provided; so that with our present consumption we could not do with less than 40 acres. And if that were so it would be most unwise to select any site not capable of extension to twice that quantity, looking to the enormous in- crease of the foreign cattle trade which had occurred of late years. For instance, while in 1860 the importations amounted only to 104,000 head of cattle and 320,000 sheep, in 1865 they had risen to 284,000 of the former and 910,000 of the latter. In his opinion the authorities of the City of London had taken a short - sighted view of the matter; he was convinced that nothing less than an ample and efficiently constructed market would answer, and that if there was any failure to fulfil the object of the Legislature, owing to a too limited space being provided, the work would have to be done over again. He hoped the Board of Trade would take up this question, which could be more satisfactorily dealt with there than if its adjustment fell into the hands of interested parties who would not be likely to consult the public interest.

said, he represented a constituency (West Essex) which was deeply interested in the efficient carrying out of the Act of last Session. After the part which the Vice President of the Council had taken in the passing of that measure, his constituents were quite prepared to leave the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands; but their attention having been called to a meeting of the Common Council held in January last, at which the subject of the Foreign Market was brought under the notice of the Common Council by the Markets Committee, they felt that some attempt was going to be made to represent before the Privy Council as eligible a site which really was not adequate to the wants of the trade. They were led to believe that the Markets Committee did not look at the matter with that gravity which they, as home producers, liked to see—because they felt that the time had arrived when they ought to be released from those restrictions which had so long harassed the home trade—and they hoped that the Vice President would not sanction any scheme which would not provide for a sufficient market. The two chief points were—first, that the site should be of sufficient acreage; and, secondly, that the wharf accommodation should be sufficient for the disembarcation of the cattle. With regard to the proposed site and the wharfage accommodation it afforded, he was told that the actual wharfage front was not over 800 feet. Now, all the authorities appeared to agree that a very much larger extent of wharfage was necessary, and that 600 feet at least was absolutely required. From accounts which had been placed in his hands it appeared that a large number of vessels laden with cattle arrived by the same tide, and consequently required to discharge their cargoes almost at the same time. The navigation also from Gravesend to Deadman's Dock was very difficult, so that very frequently vessels were obliged to remain at Gravesend for two hours before the tide enabled them to go up the river. On some days 11 vessels required to discharge their cargoes within four hours, and that could not be done conveniently at the wharfage front available at Deadman's Dock. The hon. Member having read at some length extracts from letters of persons largely connected with the cattle trade, pressing the necessity for large accommodation for landing imported cattle, proceeded to contrast the facilities of access presented by the northern on the southern sites, saying that if a southern site were selected there would be great delay in the transmission of the meat. It had been said, with regard to the sites on the northern side of the river, that the railway accommodation would be deficient; but it could hardly be considered so after the passing of the Act empowering the Great Eastern Railway to complete their junction to the Metropolitan Meat Market. In conclusion, he wished to impress on the Vice President of the Council the wish of the farmers and of the home trade in his part of the country that if possible the Government should exercise their veto with regard to the site, so as to procure for them a really efficient market for the foreign trade.

said, he did not complain of the length at which his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had dwelt upon this question, because he was well aware of its extreme importance and of the responsibility which rested on the Department he represented. At the same time, he must express his opinion that his hon. Friend over - estimated the amount of responsibility which attached to the Privy Council. Hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion previous to the passing of the Act of last year would bear him out when he stated that it was not intended that the choice of the market should rest with the Government. It was, however, intended that the Government should have a veto with regard to any site that might be proposed; but as the City authorities had to construct and maintain the market, it was for them to choose a place or a certain number of places, and to obtain the opinion of the Privy Council as to whether any of these places was a suitable one. The present position of affairs was as follows:—Some time ago the Markets Committee waited upon his noble Friend Earl de Grey and himself, and stated that they had thoroughly examined eight sites, plans of which were submitted to the opinion of the Privy Council. They appeared to prefer Deadman's Dock, because it was the nearest of all to the Royal Exchange, its distance being 3¾ miles, while the site near Victoria Dock was 4½ miles; and it was clear it was best situated as regards the present railway accommodation. His noble Friend and himself felt that, as far as mere situation went, there was no objection to that site. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) consequently instructed the Secretary of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council to write to the Corporation, that they saw no reason to object to the site at Deptford, provided the area would be sufficiently large to meet the requirements of the trade, and that there would also be adequate wharfage accommodation. It was for the City to ascertain what extent of market they would require, and having ascertained that, to furnish the City with that market. It was easy to judge what extent of market room was required from the aggregate of the imports in past times, and this seemed to be the only preliminary point the Corporation had to determine. There could be no doubt that a large market would be required; but he understood that the area at Deadman's Dock would contain 18 acres. It had been very properly stated that sufficient wharfage accommodation would be necessary, and on this point he would observe that it would be quite possible, by throwing out piers and jetties, if the Thames Conservancy would sanction it, to provide the necessary wharfage accommodation on the site suggested. This would, no doubt, involve considerable expenditure; but that also was a point for the Corporation to decide. The Markets Committee, he be- lieved, had not finally decided upon its Report; but it had all the necessary information and calculations before it, and the House might rest assured that both the Corporation, on the one hand, and the Government on the other, were well aware that a bonâ fide market would have to be made. It could hardly be supposed that the City authorities would attempt to make a market which the Government could not approve; because it would be a serious expense to them if, after they had incurred all the expense, the market were disapproved as inadequate to the requirements. The Markets Committee was composed of excellent men of business, who knew exactly what was required of them. He was glad of this discussion, as it would remove an impression that the Corporation did not intend to make the market. He was not aware of any reason for the supposition. It had been stated that the imports were diminishing; but it was not wise to judge by the results of a month or two. The imports last year were double the amount of the year before. He believed in the necessity for separating the foreign from the home market, and he had no doubt that such an arrangement would prove advantageous both to the trade and to agriculturists. The Privy Council, while declining to select the site, were determined that the market to be provided should fully meet all the requirements of the case.

said, that he had served on the Foreign Cattle Market Committee two years ago; and he was sure from what had just been stated that after due consideration a proper market would be built. The fact that the Corporation had selected a site at Deptford, which was on the opposite side of the river, showed that they had sound reasons for their choice. As he represented a borough (Southwark) on the same side of the water, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words in favour of this selection. Of course hon. Members knew that all these foreign animals had skins, which must be carried away. The regular receptacle for such skins was the borough of Southwark, where the principal tanners in England carried on their business—the most famous borough in the world for tanning. It was stated before the Parliamentary Committee that it would be very convenient to the tanning trade to have the market near Southwark, so that there might be no necessity for carrying the skins through the crowded thoroughfares of the City. It would be absurd, in his opinion, to listen to the advice of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), who on this occasion rather represented Whitechapel, and place the market in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Dogs, in a village deserted by mankind, and, above all, avoided by tanners. After being distinctly informed as to the space required the Corporation had come to the conclusion that Deptford was the best place.

observed, that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The Corporation had not come to any conclusion, for the Markets Committee had not yet sent in their first Report.

said, the Corporation had, at any rate, made special reference to Deptford, not, perhaps, as being the most salubrious spot, for that was unnecessary, but as the most convenient site for a market. He hoped they would adhere to this opinion.

remarked that thanks were due to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for bringing forward this subject, although the agricultural interest had full confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. It would be in the recollection of the House that by the Act of last year a monopoly was given to the Corporation of London on the condition that they opened the market in the course of throe years. It was not to be supposed for a moment that the Corporation would resign their monopoly, and thus give up their chance of doubling the tolls on the home stock, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had a pretty tight rein over them, and it was to be hoped he would not fail to use it with firmness. Still the home producers wished to protect the trade from the inconvenience which would arise from the establishment of a small market in some out-of-the-way place down the river. The hon. Member for Southwark said that the site need not be salubrious; but the neighbourhood of large sewers was not the best place for a dead meat market. The necessity for providing not only for the present scheduled stock, but for the contingencies of an outbreak of disease amongst foreign cattle and sheep must not be forgotten.

said, he thought it would not escape the observation of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) that of those who had spoken in the debate the independent opinion was entirely in favour of a market on the northern bank of the Thames. He (Mr. Johnston) might be considered interested. His hon. Friend the Member for South-wark might be considered interested; but the hon. Members for West Essex and South Norfork were not so in any degree, and their opinion was entitled to very great weight for that reason. Now his hon. Friend the Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke) had said that the Corporation probably had some very good reason for selecting Deadman's Dock. No doubt they had. The only question was, what the reason was. Now, it had been said, he knew not with what truth, that the object in fixing on such an out-of-the-way site was to concentrate the whole of the meat trade at Smith-field. The Deptford site was so inaccessible to the general public, that the meat would have to be brought to Smithfield before they could come and buy it, and in that case the Corporation would get two sets of tolls instead of one, possibly a legitimate object for them, but not one on which the public, or his right hon. Friend, who had the public interest to protect, could look with very great favour. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had told the House truly that he represented a most important grazing district. So did he (Mr. Johnston), but he represented more than that: he represented as well an immense and rapidly growing population in the midst of which was situated one of the market sites of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had spoken with favour. A gentleman, perhaps better qualified than anyone else to judge, unconnected with that district, had assured him of his own accord that there was no suburb of London so interesting and important in its future. That district would in itself be a grand customer for any market; but it was connected by road and rail, as he would presently show, with all the north and centre of the metropolis. His right hon. Friend had said that the Deptford site was the nearest to the Exchange of any of those which had been offered to the Corporation; but he had admitted that the access to it was tortuous and narrow. "But," he said, it has better railway accommodation." Well, supposing it had, and its advantage in this respect would be of short duration. What was railway accommodation? Why, his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had shown clearly enough that for this purpose, and for these short distances, it ought not to weigh an iota against good access for vans by road. Now he (Mr. Johnston) did not hesitate to say that the Victoria Dock site had the best access of that kind that any site could possibly have. A wide avenue—he would call it a "noble avenue" were it not for the meanness of the building on either side of it—led from the "iron bridge" to the very heart of the metropolis. It was little known because of two great obstruction—its tolls, and the imperfect finish of its west end—but both these obstacles were about, he hoped, to disappear, and then, as he had said, no suburb would have finer communication. Now, the only argument good for anything, as it appeared to him, which his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark had used, was that which referred to leather. Well, they all knew there was nothing like it; but his hon. Friend had forgotten how easily these skins might be boated up and across the river to some handy little wharf—Deadman's Dock itself, perhaps—it was just about large enough for a hide market—and there handed over to the tanners of Bermondsey. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks. He trusted—nay, he knew—that his right hon. Friend would give the matter his most earnest attention—would weigh the arguments which had been brought forward in the debate, and protect the interests of the public which were committed to his care.

