said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the statement of the capital of the Funded and Unfunded Debt issued on April 5th, in which it was stated that the total debt of the Country on March 31st was £801,406,563, included the seven millions of stock which was created for the purchase of the telegraphs; and, if so, how it arises that the funded debt according to this Return has increased within the year by a sum of £402,043 only; and if this result has been caused by cancelling any stock held on behalf of the Court of Chancery, what is the total amount of stock which has been so cancelled; what, if any, are the liabilities undertaken by the Exchequer in respect of such stock, and whether the stock appropriated for the construction of the New Courts of Justice has been included in the amount cancelled, or has been separately treated?

Sir, my hon. Friend asks me whether the statement of the total Debt of the country on March 31—namely, £801,406,563—includes the £7,000,000 of stock created for the purchase of the telegraphs; and what I have to say is that the £7,000,000 of stock for the purchase of the telegraphs is included in that amount. The reason of the small difference between the capital stock of the funded debt on the 31st of March and its amount during last year—that difference being only £402,043—is this, as in fact the Question seems to imply, that the stocks which have been held connected with the Chancery and Bankruptcy funds have been cancelled and converted into a book debt. The amount of stock so cancelled did not include a sum of £1,000,000 to be appropriated for the construction of the new Courts of Justice. The liabilities of the Exchequer, with reference to these Chancery and Bankruptcy stocks, are not in any way affected by their conversion into a book debt.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What informa- tion the Government have received relating to the settlement of the Red River affairs and the admission of that territory as a province of the Dominion of Canada?

Sir, as I stated yesterday in answer to my right hon. Friend, I have to state that the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the Red River delegates have closed I satisfactorily, and a Bill to give effect to the arrangement between the two parties, as we learn by a telegram received yesterday, has passed through the House with the general consent of all parties. An expedition was about to proceed to the Red River, which it was expected would be an expedition of peace. The terms arranged between the two parties are that a province named Manitoba is to be constituted, which will comprise the settled portions of the Hudson's Bay territory. Its population will be about 15,000, and its area 11,000 square miles. The Lieutenant Governor will be appointed by the Government of Canada. It will have representative institutions. Its Upper House will be nominated; its Lower elected by the people. It will be represented in the Parliament of the Dominion by two senators and four representatives, to increase hereafter in proportion to population. The waste lands are to belong to the Dominion, but 1,200,000 acres are to be reserved to extinguish the claims of half-breeds and Indian titles; all existing titles and possessions are to be respected. Satisfactory and liberal financial arrangements are to be made by the Government of Canada with the new State, and in all other respects it is to have terms secured to it analogous to those already granted to the other provinces that constitute the Dominion. The vast unsettled and unpeopled territory not included in the new province is to be administered by the Lieutenant Governor under instructions from the Canadian Government.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Act of the 2nd William and Mary, "for confirming to the Hudson's Bay Company their Privileges and Trades," was not limited to a period of seven years, long since expired; whether the Letters Patent of Charles the Second, as originally granted to Prince Rupert and other Adventurers, did not expire on the death of that King, and were only conditional on such Adventurers expending a sum of £10,000 in fitting out an expedition for the discovery of a north-west passage, which enterprize was never undertaken by them, such patent becoming thereby absolutely void; whether the statute of the 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, by which this Company of Adventurers undertook to pay £5 per share annually to the Crown as an acknowledgment of such trading (not territorial) privileges, has not been treated as a nullity, notwithstanding the very large profits that have accrued under the previous private Act of the 2nd of William and Mary; whether the Statute of Mortmain is not an effectual barrier to the acquisition of sovereign rights and territory by an English Company of Traders without the express authority of Parliament; whether the Limited Liability Companies Act under which form the present Hudson's Bay Association (Limited) are now trading, is not strictly confined to the United Kingdom, extending neither to Prince Rupert's Land nor yet to British North America in its operations, and which limited Company has not as yet received any Charter from the Crown which could be surrendered to the Canadian Dominion; when the Copy of all Papers ordered by this House on the Motion of Sir Harry Verney, in the last Session—namely, on the 1st day of June, will be laid upon the Table; whether a Copy of the private Act of the 2nd William and Mary, chapter 10 (not as yet printed), will be included in such Return; and, whether Parliament has not refused to confirm or renew the Letters Patent of Charles the Second, but on the other hand by the public Act of the 4th of William and Mary, chapter 15, before referred to, positively declared the trading privileges of the said Hudson's Bay Company to be at an end, unless £5 per share per annum should be paid to the Crown, such so-called Charter otherwise to be void; and when and under what circumstances such annual payments ceased to be made; and whether with the concurrence of Parliament or not?

said, the noble Lord, in about the longest Question that had ever been addressed by one Member of Parliament to another, had asked for information upon a number of interesting historical questions, and for opinions on various questions of law. He had seen the Question only an hour before, and would give him the best answer he could.

offered to put the Question again on Monday. ["No!"]

said, that the noble Lord asked whether the Act of the 2nd William and Mary, "for confirming to the Hudson's Bay Company their Privileges and Trades," was not limited to a period of seven years, long since expired. To that he replied that the Act was so limited, and the noble Lord was quite right in supposing the seven years had long since expired. The noble Lord next asked whether

"The Letters Patent of Charles II., as originally granted to Prince Rupert and other Adventurers, did not expire on the death of that King, and were only conditional on such Adventurers expending a sum of £10,000 in fitting out an expedition for the discovery of a north-west passage, which enterprize was never undertaken by them, such patent becoming thereby absolutely void?"

Upon that Question he was of opinion that the patent had not become void, and he quoted the opinion of Lord Mansfield, Sir Dudley Ryder; Sir John Jervis, Sir John Romilly, Sir Richard Bethell, and Sir John Keating to the same effect. The noble Lord further asked whether

"The statute of the 4th William and Mary, chapter 15, by which this Company of Adventurers undertook to pay £5 per share annually to the Crown as an acknowledgment of such trading (not territorial) privileges, has not been treated as a nullity, notwithstanding the very large profits that have accrued under the previous private Act of the 2nd William and Mary?"

He believed the statute had not been acted upon, at all events in recent times. To the next question he replied that the Statute of Mortmain did not prevent the settlement of a British Colony abroad, and the best authorities had treated the territory of the Hudson's Bay Company as a settled Colony in America. In the original Letters of Charles II. it was spoken of as "a Colony or plantation." The next question was—

"Whether the Limited Liability Companies Act, under which form the present Hudson's Bay Association (Limited) are now trading, was not strictly confined to the United Kingdom, extending neither to Prince Rupert's Land nor yet to British North America in its operations, and which limited Company has not, as yet, received any Charter from the Crown which could be surrendered to the Canadian Dominion?"

Undoubtedly the Limited Liability Companies Act was confined to this kingdom; but because a company having possessions abroad chose to register themselves under that Act in this country, they did not therefore lose any possessions or rights which they had abroad, and the registration of the Hudson's Bay Company in this country did not affect their charter or their right to surrender it to the Dominion. The noble Lord's next Question was—

"When the Copy of all Papers ordered by this House on the Motion of Sir Harry Verney, in the last Session—namely, on the 1st day of June— will be laid upon the Table; whether a Copy of the private Act of the 2nd William and Mary, chapter 10 (not as yet printed), will be included in such Return?"

In reply to that he said those Papers had been laid on the Table on the 2nd of August, 1865, and the noble Lord could find them in Parliamentary Paper No. 390. If he had taken the trouble to make inquiries in the Library, he would have found this out before. He now came to the last Question asked by the noble Lord, which was—

"Whether Parliament has not refused to confirm or renew the Letters Patent of Charles II., but, on the other hand, by the public Act of the 4th of William and Mary, chapter 15, before referred to, positively declared the trading privileges of the said Hudson's Bay Company to be at an end unless £5 per share per annum should be paid to the Crown, such so-called Charter otherwise to be void; and when and under what circumstances such annual payments ceased to be made; and whether with the concurrence of Parliament or not?"