who had given notice to call attention to the Report of the Military Education Commission, especially with relation to the discouragement which it gives to the study of natural and physical science, said, that considering the short time during which he had had a seat in that House, he ought perhaps to apologize for bringing forward a question of so much importance. The Commission was appointed in 1868 to inquire into the state of Military Education, and they had recently made their Report, which he did not intend to criticize in any hostile spirit, because he was fully aware how greatly the country was indebted to them for investigating this most important subject. The Commissioners had recommended that certain changes should be made in the examinations for direct commissions. Under the present system, out of a total of 13,800 marks, 3,600 were given for mathematics, 3,600 for classics, 1,200 for the English language, 1,200 for modern languages, 1,200 for ancient and modern history with geography, 1,200 for mineralogy and geology, 1,200 for chemistry, heat, and electricity, and 600 for drawing. Of the total number of marks, however, only 1,500 were required to qualify the candidate for a commission—1,200 of which might be obtained for knowledge of arithmetic and the first three books of Euclid, and 200 more for writing an ordinary English letter without a grammatical mistake. The Commissioners proposed, out of a total of 20,000 marks, of which number 2,000 must be obtained, to give 4,000 for mathematics, 4,000 for Latin, 3,000 for Greek, 1,000 for English composition, 2,000 for French, 2,000 for German, 1,500 for history, 1,500 for chemistry, heat, or electricity, and 1,000 for drawing. The House would therefore see that, while the Commissioners recommended that the total number of marks should be increased, the number given for English and for science would actually be diminished. The Commissioners justified that recommendation by the importance of checking the system of cramming, and the desirability of obtaining candidates from the public schools. He had, however, already shown that the examination under the existing system was extremely easy. The following question was put to Major General William Napier, the Vice President of the Council of Military Education, upon this point:—

"If I understand you rightly, the subjects are so very simple—namely, Latin, English, and arithmetic, that one would suppose that no preliminary preparation at what are generally called 'cramming' schools would be at all necessary?—That is what I say. If a boy has a tolerable knowledge of classics and arithmetic and Eng- lish, he ought to be able to pass that examination direct from school."

And it would, indeed, be a disgrace to our public schools if they were unable to turn out boys who could pass such an examination. There was, moreover, ample proof that the boys at our public schools could pass this examination. The boys who came up from Cheltenham and Marlborough almost invariably passed. At Eton, a special "Army Class" had been formed, and Dr. Hornby stated that no boy going up from Eton had failed in the Army examination since the reconstitution of that class. Moreover, the great public schools were now commencing in earnest to teach science. Dr. Hornby, in a letter addressed to himself, said—

"To put it shortly, physical science in some form is made compulsory on every boy, from the time he gets in the fifth form till he gets with the first 100 of the school."

Dr. Butler and Dr. Ridding, the headmasters respectively of Harrow and Winchester, had also favoured him with similar information. He might be told that science was not necessary for the officers of the Line regiments; but, in answer to a question on that subject—

"It has no doubt been found in many wars that it was necessary, particularly with our limited Army, to call for the assistance of officers of the Line to come in aid of the Engineers?"

Major General Napier replied—"Frequently." Hence, although science was less necessary for officers in the Line than for those in the Artillery and Engineers, it was very undesirable that it should be discouraged, and the House would remember that, even at present, it was only optional. Before recommending that it should be so much reduced in importance, surely the Commissioners ought to have examined some scientific witnesses. The Professor of Mathematics at Woolwich was the only scientific witness examined; but they did not ask him any questions on the point. He had, however, that gentleman's authority for saying that he would have rather urged the necessity of extending rather than diminishing the weight attached to science. It was said that the change was made to prevent cramming. He would remind the House that means could be taken to guard against the dangers of cramming. Mr. Bloxam, Lecturer on Chemistry at Woolwich, said a vivâ voce examination would always defeat cramming, and Professor Williamson said that no cramming in chemistry could possibly deceive a competent examiner. On the subject of English history, Dr. Dasent, than whom it would be impossible to have a higher authority, gave this evidence—

"Lieutenant-Colonel Chesney: Have you ever heard any complaint that English history, or modern history, is a subject especially liable to be what is called crammed, in the sense of taking its knowledge without digesting it?"

"Dr. Dasent: I do not think so; I think that it is the examiner's fault if he is taken in by cramming."

He now came to the second part of his subject—the examination for entrance at Woolwich. At present there were 15,500 marks, of which 2,500 were required. The respective numbers were—Mathematics, 3,500; English, 1,000; Latin, 1,500; Greek, 1,500; French, 1,000; German, 1,000; Hindustani, 1,000; English history, 1,000; geography, 1,000; chemistry, heat, electricity, 1,000; mineralogy and geology, 1,000; drawing, 1,000—15,500. The proposed examination would be 17,000 marks, thus arranged—Mathematics, 4,000; English composition and literature, or English composition and history, 1,500; Latin, 3,000; Greek, 2,000; French, 2,000; German, 2,000; chemistry and heat, or electricity, 1,500; drawing', 1,000—17,000. Thus, omitting drawing, 14,500 marks out of 16,000 are given for languages and mathematics. There is no geography, no history excepting English, no political economy, and very little modern science. In fact, there was hardly anything that had been discovered within the last 1,800 years. The Commissioners said they wished to discourage cramming, and, no doubt, cramming was very undesirable in itself; but there was something worse than cramming, and that was ignorance. Cramming was a bad way of learning a subject: but it was better than learning nothing of the subject at all. It was said that the example of the public schools was being followed in respect of those military examinations; but he had already shown that the public schools were beginning to teach natural and experimental science. He had the express testimony of the masters of the great public schools at Eton and Winchester that, if the scheme of the Commissioners were carried into effect, it would strongly tend to discourage their promotion of scientific instruction. Like Lord Chatham and Sir Richard Strahan the public schools had been waiting for the Universities, and the Universities had been waiting for the public schools; both, he was happy to say, were now moving in the right direction, and it would be very unfortunate if Parliament sanctioned the recommendations of the Military Education Commissioners, who desired to take a step backwards. He now passed to the course of instruction at Woolwich. The present subjects were—fortification, artillery, surveying, mechanics, natural philosophy, chemistry, and military history. The proposed subjects were—obligatory—mathematics, fortification, artillery, military drawing, military history, and mechanics; voluntary—higher mathematics, fortification, Latin, Greek, French, German, chemistry, and free-hand drawing. At Sandhurst, the proposed course of instruction was the same as at Woolwich; but the present course was—fortification, surveying, military history, mathematics, language, chemistry, geology, drawing, military exercises. Here, again, science was placed in a much worse position than at present. Chemistry, indeed, was admitted among the voluntary subjects; but, while marks were given for every other voluntary subject, none were allotted to chemistry. It was suggested to him that this was an accidental omission; but as the same omission was made in the Sandhurst course, he could not think it was accidental. In the proposed course there was hardly any English, no history except military history, no geography, no science except mechanics, no political economy, and no medical knowledge. At Sandhurst, there was geology, but there was none at Woolwich. It was strange that the subject should be omitted, seeing that it was of such great importance, and that military men—he need only mention Portlock and Murchison—had laboured in it so successfully. The "book-worm" objection did not apply to the science, for to acquire it a man must do something more than read books. He would call the attention of the House to answers given by Major General Napier and the Duke of Cambridge on the value of scientific attainments. Lord De Ros asked Major General Napier—

"Is not chemistry becoming of more daily advantage and importance, both to the Artillery and to the Engineers? He answered—Yes; and it is taught at Woolwich very successfully. The Duke of Cambridge was asked—Perhaps scientific attainments should be regarded as one qualification among several? His Royal Highness replied—Most assuredly; and I should like to see them extended as much as possible; but I think that a happy combination of both is what we should strive at."

As regarded geology, he might call attention to two or throe cases, in order to illustrate its importance to officers. Ports-down great fort was built on the summit of a chalk ridge, on what geologists called an anticlinal axis. The strata sloped in each direction away from the summit; a very deep well had been sunk here; but as the rain which fell on the hill drained away along the line of the strata, this was the worst possible place for such a purpose. When the military authorities were building the College at Sandhurst, they had a quantity of bricks made in the Blackwater Valley of river alluvium. These consequently fell to pieces, and others had to be made. Along our South Coast groins were placed to arrest the movement of the shingle caused by the prevalent winds and tides. The Military Engineers were ordered to set groins on the Dover coast, and they slanted them the wrong way, so helping the shingle on. Some of the forts on our Southern Coast having been built on yielding strata had given away, and though the damage might be repaired, it had caused great expense; and, unfortunately, would probably continue to do so. When our Army went to the Crimea, Sir Roderick Murchison applied to the Government to send out a geologist, but that request was not complied with. An unhealthy position was chosen for our troops in the Crimea from the want of a scientific acquaintance with the geological conformation of the ground. Sir John Burgoyne wrote home to Sir Roderick Murchison to ask whether, if an artesian well were sunk, a supply of water could be obtained for the Army. Sir Roderick replied that it was impossible to answer such a question here without a proper knowledge of the nature of the ground; but that if there had been a geologist on the spot with the Army, he would have been able to answer it. He (Sir John Lubbock) did not allude to these facts with any view of criticizing the Royal Engineers. It would be easy to quote similar mistakes on the part of civil engineers. He wished, however, to show the importance of geological knowledge in military operations. There could be no doubt, then, that there were cases in which a knowledge of chemistry and geology would be extremely useful to our forces in the field; and, moreover, in addition to these practical advantages, the value of the mental training given by the study of natural science was most important. One reason alleged for omitting science from the course for Woolwich was that the work was too hard; but Dr. Barry, Principal of King's College, Major-General Simmons, Colonel Owen (Professor of Artillery), Professor Sylvester, and other authorities, all agreed in saying that the studies at Woolwich were not at all too severe. Captain Bracken-bury, Assistant Director of Military Studies, even said—

"I have heard lately at Woolwich that some of the young officers have even complained that they have so little to learn."

But if the studies were really too hard, surely the course should be lengthened instead of being shortened, as proposed by the Commissioners. Then, what was a proper system to adopt? By his Resolution he only asked that they should leave things in statu quo as far as science was concerned; but he confessed he should be glad to see a large step made in a direction the opposite of that recommended by the Royal Commissioners. No man could be deemed properly educated unless he had some acquaintance with all the great departments of human knowledge. He was not advocating the teaching of a smattering of those different departments of knowledge, but the well-grounding of students in them. The matriculation examination in the University of London showed that to be quite possible; for those who came up to that examination, the subjects required included arithmetic, algebra, geometry, the first four Books of Euclid, mechanics, hydrostatics, hydraulics, optics, chemistry, Greek, Latin, French, and German. [Laughter.] That examination appeared to be a source of merriment to some hon. Gentlemen, who probably thought it extremely difficult. He frankly owned that it was a severe examination; but it had been arranged after very careful consideration, and no fewer than four members of the Cabinet were also members of the Senate of the University of London, Moreover, that examination was evidently not so absurd as it seemed to some hon. Gentlemen, for of the youth of 16 and 17 who went up for it, more than 50 per cent passed creditably. He did not wish to discourage classics, and he maintained that, even in this respect, our present system was very unsatisfactory in its results; indeed, it is impossible to teach them with advantage as long as other things were not taught with them; for the human mind, like the human body, required a variety in its nourishment. He certainly thought that too much time was devoted to verses. Here were four of the verses set for the boys to turn into Latin—

"Thou, midmost of our world, I narrate wonders, Rulest stars, lest they should wander, laws being broken."

And again—

"The fiery steed, his tail in air proudly cooked, Not without much neighing, traverses glad pastures."

Such lines would be familiar to all hon. Members who had been educated at our public schools; but no man would ever be made a poet by translating such verses into Latin. Many of those who were reported to be dunces, and who thought themselves to be so because they did not get on in classics, if they were allowed a chance in science would be found to equal those who now went ahead of them at school. He quite agreed with Mr. Farrar, that the present system of teaching classics was an entire failure, and that, as Milton said—

"We do amiss to spend seven or eight years in scraping together so much miserable Greek and Latin as might be learnt otherwise easily and delightfully in one year."

Three or four hours a week devoted to science would probably be sufficient, and he maintained that, far from interfering with the classical studies, this variety of mental diet—if he might say so—would have an excellent effect on the mind. Not only would some knowledge of science be obtained, but he believed that Latin and Greek also would be much more thoroughly mastered than they now are. Lastly, he would trouble the House with a few remarks on the military educational system of other countries. Captain Hozier, who had an intimate acquaintance with the Prussian system, in answer to Lord Dufferin, expressed a decided opinion that Prussian officers were better educated than ours. Again, Lord Dufferin asked Lord Walden—

"You have a large acquaintance with foreign countries where that system of military education principally prevails, and from what you know, without pre-supposing a very intimate acquaintance with those institutions, are you inclined to think that they have a tendency to give a higher scientific tone to the officers of foreign armies, than that which is possessed by our own officers."

Lord Walden, in reply, said—

"I certainly think so, because they teach much we do not teach."

Turning to France, what was the course at the Ecole Polytechnique? There much more weight was attached to natural science than was the case at the entrance examination for Woolwich. The instruction, besides the other branches of study, included mechanics, physics, heat, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy. Out of 673 lectures given in the two years at the Ecole Polytechnique, 150 were devoted to scientific subjects. Again, in Prussia, at the Artillery and Engineer School, of the 32 hours per week three were given to study in physics and three to chemistry. At West Point, in the United States, natural philosophy, chemistry, and geology held an important place in the course of study and in the examinations. To sum up, the general result of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to examine the Systems of Military Education pursued in foreign countries, was to this effect—

"We should not, indeed, adequately convey our own impressions, which are founded on a careful study of the schools described in this Report, if we did not at once state our belief that in all the countries we have visited a far greater value is attached to the possession of a high scientific training by at least a considerable portion of the officers of the Army, than is the case among ourselves. Not only are the schools made of more importance, the teaching of every school higher, the discipline apparently more strict, the number of teachers generally greater; but the whole of the education is conducted on a more complete system."

In support of this resolution he would quote one more authority who, he was sure, would carry great weight with the House. He meant His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge who said—

"I think that Woolwich is now going on as satisfactorily as it can well do; and I am satisfied that if it is allowed to go on without interruption you will find that, both in discipline and in every respect, it will go on as satisfactorily as the public can require, or as the interests of the public service demand."

In conclusion, he had attempted to show that the examination for commissions is at present very easy; that the course of instruction in our military educational establishments is not unduly severe; that the time devoted to science under the present system is very limited; that a knowledge of science is extremely valuable in military operations; and that foreign armies have a better scientific training than ours. He, therefore, hoped the House would agree to the Resolution which, stood in his name, because, if the recommendations of the Commissioners were carried out, they would lower the standard of education through out the Army, would affect most prejudicially all public and other schools, and were in entire opposition to the tendency of all recent action in reference to general education. After thanking the House for the patience with which it had listened to him, the hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.

in seconding the Motion, said, the Motion involved such important interests, both to education and to the Army, that he was glad his hon. Friend had brought the subject under the attention of the House. As he had explained, the Royal Commission desired to prevent candidates from "cramming" for entrance into the Army, and with this view they recommended the Government to place a greater reliance on the public schools of England, and on the classical subjects to which they were, until recent years, chiefly confined. These classical subjects they promoted with heavy marks, and proportionately depressed the modern languages and sciences, which had lately shown a tendency to take root in our old schools. The first question that presented itself naturally was, whether the public schools really did supply the largest proportion of officers to the Army; and next, whether this justified the Royal Commission in according to them an altogether exceptional favour, by handicapping the private schools. Now, in point of fact, the public schools sent only a small proportion of officers to the Army, either directly or indirectly. Directly, indeed, they sent less than 5 per cent; and if Cheltenham and Marl-borough were excluded—both of which schools had modern departments—positively only 3 per cent of our officers came directly from the great classical schools of England, while 97 per cent went from other schools which were found to be better suited for their training. Yet this Royal Commission gave uncommon favour to the schools sending 3 per cent, to the great disadvantage of all the other schools which supply 97 per cent. What was the reason for this strange proceeding? It was contended that officers who went directly into the Army were youths without literary tastes, and who should be forced, therefore, to attend more closely to the few subjects taught in public schools, and not be induced to cram themselves with other subjects of modern information. It did not seem to have occurred to the Commissioners that the very fact of their not possessing literary tastes night justify their acquirement of other kinds of knowledge more suited to their minds. It was surely true that, since the periods of Greece and Rome, there were subjects of human knowledge that had been added to the world, and which were not to be found in their literature, glorious as that was. The Council of Military Education, reporting this year, said—

"Great progress has been made since 1804 in the obligatory section of mathematics, and in history, experimental sciences, and drawing; and no change of importance has been made in regard to English, Latin, or German."

But the Commission determined to discourage those studies which showed marked signs of improvement. Well, when they found 97 per cent of our future officers going to schools which promoted the study of such subjects, one would have thought that this was a reason for encouraging rather than discouraging them. But no the Commissioners had such a horror of "cramming," that they were determined to put it down by largely favouring the schools which certainly did not cram. What was "cramming?" "Cramming," in education, was to teach very quickly what ought to be taught slowly. But, surely, there might be too slow as well as too quick teaching. The indirect passage from public schools into the Army showed that this was the case; for, although only 3 per cent came directly from them, 16 per cent went indirectly—that was, after availing themselves of the quicker methods of tuition given in private schools. This did not arise from the necessity of additional subjects being required to those taught in public schools; for, with a strong leaning to them, the former scheme was arranged after a conference between the military authorities and the head teachers of these schools. General Napier, the Vice President of the Military Council of Education, after explaining this, was asked—

"So that in truth a knowledge of arithmetic, of English, and of Latin would be quite sufficient to enable a youth to pass?—Certainly."