To that he could only say that the statute did require such payment to be made. He did not know under what circumstances they were discontinued; but as a large number of subsequent statutes had recognized this company, the forfeiture, if any had occurred, had boon repeatedly waived.

said, he rose to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the National Gallery and certain portions of the British Museum should be opened for the inspection of the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening, at least three evenings in the week."

The question involved in his Motion was one of great importance to the working population of London and its suburbs. The practical effect of the present regulations was to exclude the great bulk of the working classes from these institutions, and they were thereby debarred from all chance of deriving amusement or instruction from the treasures which those buildings contained. In fact, he might in perfect truth say that had the present regulations been devised for the express purpose of excluding the working classes, they could not be more effectual in attaining that object. The case for the opening of these places on week-day evenings was very strong; nay, it could not possibly be stronger. Those institutions were national institutions, paid for and supported by the people of the country, and yet they were closed at the very time when the great mass of the working classes could take advantage of them. This was a most unfair state of things, and it was time some remedy such as he advocated should be provided. The House had always been opposed to class legislation, and he now asked it to declare against class regulations. As he could not reply he would endeavour to anticipate the various objections which might be urged against his proposed Motion. The principal objection would doubtless be the supposed danger from fire and risk of injury from gas. Now, he would be the first to oppose these collections being opened in the evenings unless proper precautions against fire were taken. He might mention that in the year 1860 a Select Committee consisting of 15 Members, impartially chosen, sat and considered this question. They heard a good deal of evidence of a practical and scientific character, as well as evidence from working men, and those best acquainted with the working classes of the metropolis, and they adopted a Report recommending the opening of the British Museum and the National Gallery on certain week-day evenings in order to afford the working classes the opportunities of instruction and pleasure. That Committee further were of opinion that the Museum and Gallery might safely be opened at least upon three evenings of the week from 7 to 10 o'clock under due regulations, and those who had read the evidence taken by that Committee, could not but concur in the conclusions at which they had arrived. Now, would the contents of the buildings be in danger from fire, or be likely to be injured by gas? An answer to the latter objection would be found in the fact that some years ago a Royal Commission composed of five eminent men, including Professors Hoffmann, Tyndall, and Faraday, was appointed to consider that very question, and they reported that there was nothing innate in coal gas which would render its application to the illumination of picture galleries objectionable. With respect to gas they further recommended that it should be burned in open jets, for the purpose of promoting ventilation, due care, of course, being taken that all the products of combustion should escape. Mr. Cole, in his evidence before the Select Committee of 1860, as the result of his experience at South Kensington, expressed the opinion that gas did not injure pictures, and the same opinion was expressed by Mr. Wornum, the Secretary of the National Gallery. Mr. Panizzi, who might be considered as a hostile witness, did not believe there was much risk of fire, supposing due precautions were taken. He might add that Mr. Cole had drawn his attention to the case of the celebrated Sheepshanks Collection, which, he said, had been exhibited three evenings in the week for 12 years, and instead of being deteriorated, had rather improved. And, in reply to the argument which would probably be used against his Motion, that it would not be safe to open the Museum and National Gallery in the evening, his answer was, that the same thing was done, and had been done with perfect safety for a number of years, at the South Kensington Museum. Then, as to the important question whether the working classes of London would really value the privilege of visiting these institutions, supposing it was granted to them, he could only say that he himself had presented various Petitions, many of them very numerously signed by working men, and a Petition from members of Working Men's Clubs, which were unanimously in favour of his Motion, and urged its adoption on the ground that the want of rational amusement tended to the promotion of intemperate habits. Before the Committee of 1860 a great deal of evidence was given by clergymen and ministers well acquainted with the feelings of the working classes of the metropolis and also by working men themselves who thoroughly understood the views of the class to which they belonged, and they were almost all unanimous that it would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred on the working classes of the metropolis if the National Gallery and the British Museum were thrown open to them on week-day evenings. With regard to the objection of expense, he believed the cost of opening the National Gallery in the evening would only be about £4,000 a year, and the cost of doing the same for portions of the British Museum, such as the Natural History Collections and the Antiquities in the upper rooms—for he did not touch the lower—would not be more than £6,000 a year. He thought the House would be of opinion that that was a very small price for the nation to pay for such great benefits. When it was considered that this year the Vote for the National Gallery was some £16,000, and for the British Museum £90,000, the additional sums that would be required for opening these institutions in the evening might well be granted to make them available for the amusement and instruction of the great masses of the people. The question was, not whether daylight was not the best light for seeing the collections; but whether the working classes of the metropolis should have any chance of seeing them at all. He might be told that if they were opened in the evening they would attract a crowd; but that was the very thing he wanted. He wanted to tempt the working classes to frequent, by thousands the British Museum and the National Gallery, instead of thronging to gin-palaces, public-houses, and low dancing places, and spending their evenings in dissipation. He wanted to give them tastes for purer pleasures than many of them had at present. He did not wish to weary the House by dwelling upon a case which had such just grounds to recommend it, and he would therefore simply move his Resolution and leave it for the consideration of the House.