Yet this small amount of knowledge could not be communicated to four-fifths of the candidates who desired to go from the public schools to the Army! If "cramming," to which they resorted for aid, were to teach too quickly, there might be some moan between that and teaching too slowly. There was that mean in many excellent private schools, which were in no degree subject to the imputation of "cramming," but most of which would be crushed by the adoption of the recommendations of this Commission; for it was not the fact that the modern subjects were taught badly in them when compared with classics in public schools. This was shown in the Report of the Council of Military Education, for they gave a table of passes described as "good and excellent," including in those terms all candidates who obtained more than 50 per cent of marks in the subjects selected by them. This gave a ready means of measuring the effectiveness with which various subjects were taught. Well, in 1867 less than 11 per cent of those who selected classics passed well, while 57 per cent did so in modern languages, and 27 per cent in the sciences. He contended, further, that the Royal Commission had mistaken the purport of the evidence of all the educationalists who were examined by them. They examined the Bishop of Exeter, as late Head Master of Rugby; Dr. Barry, as late Head Master of Cheltenham; and Dr. Benson, the Master of Wellington College. Not one of them depreciated the importance of the modern subjects of education, or unduly exalted that of classics. The most that they said was that, on the whole, they thought there was a better intellectual training on the ancient than on the modern side of public schools. That was possible, and indeed probable; for experience in teaching classics had been stored up in schools since the revival of letters after the Middle Ages, while modern subjects were, for the first time, obtruding themselves into these ancient systems, and were but organizing the best methods for using them as means of intellectual development. Yet, so far as military officers were concerned, the figures which he had quoted showed that modern subjects seemed better fitted for them than ancient studies. It remained for the Commission to favour the one for reasons which he could not discover in the evidence laid before them. The distinguished educationalists who gave their evidence had all recently introduced natural and physical sciences into their schools of Rugby, Cheltenham, and Marlborough. At Eton, Harrow, and Winchester, also, they were introduced and encouraged. Yet, in the face of these facts, this Commission gave to them the most positive discouragement. For direct commissions in 1868, classics had 26 per cent of marks—the Commission raised them to 35 per cent; while science in the former year had 17 per cent of marks, and the Commission depressed it to 9 per cent. For entrance into Woolwich in 1868, classics had 19 per cent of marks, and the Commission elevated them to 30 per cent; while science had 17 per cent, and was now lowered to 7½ per cent. Yet, in reality, about as many candidates took up science as take up Greek; so that there was no apology from paucity of numbers, for while 27 per cent selected Greek, 28 per cent selected experimental and natural sciences. He had studied the Report with diligence to find justification for these strange alterations. He had shown that it was not to be found in the fact that officers were chiefly supplied from public schools, and that it was not to be found in the relative excellence with which classics and modern subjects were taught in schools, whether public or private, and that it was not to be found in the evidence of the Head Masters examined. He had looked for the cause, therefore, in the constitution of the Commission, and in the convictions of some of the Commissioners, as indicated by their questions. The Royal Commission was constituted of military men and persons interested in education. Of the latter only those were included who were known to be strong advocates of classical education. One was the hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Parker), a real lover of education, but whose sympathies were far more classical than scientific. The other was the Head Master of Harrow, who was an excellent choice. But while objecting to neither of these members, he must express his surprise that not a single civilian acquainted with natural or physical science was placed on that Commission. Whatever might be the views of the Commissioners as to classics, some of them had the strangest notions of the nature of science. One gallant Commissioner put the following question to General Napier:—

"Do you not think that the marks allotted to natural sciences and experimental sciences are too high, they being mere matter of memory?"

His (Dr. Playfair's) impression of science till he read this passage, was that its object was to discover and explain the wonderful wisdom displayed in creation, and to reveal to mankind the infinitely wise laws which govern the universe. But to this gallant Commissioner all this was a mere matter of memory, and the Creator's laws were like the pratings of a parrot. He had not the slightest objection—on the contrary, he entirely approved of classics being one portal to the military service. His only objection was that, while the Commissioners had opened this very widely, they had nearly shut all the other portals. This was a mistake sufficiently serious in regard to direct commissions; but it became absolutely pernicious to the service when applied to the scientific branches of the profession. The candidates for Woolwich did not come from the old public schools of England; or, to speak precisely, in ten years, out of 855 entries, only five students came direct from them. On the other hand, nearly one-third went from the modern department of Cheltenham. The staple of education there was mathematics, drawing of all kinds, the natural and physical sciences, French and German, English, fortification, and surveying. Well, with this great success of a particular school, one might have thought that such subjects would have commended themselves to the Commissioners; for it was as clear as noonday that they were admirably fitted for the future occupation of artillerists and engineers. Yet their recommendations would largely discourage such preparatory training. In the entrance examinations to Woolwich no less than 5,000 marks were offered for Latin and Greek, and only 1,500 for the whole of the experimental sciences; while the natural sciences, taught so successfully at Rugby and Cheltenham, were in future to have no marks at all. But the House might think that though the Commissioners thus discouraged any special preparatory training before entering the scientific academy of the Army, they would especially foster the sciences when the students entered it. Not in the least. Beyond mathematics, ending with the low standard of plane trigonometry, and practical mechanics, there was no science which was to be obligatory in Woolwich; and the only sciences which were voluntary were higher mathematics and chemistry. But, oven then, when in the following page the marks were given to voluntary subjects, chemistry, the only physical or natural science to be taught in the Academy, was left without any marks whatever, though Latin and Greek were again remembered with the same loving favour. All this would be singularly ludicrous, if it were not so serious in the interests of intellectual progress, and to the character of the scientific services of the Army. The original scheme of entrance examinations into the Army was a wise and liberal one, and had been steadily kept in view by the Council of Military Education. It was to undervalue no branch of human knowledge, but to give the freest access to all varieties of intelli-ligence and education. If any alteration in what the French term "co-efficients of influence" in education had been considered advisable, they might have expected that this change would have been made in the light of modern improvements in the art of war; for it was notorious that this art was undergoing a revolution by the discoveries and applications of science, especially by those of mechanics, chemistry, and electricity. The old Trojan, Grecian, and Roman heroes, a knowledge of whoso prowess and language was now to be the chief portal for entering our Army, won their battles by physical endurance and personal courage; but Chassepots, Sniders, revolvers, and Whitworth small cannon, firing their ten and twenty shots in a minute, and electricity flashing the higher commands to distant parts in less time than a trooper charged with an order could tighten the girth of his horse, would alter the old tactics which enabled a British soldier to be irresistible in a bayonet charge. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen dissented from this view; but this was so in every other art, and war was not likely to be an exception; for animal courage and brute strength were becoming of less importance than skill and intelligence applied to the discoveries of science. Pluck in the British soldier was constant but stationary, while science was changing and progressive. In the art of war, as in the arts of industry, they found that other nations were awake to this change, and were preparing their officers to meet it. But, while they were awake, this Royal Commission advised our officers to go to sleep on antique Greek and Roman beds, which had never been made anew, but remained the same as when their original occupants left them. While our public schools were loosening themselves from their old traditions, this Commission tried to dam up our officers outside the current of events which was carrying all other people rapidly onward. The Resolution of his hon. Friend was studiously moderate; but it gave them the opportunity of showing that if this be, as it was recently called by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, an age of Royal Commissions, it was an age also in which the representatives of the people could criticize and pass judgment on the opinions pronounced by any body of Royal Commissioners, when these appeared to be prejudicial to the public welfare.

said, he desired to congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) on his first address in that House, and he also begged to express his acknowledgments to the hon. Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews (Dr. Lyon Playfair) for the very educational speech with which he had favoured the House. It must be a matter of peculiar congratlation that the subject of military education had had the advantage of being sustained by the oratorical artillery of those two hon. Gentlemen. At the same time he must say that he could not agree with them, and he did not suppose that they expected he should; but he thought he would be able to put before the House some of the reasons on which the Royal Commissioners had come to the decision which the hon. Members found fault with. In the first place, the hon. Members complained that with respect to the entrance examinations for direct commissions for Sandhurst and for Woolwich natural science was altogether eliminated. The fact of the case was, that in regard to those entrance examinations the only thing the Commissioners recommended was that geology and mineralogy should be omitted. The experimental sciences would still be retained as they were before; but the examination would be improved by being divided into two branches, chemistry and electricity, an option being given to the candidates to prepare themselves in either. Then, as regards the course of instruction at Woolwich, chemistry and mechanics had alone been retained; and the Royal Commissioners were not answerable for the exclusion of geology, as that was excluded two years ago. In the Sandhurst course chemistry had been excluded, and experimental physics and military accounts and correspondence substituted. This decision was come to because the Commissioners thought it was quite impossible that the cadets—young men of a certain age—should be able to make themselves perfect in so many subjects. This was really at the root of the whole matter. Man's life was limited, and it was quite impossible, in the time allotted to young men to prepare themselves for the military or any other profession, to be able to go through the curriculum which had been sketched out that night. Some allowance should be made for the manifest imperfection of the human mind and body. It was quite impossible for young men to become Admirable Crichtons in the course of two short years, and if it were attempted to make them so it would be found that they would only turn out admirable dunces. He would now turn to the matter of the public schools, and he admitted that there was a strong feeling on the part of the Commissioners that as much encouragement as possible should be given to the public schools. This was done on very good evidence. The Commissioners heard the evidence of many general and commanding officers, one of them a Member of that House; and the effect of their evidence was that the public schoolboy, as an officer, was second to none in all the battles in which the British Army had been engaged. It was not, therefore, to be wondered at that the Commissioners should have given the preference to public schools rather than to private institutions. The hon. Member for Edinburgh University had said a good deal about preparatory schools; but for his part he must say that what were called preparatory schools were composed of a certain number of young men sent to private tutors, and they hardly deserved the name of preparatory schools, but might be more properly termed "cramming schools." With regard to the public schools, it was, as he before said, the wish and desire of the Commissioners that encouragement should be given to them, and that could only be done in one way. It was well known that Mahomet once desired to reach a certain mountain; but as the mountain would not go to him he found it necessary to go to the mountain. That story might be applied to the case of the public schools. The Commissioners found that they could not make the public schools meet them halfway, however much they desired it, and, therefore, they had to go to the public schools. It was an undoubted fact that a very large proportion of the candidates for commissions invariably came from the public schools, and the only course open to the Commissioners under these circumstances was to adapt the examinations for Sandhurst and Woolwich to the subjects taught at the public schools. They had the advantage of the advice of one of the Royal Commissioners who, it was well known, took the greatest interest in education—namely, Dr. Butler, of Harrow. A certain amount of evidence had been brought under the notice of the House by the two hon. Members who had spoken; but he noticed that both of them made use of the same witness. They did not instance any other military man of distinction except General Napier, and they brought the authority of his name forward to prove the same conclusion; but the fact was that when that gallant officer's evidence was examined it would be found that, far from bearing out the views put before the House, it proved directly the contrary. The opinion of the Commissioners that the course of instruction at Woolwich, Sandhurst, and the Staff College Institution was not sufficiently practical, was borne out by the Duke of Cambridge, General Napier, Colonel Addison, Colonel Porter, and many others. The Duke of Cambridge expressed his opinion that geology and physics might be well omitted at Sandhurst for the sake of riding; and Colonel Porter said that though chemistry and geology might be very good for Staff officers, they were not necessary for ordinary officers. Colonel Field, Inspector of Studies at the Royal Military Academy, said—

"I attach no great importance to the study of chemistry, natural philosophy, geology, and mineralogy before entrance. If desirable they could form optional subjects of examination; but the knowledge acquired would probably be so superficial that not much real value in an educational point of view could be attached to it."