seconded the Motion.

said, on the part of the Trustees of the British Museum—for he was not going to offer any observations on behalf of the Governors of the National Gallery—he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) and the House that nothing would give them greater gratification than to be able to extend the time for seeing the noble collections of that institution for the benefit of the working classes as much as other people; and he had no doubt that those Gentlemen who should speak for the National Gallery would make a similar remark. There were two great objects which the Trustees of such an institution as the British Museum must always keep in view, the one to afford facilities for study in literature, art, and science, the other to contribute to the popular instruction and rational amusement. Now, he believed the hon. Gentlemen would find that, as far as they were able to do so with perfect safety to the collections in the Museum, the Trustees were not only desirous, but they had accomplished their desire, of giving for the two purposes to which he had adverted the greatest facilities. Perhaps the House would allow him to state what the arrangements were at present. Speaking first with regard to study, the Museum was open every day in the week for that purpose during the winter months from 9 to 4, during the spring and autumn months from 9 to 5, and during the summer months from 9 to 6. To the public generally the Museum was open on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the hours he had mentioned, except that in the winter the hour of opening was for them 10 instead of 9. In addition to this, the Trustees had made a further arrangement to which he would presently revert. Now, unless the hon. Gentleman could show that, with safety to the Museum, arrangements could be made for the purpose of opening the collections to the humbler classes at night, and a greater extension of time given, he believed almost everything had been done that was possible for the accommodation of the public. The objections to opening the Museum in the manner proposed had more or less been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the Report of the Committee on Public Institutions of 1860, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) was a Member. It was perfectly true that that Committee recommended that, for the recreation of the people, great institutions, like the British Museum and National Gallery, should be opened at night; but even that Committee, in making its Report, saw plainly from the evidence that it was by no means so clear that this could be done with safety to the collections. It was true that they stated—

"With respect to the British Museum, the Geological Museum, and the Museum of the East India Company, your Committee find that, although many of the objects they contain could not be so well inspected by artificial light as by daylight, yet that a large portion of the collections could be seen in the evening, and would afford much interest and instruction to the people."

But in another part they say—

"With reference to the first point—that of opening by night—your Committee would submit that, from the evidence brought before them, the National Gallery, and portions of the British and other public museums, could safely be visited in the evening if proper precautions against fire can be taken."

Now, this question of proper precaution was one of the main points to which they had to direct attention. About that time the Trustees felt it their duty to inform themselves, in the best way they could, as to the risk to the collections if opened at night; and he had now in his hand a Report, made to them 10 years ago, first, by the late Mr. Braidwood, Superintendent of the London Fire Brigade; and, secondly, by Mr. Smirke, the architect to the Museum. Mr. Braidwood said—