Major Adams, Professor of Military History at Sandhurst, said—

"It is my opinion that the course at the Staff College, considering its duration, should be altogether restricted to the compulsory subjects mentioned in Paragraph 26, General Order."

Captain Crealock, 95th Regiment, said—

"Geology and chemistry may form part of a liberal education, but I cannot see the necessity for their being included in the military course of instruction for a Staff officer; as at present credited in examinations, they form an inducement for students to neglect other important studies."

Lieutenant Colonel Wilson, Professor of Military History at Woolwich, said—

"The three subjects last named—mechanics, chemistry, natural philosophy—have been raised in importance. More time has been appropriated for them, and marks are given. I doubt whether this has been altogether an improvement. In fact, considering the nature of the last two of these subjects, and the general inability of youthful intellects to grasp and master them, especially when fairly occupied with other matters, I think too much has been attempted, and that the time given to them might be reduced with advantage. Two years ago geology was also on the list of subjects. Its omission and replacement by military history was a wise step, not only because of the value of the latter subject to military students, but also because little good came of the former."

Lieutenant Colonel Porter said—

"I do not think that for the education of an ordinary officer many of those subjects are necessary—for instance, chemistry and geology. I think that chemistry and geology, though very good for a Staff officer, are not necessary for the education of an ordinary officer."

Canon Heaviside said, with regard to Woolwich—

"I think the cadets might get enough of the elements of mechanics, and soon, for their profession without being forced to the extended line of reading which they now have at Woolwich."

Then as regarded cramming, a young officer had, when asked if he was crammed in any particular subject at a crammer's before going to Sandhurst, answered—"Yes, in natural philosophy, chemistry, and geology." Lieutenant Baring, who had just passed through the Staff College the first of his list, said—

"I think that geology might with advantage be entirely done away with, as well as a certain portion of chemistry. For instance, telegraphy, I think, ought either to be taught at the College, or else officers should be sent to Chatham to go through a course of it; but I look upon all the time spent in analyzing compounds in the laboratory as wasted—i.e., a man's time might be more usefully employed."

Some remarks had been made as to the inferiority of our officers to foreign officers. He begged leave to differ in toto from what had fallen from the two hon. Gentlemen on that subject. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the acquirements of French and Prussian officers were greater than those possessed by our Staff College officers. At St. Cyr, which furnished two-thirds of the officers of the French Army, neither geology nor experimental science were required, nor was geology taught at all there. The Polytechnique was a preparatory and generally scientific school; but it could not in any respect be called an exclusively military school. It was half a civilian school and supplied the best civil engineers. A large number of the savans of France were educated there. Then, with regard to Prussia—in the cadet schools (not competitive), the nearest approaching to Woolwich and Sandhurst, two hours weekly were only given to physical science, and it did not appear that geology or chemistry were taught at all. Formerly, subjects such as German philosphy and chemistry were taught; these studies had, however, been gradually dropped, from a wish to make the course of instruction more strictly professional. In the Artillery and Engineer Schools for officers after entering the Army, the instruction in physics and chemistry was only three or four hours weekly. In the War Academy, answering to our Staff College, chemistry, geology, and physical science were all taught, but they were optional subjects. Considering this state of things abroad then, and the evidence brought before them at home, the Commission had, if anything, unduly favoured scientific instruction. For what was the case? In the after instruction of Artillery officers there was a course at the Arsenal. Experimental sciences had been included in the entrance examination at both Woolwich and Sandhurst. The Commissioners desired to do justice to the experimental sciences as far as they could; but they believed that the other sciences in a military point of view, were far more important. They felt that if a student who came up from a public school had acquired the ordinary education of an English gentleman it was quite sufficient in the first instance, and his future education in professional subjects might very well be relegated to the Staff College. No change of any importance had been made in the general course of study in the Staff College. He would not go into the subject of marks; that was a mere matter of detail, and could always be altered at any moment. He might, however, say that, whereas in the examinations for direct appointments, before the Commission was issued, the marks were as follows:—3,600 for mathematics and 1,200 for science—now they were 4,000 for mathematics and 1,500 for science; so that it would be seen that they had increased the marks for the latter subject in greater proportion than for the former, which constituted the foundation of all military education. He had to thank the House for listening to his explanations on this subject, which was a difficult one, particularly after dinner. It was not easy to answer two hon. Gentlemen who had got up their subjects so well; but he had done his best, and he hoped he had shown that there were at least two sides to a question. If the Commissioners did not come up to the ideas of the two hon. Gentlemen who had introduced this subject in the matter of natural science, they would, he felt sure, do them the simple justice to say they had shown every de- sire to promote the efficiency of the service and the advantage of those military institutions in which they all took so much interest.

said, he had hoped to hear from the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil) some good reason for the prominence given by the Commissioners to classics in military education. He thought that classical studies were of all others those least likely to be helpful to an officer in his profession. No doubt a commanding officer would, if possible, like to get his officers from a public school; but he believed that the 16 young gentlemen who so gallantly distinguished themselves on the river on Wednesday would be preferred to any 16 senior classics. If the Commission on Military Education wanted to get public-school men with some "go" in them, why not state so at once, and give a certain number of marks to games and athletic exorcises? In training for such sports the competitors had considerable trials to undergo; and they learnt to obey and command, which were the most important duties of a soldier.

said, he wished to make a few remarks on; this subject, after 18 years' service in a scientific corps. He considered the gist of the Report of the Commission to be to give increased value to classics, and a decreased value to scientific education. The reason of this was that they wished to handicap private schools, and to give a certain amount of encouragement to public schools. In his opinion, it was a great mistake to mix up the question of private education with that of the education of the Army. We were living in an essentially progressive age, and many considerations which, some time ago, would have been entitled to great weight had now lost much of their force and efficacy. He regretted to say that his education in classics had been much neglected, two or three easy pages of Cæsar forming a passport at the time he entered the Academy at Woolwich; but in his professional career he had never found the want of further classical knowledge, whereas he had been distinctly conscious of deficiencies in mathematics and other branches of scientific instruction, and in modern languages, Objection was taken to the statement that the pluck of the British soldier was less relatively than it used to be; but such must necessarily be the case, for the pluck of the soldier remained the same, while science was advancing around him. He did not, however, endorse the opinion that the victories of the Prussian Army were mainly due to the intelligence of the troops, for he believed that the needle-gun had most to do with it; but this was only the same argument in another form; for the invention and manufacture of needle-guns was a thing wholly apart from the pluck of the soldier. We should be making a great mistake if we attached exaggerated importance to classical education, which affected social position, to the neglect of technical education, on a right understanding of which the professional success of officers depended.

said, the natural modesty of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down did not permit him to repel the attack made by the Mover of this Resolution (Sir John Lubbock) upon the corps of Royal Engineers, though it was plain that the history of the corps had been ransacked to discover any errors they had committed. The hon. Baronet had talked about the manufacture of bricks and the want of acquaintance with geology on the part of the Engineers. Had he ever taken a walk on the terrace of the Houses of Parliament, and made any reflection on the want of geological knowledge which it was possible for civilians to exhibit? Without going very deeply into the subject, there was another instance which might be adduced—the pillars of the Holborn Viaduct were already cracked. To throw all the blame upon military engineers, therefore, was not quite fair. It was suggested, too, that if Lord Raglan had possessed a knowledge of geology he would have chosen the north side of Sebastopol instead of the south. Lord Raglan would have been very glad to advance at once into Sebastopol; but as the French General would not allow this to be done, Lord Raglan had no course open to him but to make his celebrated flank inarch to Balaklava, without which he would not have possessed a base of operations. What had a knowledge of geology to do with that? As regarded the Infantry and Cavalry branches of the service with which he had been more intimately acquainted, he had been unable to write down all the subjects in which the hon. Baronet wished the officers to be instructed; but he was quite certain that if they wanted to learn them all officers would not enter the service till they were 30 or 40 years of age. These things might be carried much too far. Many qualifications were required in a soldier other than those which were purely intellectual. A soldier must be prompt, energetic, quick to see an opportunity and to turn it to account. If he were going into action and were compelled to make a choice between an officer possessing high intellectual attainments and one who was simply active and intelligent, he should undoubtedly prefer the latter. He had no hesitation in saying that it would be better to go into the hunting field for officers, or to take the elevens of a cricket match, rather than to select men whose minds were crammed with all the "ologies." Instead of increasing scientific education, the useless system of competitive examinations at Chelsea ought to be abolished. Young men before entering the service crammed themselves with knowledge, which they forgot in two or three weeks after they had joined their regiments. On the other hand, a number of fine young men, the best materials that officers could be made from, turned their backs upon the Army because they did not like to go to Chelsea to be badgered for five or six days by a lot of civilians entirely ignorant of military matters, and examined upon subjects which could never be of the least use to them in the profession they wished to enter.

said, that as a Member of the Commission, he thought it might be well for him to explain to the House from what point of view the Commissioners had approached this question. The Commissioners had by no means overlooked the great importance of physical qualifications, and they also felt, looking to the great attention paid to such matters in Continental Armies, that English officers ought not to be behindhand in scientific acquirements. He congratulated the House upon the manner in which this subject had been introduced by an hon. Member so well qualified by his personal attainments in science to speak with authority; but the Commissioners, he maintained, had approached the question from a different point of view from that taken by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. The Commissioners laid down the principle that for entrance into the Army nothing more should be required than the ordinary liberal education of the country. It was not necessary to take up the time of the House by discussing the number of marks assigned to each head of this examination, for it might be stated generally that a competent knowledge of any class of subjects usually taught at schools would suffice to pass a candidate for a direct Commission. Similarly, in the competitive examination for entrance into Woolwich, liberal education alone would be expected; and marks were assigned not in proportion to the professional or intrinsic importance of each subject, but in proportion to the value of such knowledge of it as candidates were found to bring from school. In the Prussian Army, no doubt, there was a higher standard of scientific knowledge; but that was because science entered largely into the general education of the country; and the right course in England would be first to remedy this defect in the teaching of our public and other schools before we required scientific knowledge from the candidates for admission to the military service. For his own part, he had always been an advocate for enlarging in this sense the curriculum of our schools, and as a Public School Commissioner he would be ready to support his hon. Colleague (Sir John Lubbock) in promoting such reform. He had also urged upon Oxford and the other University that they should bestow the endowments at their disposal more liberally for the encouragement of the general science education of the country. That was where reform should begin—at the schools and Universities, not in Army examinations. In Prussia, where nearly the whole population must pass through the Army, military examinations had a great effect on the liberal education of the country; but in England, with our small professional Army, military examiners must be content to follow, not to lead. The other course had been attempted, and with what result? Why, that boys intended for the Army were now generally taken from the public schools, and sent to "cramming" establishments, where they learnt much that was mischievous, and little that was useful. That was not the right way to teach science; and he hoped the recommendations now called in question would go far to put an end to it. An attack had been made on one of the Royal Commissioners, as if he had said of science generally that it was a mere effort of memory; but no one, he believed, would be more willing than the gallant Officer, whose words were quoted, to accept the definition of science given by the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair). What Sir Duncan Cameron referred to was the smattering of science learnt by rote from little manuals, such as might be seen at almost any bookseller's shop. Another portion of the question related to the studies that were pursued after entering places of military education, and here the principle of the Commissioners had been not to cram too many subjects into a short space of time. The evidence had shown that it was desirable to diminish the pressure and distraction arising from a multiplicity of studies, and thus to enable the students to devote more time to those which would be of most advantage to them in the course of their profession. These were the principles of reform on which the Commissioners insisted as important, and which he trusted would receive very general approval. As to points of detail, he would venture to remind the House that we had now a Director General of Military Education. The corresponding officer in Prussia was assisted by a Council, called the Supreme Board of Military Studies, which was not of a permanent character, but merely met from time to time to assist the Inspector General with their advice. He did not know how far such a plan might be approved by his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Office, but now that they had lost the other members of the Military Council, it did seem to him that the Director General of Military Education should not stand alone, but that he should have from time to time, as special questions might arise, some recognized, if not official, aid, from those who from their special knowledge were best entitled to advise. He would, in conclusion, remark that the more detailed recommendations of the Commission were not proposed in the spirit of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. On the contrary, they were strictly relative to the present state of liberal education in the country, and were intended to be modified or changed as time and occasion might demand.

begged leave to differ from the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Captain F. E. B. Beaumont), who had expressed his opinion that pluck and courage would not hereafter have the same value that they had at present in the British Army; for although pluck might be unequally divided between different armies, the distribution of education would be pretty even. He would, moreover, beg the House not to forget that the most important military actions in modern history had been determined by marching large bodies of troops against each other and delivering their fire at a distance of about 25 yards, and he was at a loss to conceive how on such occasions pluck and courage could be dispensed with. Another statement made was that the Report of the Royal Commission prejudiced the case of private schools as against public schools; but that, he apprehended, was not the case. What they had advocated was that officers of the Army should be allowed to enter from the public schools of the country, including in the definition of public schools not only the four or five aristocratic establishments now bearing that title, but any large and proprietary schools, without going through the cramming of tutors, and that proposal he trusted would be adopted by the Government.

Sir, before offering the few observations which I have to make upon this Motion, I may, perhaps, be permitted to add my congratulations, to those which have already been expressed, on the accession which this subject has received by the part which the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) has taken in the discussion. I feel a confident hope that my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution will not suspect me of having any desire to exclude or limit scientific instruction, or to view it with jealousy as compared with other education, for it happens that I have had the advantage of being associated at different times with each of them in the promotion of scientific studies. With regard to education in general, I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Officer who has just spoken, and with others, that there is no kind of education which, will make up for the want of natural gifts. An old proverb tells us that "an ounce of mother wit is worth a pound of clergy," and the natural qualities of intellect and courage will always be the foundation of the distinguishing qualifications of the British soldier. The true principle is to get the best educated of our young men to enter the Army. You must not disparage classics for the purpose of elevating science, nor must you disparage science for the purpose of elevating classics; but you must have a varied education. The Army is a microcosm, and ought to contain every excellence the country can afford; whether it be scientific excellence or classical excellence, it ought to find its natural position; and our examiners ought to address themselves in the widest manner to all the education of the country, and ought, as far as possible, to select for the Army the foremost pupils in every school. The rule laid down in both France and Prussia is precisely that which I think the House will desire should be adopted in the British Army; for, with regard to the first examination in which the cadets are to be selected, there should be only one object—to get the young men who are best in general education. I entirely sympathize with those who praise the public schools. If they educate in one line of training let there be an examination that will bring the best young men they produce into the Army, and if there are other schools devoting themselves to giving a more scientific education, let there also be an examination which will select the best of their pupils also. Our main object is not education, but the selection of the best men for the Army, and those two objects may, I hope, be happily combined; the judicious pursuit of the one will be the judicious pursuit of the other. But now I may have to regard the subject from a point of view different from that taken by my hon. Friends, who have looked at this subject as it bears upon the general education of the country, and as regards its tendency to encourage that education or otherwise. The Commission have rather looked at how we can best conduct the examinations so as to avoid having a false education imposed upon the service, and in that object my hon. Friends entirely sympathize, for they desire true scientific education, and not that science which is derived from a handbook that may be bought at a low price, studied in a few weeks, rapidly committed to memory, and forgotten as soon as the examinations are over. The gallant officer who was charged with having spoken of science as "a parrot cry" is one of the most distinguished men in the Army, and I do not understand that he spoke of science in its true sense, but that he rather alluded to that science which palms itself off for the amomentary purpose of a temporary exmination. I will now state what are the objects I shall have in view with regard to this question, and what is the course that I have pursued and that I intend to pursue. In the first place, I have, as was recommended by the Commission, appointed as Director of Education that gallant officer General Napier, with whom my hon. Friends have expressed so much satisfaction. It is my intention to associate with him from time to time, for the consideration of any special questions that may arise, such persons as may be best calculated to assist our deliberations as to the various modes in which it may be desirable to conduct examinations in order to obtain those who have the greatest amount of real useful knowledge, and, above all, to consult the Civil Service Commissioners from time to time. I think the House will admit it to be a decided improvement that the first examinations should be conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, instead of by special Commissioners, both on account of their great experience, and also because it is desirable that the young men who are to enter the Army should not be taught at that early period of their career to look to a separate and distinct course of examination, but that they should rather be taught to share with their countrymen in general that instruction and that training which are given to those who are destined for other professions. I trust that we shall in this manner be able to secure the objects which my hon. Friends have in view—namely, that of including the largest amount of training from all sources of knowledge—and that we shall also meet the desire of the Commissioners, which is to exclude fictitious acquirements. As to the number of marks, I wish my hon. Friends to distinctly understand that I consider we are not bound in the slightest degree to adhere to the details laid down by the Report; on the contrary, I think that the Commission, having given us a point from which to start, believed they had completed the task assigned to them. Our object is merely to test the efficiency of the education, and that subject will constantly be a matter for observation on the part of those who conduct our military education. I hope my hon. Friends are satisfied with the principles on which we intend to proceed, and if they are satisfied I trust they will permit us to go into Committee of Supply.

said that, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion.

who had given notice to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will grant an inquiry into the case of General Burke, a political prisoner, and into the truth of the statement that the First Minister was instructed to make on that subject? said, it would be in the recollection of the House that, in reply to a Question he asked a few weeks ago respecting the state of mind and body of General Burke, a political prisoner, he received from the First Minister of the Crown a reply to the effect that Burke had been confined in Chatham Convict Prison; that up to the 9th of December, 1869, he was reported to be in good health of mind and body, and also well behaved; that on that day he was reported to be suffering from depression of spirits and loss of appetite, and that on the 12th of December he was transferred to the invalid prison at Waking. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, shortly after his arrival at Woking, he displayed signs of further mental disturbance, and that Dr. Meyer, who inquired into the state of his health, was of opinion that he was labouring under dementia at that time, but that he was not unlikely to recover—

"Under these circumstances, it was quite right to relieve him from the ordinary treatment of political prisoners," the right hon. Gentleman said—"but I do not think the hon. Member himself will Lo of opinion that the case ought to be treated as one of permanently unsound mind to the extent of entitling such a person to an absolute release."