"In the first place, the use of gas desiccates everything within its reach, especially all ceilings, roofs, &c., which are placed above the lights, thus rendering them much more inflammable than they otherwise would be, causing what would otherwise be a trifling fire, a serious conflagration. In the second place, the heat and fumes evolved by the combustion of gas are most decidedly against the preservation of any vegetable or animal substances, and tend to discolour stone, marble, &c., in such a manner that it is very difficult to restore the original colour. This is stated on the supposition that the Museum is to be lighted by single Argand lights; but if what are called 'sun' burners are used the risk will be immensely increased. The sun-burner consumes a very large quantity of gas at one point, causing an intense degree of heat, which has to be carried off by pipes, a process difficult of performance with perfect safety in a building constructed with so much inflammable material as the Museum. Several fires have been occasioned by their use. I would therefore consider these lights as totally inadmissible in the British Museum."

Mr. Braidwood also said—

"I believe the risk to be such that on no consideration should a building intended to last for ages, and containing such invaluable property as the British Museum, be subjected to it."

Mr. Smirke, the architect, certainly expressed an opinion that arrangements could be made which would diminish the risk from fire, but he said—

"I quite concur with Mr. Braidwood as to the great risk of using gas sun-burners, without removing every inflammable substance far away from them and from the ventilating tubes over them. It would be impossible to do this without a very extensive reconstruction of the floors and roofs."

These were the opinions brought before the Trustees in 1860, and the House would not be surprised that the Trustees thought they would not be justified in running the risk of opening the British Museum at night under such circumstances. After that the matter more or less slept till last year, when the hon. Gentleman gave Notice of a Motion to a similar effect to that which he had made that evening, only it was proposed by way of Amendment to another Motion made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory). On that occasion, therefore, it was the duty of the Trustees again to consider whether—notwithstanding the many improvements that might have been made in the interval—those Reports ought still to be acted upon by them or not. Well, they consulted the best authorities on the subject—namely, Professor Tyndall and Captain Shaw, the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade. Professor Tyndall, having given a strong opinion that, with proper structural arrangements, the thing could be done, did not change that opinion; but he thought they must make great alterations and special arrangements in a building not constructed for the purpose, like the South Kensington Museum, before an old building like the British Museum should be opened at night. Professor Tyndall, in answer to the question addressed to him, replied—

"1. I think it would be necessary to make special arrangements for the lighting of the British Museum with gas, with a view to public inspection at night. 2. I deem it essential to remove the products of combustion of the gas, and that neither they nor the unburnt gas should be permitted to diffuse in the air of the rooms. 3. With these precautions I do not apprehend any injury either to the collections or the building through the use of gas at a sufficient distance. The lighting of the picture galleries at South Kensington is likely to furnish you with very valuable hints regarding the lighting of the Museum."!

He would next call the attention of the House to the opinion of Captain Shaw. That officer stated that the risk to the British Museum from the use of gas would arise, first, from the escape of gas; second, from the over heating; and third, from the injurious chemical effects. In his Report Captain Shaw said—

"I am not at all an alarmist in this or any other matter connected with my profession; on the contrary, I say plainly that I believe it to be quite possible to introduce artificial light with almost complete safety into a building as large as the British Museum, and filled with contents of a similar kind and equal value, provided that the building were specially designed and carefully constructed for the purpose; but in this case I wish to state my clear and deliberate opinion, founded not only on general experience, but also and more particularly on a complete knowledge of everything connected with the structure itself and what it contains, that it would not be possible now to devise a safe mode of introducing gas into the British Museum. Having thus explained the risks, I next turn to the precautions which should be taken in the event of its being decided to light the Museum, and, after mature consideration, I am compelled to say that the only reasonably sound measure which I can think of to obviate the risk in any important degree would be to increase the watch of firemen, police, and attendants of all kinds at least four-fold, and even then the safety of the building would be very inferior to what it is now. It seems to me to be hardly comprehensible that anyone really interested in the British Museum and its contents should propose a measure of which the risks are so obvious and the advantages so doubtful."

Therefore the Trustees, with every desire to do all they could to enable the working classes to visit the Museum at convenient hours would, he believed, one and all shrink from the responsibility they would have to incur if, while such an amazing risk would have to be run from lighting the building at night, they recommended the House to accede to the proposal of the lion. Gentleman. I will now state what has further been done for making the Museum more generally useful. Last year the Trustees resolved to propose in the Estimates of this year an extra sum for the purpose of opening the Museum at later hours on the two days when the working classes were able to get away from their employment and to see all our national institutions; and during the summer months the Museum would be open every Saturday and Monday from 12 o'clock in the day till 8 or half-past 8 in the evening. He thought Saturday and Monday were the two days in the week on which the people were most likely to make their holidays; and if the experiment of opening the institution between the hours he had named on those days were fairly tried, he firmly believed increasing numbers would go to see it. He hoped the House would, therefore, take that as some evidence that the Trustees were anxious to do all in their power to accommodate the artizan and working classes. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the time when the poorer classes would be most likely to go to the Museum was at a later hour at night; but he confessed had great doubts on that point—doubts founded, not on mere conjecture, but on the result of an experiment made in 1862, the year of the second International Exhibition, when the Museum was kept open up to half-past 8 in the evening. He had in his hand a Return showing the numbers of the people who, in 1862, availed themselves of the opportunity of seeing the collection in the evening in every week during the months of May, June, July, and August; and it was a remarkable fact that, although large numbers came between 6 and 7 o'clock, they invariably dropped off between 7 and 8 o'clock. The inference he drew from that was that, if they kept the Museum open at too late an hour, the poor would probably not take advantage of the additional time given for inspecting the collections. In May, 1862, the number of visitors to the British Museum, during the special evening admission, was 1,199 between the hours of and 7, and only 634 between 7 and 8 o'clock. In June, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,259, and between 7 and 8 only 1,259. In July, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,998, and between 7 and 8 only 1,691. In August, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,016, and between 7 and 8 only 665. If the Museum were known to be kept open to a later hour, as the Trustees this year proposed that it should be during the summer months, on Saturdays and Mondays, he trusted that the working classes would make their arrangements accordingly, and be induced to go there in large numbers; but it was a somewhat singular fact that the only experiment of the kind that had been made seemed to indicate that the people desired to get home not much later than 8 o'clock. With, regard to expense, if new structural arrangements were adopted, that, he feared, would be very considerable. The hon. Gentleman contemplated the opening at night of parts of the institution only; but that would never satisfy the people. If the Museum was to be opened at all, it must be opened as completely as circumstances would permit. For the purpose of lighting such a building vertical shafts must be introduced through all the ceilings to facilitate the escape of the gas; subsidiary arrangements would also be required, and the cost, according to a rough estimate, would not be less than £10,000. Add to that the increased number of policemen, firemen, attendants and assistants, and it would be seen that, not merely on account of the risk, but also on account of the expense likely to be incurred, it is worthy of consideration whether it would be wise for the House to sanction or for the Trustees to recommend that the British Museum should be opened and lighted at night, as the Motion of the hon. Gentleman contemplated. For those reasons, and not in the least degree with any view of limiting the advantages which the poorer classes might justly expect to derive from such institutions, but because the danger would be so great, and the benefit comparatively so small, he hoped the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. If that Motion had been made the other night, when he could have moved the Previous Question, he should certainly have met the matter in that way, in order to show that it was not the desire of the Trustees to negative the intentions of the hon. Gentleman, or to refuse or withhold from the people increased facilities for seeing those collections. He should now simply vote that the House go into Committee of Supply, which would be equivalent to moving the Previous Question. He thought the hon. Gentleman might see, after the observations he had just made, that it would be better to await the results of the experiment which the Trustees were going to try on Saturdays and Mondays; it would be better to see whether the working classes availed themselves of the additional opportunities to be afforded them for viewing the collection before we encountered such great risks as he had pointed out. And therefore in the absence of fuller and more accurate information than the House at present had on the subject, he trusted they would not agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