He was now in a position to state, on evidence which everybody would admit to be satisfactory, that the reply of the First Minister of the Crown was entirely inaccurate, and that its correctness could not be proved either in matter or in spirit. He was prepared to prove this if the right hon. Gentleman would grant him a Committee of Inquiry into the matter. He cared not who might be appointed to conduct the investigation. All he wanted was the appointment of a Committee, before which he might have an opportunity of producing his witnesses.

said, the First Minister of the Crown had already announced that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the allegations made with respect to the treatment of the Fenian prisoners. He was just now engaged in constituting that Commission. It would be constituted with the utmost care, and its members would be so selected that the public would repose full confidence in I them. Two Irish gentlemen and two from England would be appointed members of that Commission, which would; be presided over by a gentleman of high position. Among the cases inquired into would be that of the unfortunate prisoner Burke, No doubt Burke had, prior to the 9th of December, been sometimes out of spirits, and not in good health; but the first report of his being in a state of health to excite anxiety was on that day. He was at once removed to the invalid prison at Woking, which was one of the healthiest parts of England; and, on his showing signs of mental aberration, he was examined, not only by a surgeon on the establishment, but also by Dr. Meyer, a man of eminence in the medical profession. Dr. Meyer reported that he would probably recover mentally as soon as his bodily health was restored. The case of Burke, he might remark, was not one of an ordinary convict. When other Fenian prisoners had shown signs of mental disturbance, their sentences had been remitted; but Burke was concerned in; the attempt to blow down Clerkenwell Prison—an attempt likely to cause the death of from 70 to 80 innocent persons. He was also one of the men who had, at that time, been lately released on ac- count of what he hoped would prove to be temporary insanity. For these reasons, it was impossible for the Government to treat Burke with the same lenity as other prisoners. An inquiry should, however, be made, and he would undertake that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Moore) should have every opportunity of proving his case.

said, that a Vote on account, within certain limits, had become a matter of necessity since the abolition of the system of holding over a balance from one year to another. The sums voted for men in the Army and Navy Estimates were available for other items of expenditure in those Estimates, subject to the subsequent approval of the House of Commons; but as there was no such dominant Vote in the Civil Service Estimates, he was reduced to the necessity of asking for a Vote on account. The Vote on account had in its favour the fact that it simply committed the House to the expenditure of a limited sum of money on account of the Service, without determining the amount of any particular Vote; it left the House, in fact, as independent as if no Vote had been passed. But he wished to explain that the Vote he asked for was for about two months and a-half, which, though less than the ordinary four months' Vote on account of some years past, was more than the Vote on account taken during the last two Sessions. The very limited Vote of two months, however, had this disadvantage, it had to be supplemented by another Vote on account, before the Votes could be dealt with in full. Considering the amount of business before the House, he believed there was no reasonable prospect of being able to consider the Civil Service Estimates before the expiration of upwards of between two and a-half and three months, and he therefore asked for a Vote to cover that time—namely, for £2,323,000.

said, he did not object to the Vote, but that the amount fixed was larger than the necessity of the case required. The Civil Service Estimates were increasing in amount, and full opportunity of discussing them should be given. No doubt there was much business before the House; but these Estimates ought not to be delayed so late as July, when there was only a scanty attendance of Members. He therefore begged to suggest, as an Amendment, that the Vote on account should be reduced by the sum of £600,000, which would reduce it to two months' supply. If the hon. Gentleman found, at the expiration of the period which this Vote would cover, that the Civil Service Estimates would not be reached in time, no doubt the House would readily grant a further sum on account.

said, it would not be to the convenience of the House, and certainly not to the advantage of the public service, that the Amendment should be carried. He had experienced the inconvenience of a Vote on account for two months. A Vote for throe months would carry on the public service only to the month of June, and certainly some progress must be made with the Civil Service Estimates before the Vote on account was exhausted. The objection to postponing the Civil Service Estimates to a late period of the Session was a subject worthy consideration at a future time, but could not be urged as against this Vote. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. With regard to the total amount, he might add that the Secretary to the Treasury was wrong in claiming a reduction in this year's Estimates, because, instead of comparing them with the Estimates of last year, he had compared them with the actual grants, without considering the Supplementary Estimates with which he would come to the House before the Session was ended; and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) noticed that these Civil Service Estimates were, in fact, an increase as compared with those of the year before last.

said, he wished to remind the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that this Vote ought to be sufficient to meet the requirements until some actual progress had been made with the Estimates. He agreed with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in the opinion that the Estimates should be compared with the corresponding calculations of the original Estimates of the previous year; but he had simply followed the rule of those who had preceded him, including his hon. Friend.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he would beg to move that the Select Committee with respect to Conventual and Monastic Institutions, to be appointed under the Order of the 29th of March, be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

seconded the Motion.

in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, to discharge the Order for the appointment of a Committee, felt bound, in the first place, to protest against the very unusual and, as he considered, most unfair course taken by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire in attempting to bring a Motion so important as this, which he knew would be opposed, and in which the deepest feelings had been excited throughout the whole Catholic body in the country—as was evinced by the Petitions which had been presented from all parts of Great Britain—at such an unreasonable hour as the present—half past one o'clock in the morning—when it would be impossible for the House to listen to a long debate such as the gravity of the question required, and when the speeches made would have no chance of being reported so as to enable the public to judge fairly of the grounds on which it was opposed. He had felt it his duty to ask the House to re-consider the vote which had been given by the narrow majority of 2 the other night, because he believed it did not really express the feeling of a majority of the House. The result on that occasion was wholly unexpected, and he defied the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to state whether he himself was not as much surprised at his majority as the rest of the House. The debate was a most peculiar one; and no one took part in it except the Solicitor General, save four or five Members who had always been notorious for their extreme views on these questions affecting Catholic rights. Many of the right hon. Members who sat on the front Opposition Benches had walked out of the House, and refused to vote; and numbers on that side had actually asked Members on this side of the House not to join in the debate and waste valuable time, as the result would, of course be, that the proposal would be negatived in the same manner as a nearly similar one had been last year, when, after the hon. Member had addressed the House, no one replied to him—the House at once went to a division, and he was beaten. Under these peculiar circumstances, he asked a re-consideration of this question, to be arrived at deliberately, and after full debate on a matter so important, and in which the religious peace and concord of the future of the country, he believed, were seriously involved. He felt it was his duty, in the first place, to show that he did not ask the House, in re-considering a Resolution, to take a step which was not justified by precedent. He would only refer to a few instances to support the proposal he now made. In 1833, Sir William Ingilby carried a Resolution for the reduction of the malt tax by a majority of 10; it was reversed the week after on the Motion of Lord Althorp, by 238 to 76. In 1856 a Resolution on national education was carried by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) by a large majority, in effect rescinding an Address to the Crown of an exactly opposite character, which had been carried a few nights previously by a majority of 10, in a House of over 200 Members. On that occasion Lord John Russell said—

"There has been found great inconvenience in the rule of the House which allows Addresses to the Crown to go out of our hands upon only one deliberation. If we pass a Resolution upon any matter entirely among ourselves, we may, if we please, rescind it on the following day, and a Bill we re-consider at its various stages before it goes out of our hands."—[3 Hansard, cxlii., 1862.]

But he (Mr. Cogan) particularly wished the House to attend to what took place in 1854, when a Committee, similar to the present, was resolved on, upon the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. T. Chambers), to inquire into convents, &c. On that occasion a similar Motion was made to discharge the Order, as he now asked the House to do, and in the debate a high constitutional authority, Lord John Russell, said—

"I think it is well worthy the time of the House to consider whether it will persist in the appointment of this Committee. It is not, as the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine) has said because it is a constitutional question that we ought to appoint a Committee upon vague suspicions. There ought to be some sort of case made out.…. Seeing no benefit whatever that can arise from the inquiry that it is proposed to institute; and being of opinion that this House would act much more wisely in saying 'We will not meddle with this subject; we will devote our time and attention to much more important and useful work;' and thinking that such an inquiry as this would be of a very peddling and useless character, I certainly, if I have to give a vote, shall vote with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk."—[3 Hansard, cxxxi., 1420 &c 1424.]

In the same debate, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said—

"He had voted against this inquiry because ha could not see his way to any beneficial result that would be at all commensurate with the difficulties and heart-burnings which it was likely to occasion. He was ready, also, to vote to-night for the discharging of the Order for tile Committee."—[Ibid. 1463.]