said, he was very glad to find that this question had been again brought under the attention of the House, as it seemed to show that there was some disposition to meet the wishes of the working classes. The Motion he made for a Select Committee in 1860 had for its ultimate object the opening of such institutions on Sunday, and he was not unprepared for the hostility which it evoked. He had for a long time felt the effects of the hostility he incurred by that effort. It was satisfactory to find that the question of opening these collections on the evenings of week days was now in the hands of another hon. Member, and was likely to be received with favour. He believed a similar idea had been put into practice at Kew Gardens and Hampton Court with the very best effect. But if these collections could not be opened on Sunday, the working classes ought, at all events, to have every opportunity of seeing them during the week; and it was simply a mockery to say they could visit them in the middle of the day, or before the time at which mechanics' institutes were opened. There was a pride, he was glad to say, in the working men, who wished to go to such places as respectable as possible, and it was impossible they could do so till some time after they had left their daily labour. He considered that the difficulty as to lighting might be readily got over if there was any real desire of enabling the working men to see the national pictures, libraries, and collections of natural history. He had said before, and he would repeat it now, that the other portions of society were taking the money of the working people, and using it for their own purposes, when they did not give them every reasonable facility for visiting the public institutions. He was reminded of an observation that had once fallen from a right hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke of the amusement to be found in Blue Books. Now, perhaps, a more instructive Blue Book than the Report of his Select Committee of 1860 could hardly be found. It might not be known to the House generally that, in some cases now, the working classes laboured all day on Sunday in order that they might be able to visit the British Museum and other national collections on Monday. That was a state of things which could hardly be satisfactory to those persons who desired that there should be no opportunity on Sunday of going anywhere but to a place of worship. He was glad the matter was making progress, and he was encouraged by the proverb—"Where there's a will there's a way," to hope that the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) would shortly be overcome. He would suggest that, at any rate, such collections as those from Nineveh, which would illustrate Scripture history, might be exhibited on Sunday and enjoyed by the working classes without harm.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) did not think that those who supported the proposal now before the House meant in any way to reflect on the Trustees of the British Museum. It was, however, rather remarkable that 10 years had elapsed since this matter was first pressed on the attention of the Trustees, and yet that now, for the first time, the attempt had been made to extend the hours of opening on Saturdays and Mondays. He did not think the statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory, because it was shown to the Select Committee that the working classes required an interval between the hours at which they left off work and those at which they could set out to visit any public institution. They had to return to their homes first to tea, and therefore were unable, for example, to reach the Museum before the hour of closing. At the North London Industrial Exhibition, held at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, in 1865, upwards of 200,000 persons paid for admission during 21 days; and at the Working Men's Industrial Exhibition, held for 10 weeks in 1866, more than 300,000 persons paid for admission; the great mass of the visitors, indeed, were working people, who attended on week days after business hours. At the South London Industrial Exhibition, held in 1865, no fewer than 124,000 persons paid for admission on 44 weekday evenings. At the South Kensington Museum, upwards of 3,000,000 persons had been admitted on weekday evenings. At the recent Industrial Exhibition, held in the Lambeth Baths, 42,000 persons, chiefly of the working classes, had paid 2d. for admission on week-day evenings. The Select Committee of 1860, after examining many witnesses, reported that institutions such as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened between the hours of 7 and 10 o'clock, at least three evenings in the week. Professor Faraday did not take the same view of the danger of lighting the British Museum with gas as that expressed by Mr. Braidwood and Captain Shaw. But if the Trustees of the British Museum thought that building not adapted for evening exhibitions, then some portions of the collection should be sent to South Kensington. This could be done without injury to the Museum itself, because there were duplicates of an immense number of the objects. This had nothing to do with the Sunday question. The House had over and over again, and, as he thought, very properly, decided against the national institutions being opened on Sundays. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) would take the sense of the House on the question.