He (Mr. Cogan) would not, at that hour, weary the House with any more instances, nor would he occupy their attention at such length, save that he felt the deep responsibility that was cast on him, on account of the great interests which he believed were now so seriously invaded by the Motion which he asked the House to reverse. He thought he had conclusively shown that the House was free to reconsider this question, and that he asked for nothing unusual in the Motion he was about to make. Now, what was proposed by the inquiry—what were its objects, and what were likely to be the results? It was proposed to inquire into the "character" of conventual and monastic institutions, their existence, increase, and property; its objects were evident from the antecedents of all those who were its chief promoters, and who had, in 1851, 1852, 1853, and 1854, inflamed the religious passions and fanaticism of the people, flooded the country with the vilest calumnies and accusations against those holy women who devoted themselves to the noblest objects, and carried out, in. the highest purity the spirit of Christian charity, educating the young, nursing the sick and the dying, preserving the virtuous, and helping to restore the fallen, seeking out in every haunt, either of wretchedness or crime, how they can help human misery here on earth, or best point out the way to Heaven. It is proposed to subject these ladies to this inquisition, and without any case made, or attempted to be made, against them—such, as would be required in bringing a charge against the meanest malefactor—they are to be dragged from their retirement, and subjected to an inquiry before a Committee of this House, into all the affairs of their private life, and to repel and answer any charge, no matter how vile or disgraceful, which may be recklessly made against them by the vilest or most disreputable persons, who will not be under the obligation of an oath be it remembered; who are not responsible for any statement made before a Committee, either for prosecution for perjury, for false swearing, or for indictment for libel; every privilege and safety is to be given to the accuser, however wanton his charges, and no protection to the accused; and these ladies are to be subjected to, if this Committee be appointed, on no case made out—and this indignity and wrong is to be inflicted on helpless women, many of them amongst the highest in the land by birth, and, what is greater still, by character and goodness. This is deeply resented, and felt as a burning insult, by all the Catholic body. He would remind the House, as an evidence how charges were safely made under the protection of Parliament, of the correspondence of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in 1865 with Mr. Langdale and Sir Charles Clifford. Both these gentlemen had relatives in the convent at Colwich, of which place the hon. Member had made the gravest charges, amounting to insinuations that murders had been committed there. Both these gentlemen challenged him not to shelter himself under his Parliamentary protection, but to make these charges—to sustain which he had alleged he was in possession of sworn evidence—out of the House, so that they could call him to account in a court of justice, and compel him either to prove Ms case or to stand convicted of having given currency to an unfounded and false charge; and this he had considered himself justified in refusing. Will the House sanction any number of similar calumnious accusations to be thus made with impunity before a Committee, and which can only be refuted by compelling the attendance of the members of the convents against which they are to be made. With respect to monastic in- stitutions they stand in a somewhat different position. By clauses in the Emancipation Act, which are shameful blots in that statute, and so contrary to the spirit of this age that they never have been, nor were over attempted or intended to be, enforced, the existence of Jesuits and members of other religious orders bound by monastic vows are prohibited, and any person assisting in the admission of any person to any religious order, or taking part in the administration of any religious vow or oath, is declared guilty of a misdemeanour, and any person so admitted may be banished, and if found in the realm after three months, may be transported for life. Is it seriously proposed to examine the inmates of these monastic institutions, which he alleges are illegal, and compel them to answer questions which you believe may criminate them and render them liable to these penalties? and, if so, do you propose to put in force these obsolete penal statutes? Would the civilization, the public opinion of this country, that boasts its love of religious freedom, tolerate, at the present day, such a monstrous theory? As Lord John Russell said in 1854, these penal laws have fallen into desuetude, and are better let lie among the relics of less enlightened ages, unless the hon. Member means, which we know he does not, to blot out those pages which the intolerance and prejudices of other days placed upon our statute book. With regard to another object of the proposed inquiry—as to the property of these institutions, and the manner and conditions in which it is held—it was well-known that most of these institutions were sustained by annual subscriptions, and many by the proceeds of their labour, or by teaching; and if, as was alleged, funds were held in sacred trust, it should be remembered that the exceptional legislation against Roman Catholics, and the statutes against what was called superstitious uses—such as masses, praying for the dead, &c.— rendered money left for these objects illegal, and Catholics have been compelled, who wish to leave money for these objects, to adopt these secret trusts, as they were called; and in the statute of 1858 they were on that ground exempted from that Act, and were dealt with in the Act of 1860, by which they were to some extent, but only partially, relieved from some of the penal provi- sions of the law, which, however, still treated Catholic charities in an exceptional manner, and confiscated property if left for many purposes which Catholics deemed essential for religious uses. But property thus alleged to be held is in no respect a legal trust. It is held on the honour of English gentlemen, as was stated by the Solicitor General, and is legally, and for all legal purposes, considered as their property; it pays succession duty upon the death of each who, in law, possesses it, and is not locked up in mortmain, as is alleged; and should the person holding it become bankrupt, it would become as his other property, and go to his creditors; so any money thus held is in no respect a legal trust. But if the desire of the hon. Member is to violate the sanctity of what are really private houses—the homes of unoffending ladies, the transportation of all Jesuits and members of monastic orders, and the confiscation of Catholic charitable property—he hoped the House would pause before it gratified his wishes, and weigh well the consequences which the granting his Motion was likely to lead to. It must not be forgotten that if granted this inquiry cannot logically stop there. They must be prepared for the attempt to extend it to Ireland, and he begged the House to seriously reflect what must be the consequence of such proceedings. Were they ready to take the responsibility of adding this fuel to the flame of discontent and danger which unhappily existed now in that country? He called on the House to discharge the Order for this Committee to inquire into the private affairs of those who claim no special immunity or privilege from the State, against whom no case was shown—an inquiry in which evidence attacking private character could be given, as he had already shown, free from all penalties for perjury or libel, not under the sanction of an oath, and where all sorts of illegal or hearsay evidence might be received—which was regarded as a wrong and insult to a large religious body in the country; and he appealed with confidence to the honour, the chivalry, and the love of fair play of the House of Commons to rescind the Resolution to which it had the other night so unexpectedly and so unfortunately given its sanction.

said, that, as the only Catholic representative of an Eng- lish constituency in that House, he would beg to second the Motion. The Resolution come to the other night had touched the hearts of the Catholics throughout the country; he never knew any question which had so deeply stirred the feelings of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, as was proved by the number of Petitions which had been presented to that House. The meeting held that morning on the subject was attended by gentlemen of the oldest families and the best positions, and they all looked upon that Motion as an indignity and an insult to them, implying as it did that they were unfit to have the charge of those nearest and dearest to them. Convents were merely families on a larger scale; and if that were so, why was not the same arrangement to be extended to families, and a roving Commission appointed to inquire into their condition? Convents were sisterhoods, and the ladies in them required no further protection; they were sufficiently protected—first by the laws of their convents, secondly, by the visitation of their Bishops, by the affection of their families, and above all, by the law of England. The case "Saurin v. Starr" proved it. He rejoiced at the result of that trial, as it showed that the law of England threw its ægis over them, and that there was no wrong without a remedy. If he were merely to consult his own feelings he would rather that this inquiry should take place—so sure was he that the inquiry would show the innocence of these institutions; but they had the feelings of others to take into account,—the feelings of the ladies, and the feelings of the great body of Catholics in this country, and, therefore, he must support the Amendment.

said, he was not in the House when the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) for a Committee was first carried. It was his intention to vote in favour of the hon. Member's Motion; but not from any feeling of intolerance, as had been proved when he was one of the 21 Members who in that House had voted against the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. When he looked abroad, and saw that in Roman Catholic countries convents had been either placed under supervision or altogether suppressed, he could have no hesitation as to the course, which he should take on this occasion.

said, that so far from his Motion being a surprise, he had given notice of it last Session. In the Saurin case there was evidence enough why this country should not overlook these institutions. All he asked for was inquiry. He trusted the Government would not oppose the Motion, because there was a deep feeling in the country on the subject—a feeling which had been excited by what had come to light in the Saurin case. The very condition of our law, which forbade the jurisdiction of Roman Catholic Bishops, made this inquiry necessary. It was impolitic and unwise of Roman Catholic Members to oppose this Motion, because it gave rise to suspicions. He contended that the institutions in question, notwithstanding the denial of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cogan), were acquiring property, and he appealed to the House not to stultify itself by refusing to vote for his Resolution.

said, he had relatives himself in convents both in this country and abroad. In no country did the State interfere with these institutions in the manner in which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) proposed to interfere with them in this country. In no country would it be proposed to have an inquiry made by Protestants into these institutions. Besides, abroad, convents had certain privileges, and vows had a legal and binding authority, and the State had the right to interfere and see that those privileges were not abused; but in this country every vow was a voluntary promise, and revocable at any moment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had some time ago referred to some occurrence connected with the con- vent of Colwich in 1865, stating that there were underground cells, and that he had witnesses who could prove that some eight or 10 years before a nun had been forced into one, and had never been brought out alive, but had been buried secretly. Mr. C. Langdale and Mr. Clifford had challenged the hon. Member to prove his statement. The hon. Gentleman, however, gave no proof, and yet it was upon such alleged facts as those that the hon. Gentleman asked the House of Commons to step out of its way to inquire into private life; for this inquiry would be, in reality, an inquiry into the lives of blameless ladies, who were sincere, however mistaken they might be, in their piety. Such an inquiry would entail on those ladies an amount of suffering and indignity which nothing that had yet been shown could justify.

said, that as one of the Members of the Committee of Selection he wished to express the extreme aversion of the Committee to having the duty of choosing this Committee imposed upon them. To have to perform such a duty—which was not within the scope of their proper functions—would impair their credit and efficiency as a body of a judicial nature.

said, he would suggest that the Motion for the adjournment of House should be withdrawn, and a Motion for the adjournment of the debate substituted. It was impossible at a quarter to three in the morning to give that consideration to the subject which it really demanded.

said, he must remind the House that the supporters of the Original Motion had been quite ready to go on with it on a previous occasion; but that course was stopped by the clamour of a small section of Irish Members, who would not allow him to express his views.

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

seconded the Motion.

wished to ask the Home Secretary whether, after such a manifestation of the feeling of the House, he would not try to settle the question at once? If the Government wished to alter the terms of the Motion, he would attend to any suggestion they might make. It was clear that the opinion of the House was in favour of a full inquiry.

said, he did not wish to offer any unfair opposition to the proceeding of the hon. Member; but he must remind him his Motion had raised religious passion, which could not be easily allayed. He should be glad of a proper inquiry; but the Government could not dictate to the Roman Catholic Members what course they should take in this matter.

was understood to say, that after the statement of the Home Secretary he was willing to agree to an adjournment.

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had promised not to bring on this question after half-past 12 o'clock. As the result of that statement and some other intimations several hon. Members had left the House, and the question had not been fairly debated.

said, he had voted with the majority on the last Division; but it was evident that a Division on the Main Question was impossible at such a late hour. He would suggest that the Motion should be withdrawn, in order that the debate might be adjourned.

said, the Motion had been discussed two nights, and the House was prepared to come to a decision on the Main Question that night.

said, it had been a matter of doubt as to what time the Motion would be brought on, and some Gentlemen had left the House, not expecting that it would come on that that night. He did not think that at this hour in the morning—3 o'clock—the subject could be properly discussed.

said, he thought that the forms of the House would allow that the Motion for the adjournment of the House should be withdrawn or negatived, and then the Motion for the adjournment of the debate might be resumed. He thought that course would meet with the approval of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

said, the difficulty was caused by the conduct of the Government, who had taken almost every night devoted to private Members.

said, he hoped that the present Motion would be negatived, and that the adjournment of the debate would then be agreed to.

said, he was willing that the debate should be adjourned for Thursday, April 28.

said, the difficulties had arisen in consequence of the Motion having been brought on at so late an hour. The debate could not be resumed on the 28th April, the Land Bill being fixed for that day.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would put the revival of the debate on the first day after the Recess.

said, he must complain that the hon. Member had violated the promise he had given not to bring the Motion on at a late hour.