said, he thought the Trustees of the national institutions were as anxious as the promoters of the Motion to give the public all possible advantages of the National Collections. As a Trustee of the National Gallery, he might observe that the powers conferred on his colleagues and himself were small and limited; but there was one thing specially incumbent on them—namely, to take every care of the collection intrusted to their charge. The Trustees of the National Gallery were unanimously anxious to avoid even the slightest risk of danger to the treasures in their charge; and there were two dangers of which they were naturally apprehensive—the first was that of the destruction of the building and its contents by fire; and the second was damage to the pictures from the lighting up of the building with gas. The experiment at South Kensington had not been tried long enough to be decisive of the question whether gas-lighting deteriorated pictures and works of art. This was the first time he ever heard, as had now been stated on the authority of Mr. Cole, that gas improved them. The question, however, was whether the long and constant employment of gas-lights might not greatly affect the pictures, and of this, he was not competent to judge. Anyone who examined the present National Gallery must be convinced that it could not be lighted up without great risk of fire. What had been said about the British Museum applied thoroughly to the National Gallery, with this difference—that some things in the Museum which were saved from fire would not be destroyed by water, while the water used to extinguish a fire would be as injurious to pictures as fire itself. On these grounds, the trustees of the National Gallery had the greatest objection to lighting up the present building. Whether a new building might be lighted up with gas, was a question to be decided by the Government of the day, or those who were in charge of it, for when it was erected sufficient precautions might be taken to guard against the risk of fire and the damage of the pictures from ordinary lighting. The hon. Member (Mr. Allen) spoke of bringing the people to the building by the thousands; but even that in itself might be attended with injury to the pictures in the absence of proper arrangements for ventilation. Everyone who took an interest in the progress of art valued so much the pictures we now possessed as to desire that they should be kept out of the shadow of danger, and that no experiment should be made which would jeopardize them. The hon. Gentleman must feel that, until some precautions were taken which could be taken only in a reconstructed building, it would be unwise to attempt to light up our National Gallery.

said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) was clearly intended as an alternative proposal to the opening of the British Museum and the National Gallery on Sundays. Even so, he, as a Trustee of the National Gallery, would gladly assist the hon. Gentleman in his object, were it only possible to effect it; because he felt certain that the interest which would be created among the working classes, by their becoming acquainted with the noble national collections of art and science, would render them less tolerant of that legislation which closed those galleries to them on the only day in the week when men have rested from their toil. But, unfortunately, it could not be effected. It was no fault of the Trustees. These treasures of art were such that, if de- stroyed, they could never be replaced—an insurance representing ten times their cost price could not replace them—for they were unique; and their loss would be an irreparable blow not merely to England, but to the civilization of the world—just such a blow as the world had received recently by the accidental burning of the famous Peter Martyr, of Titian, at Venice. At present the structure of the National Gallery was totally unfitted for being lit up by gas; and even were it so fitted, he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) would still shrink from the responsibility of what a slight act of omission, or neglect, might bring with it; to say nothing of the damage which might arise even without an accident. All the arguments applicable and applied by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) to the British Museum, were still more applicable to the National Gallery. The Trustees of the National Gallery were most desirous to popularize the collections of which they had charge, and to give every accommodation to the public; but the construction of the Gallery would render lighting most dangerous. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) referred to Kensington, and said he hoped that, as Kensington was lit up at night, a portion of the Natural History Collections of the British Museum would, be removed there for exhibition. He (Mr. W. H. Gregory) hoped, on the contrary, that the New Museum of Natural History, so long promised by successive Governments, would be undertaken at once, in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Committee of 1869; and, if so, there was nothing to prevent the architect from making arrangements for the lighting up of a portion of it. Then, as to the Galleries at Kensington—alluded to by the Mover and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird)—there was the greatest difference between the picture galleries of Kensington and the picture galleries of Trafalgar Square. The Galleries at Kensington were narrower, lower, and more accessible to light. The pictures, too, at Kensington were modern, far brighter in colour, and consequently more easily lighted up than the older pictures at Trafalgar Square. The tone of ancient pictures was generally low, and absorbed much light. Anyone who was in the habit of lighting up ancient pic- tures in his own house was aware that to see these pictures well the light must be approached to them, or they to the light; but in bringing the light close arises the risk of heating, of desiccation, and consequently of irretrievable ruin. If pictures were to be lit up with safety and efficiency means should be taken to provide a copious supply of light; but it should come from outside the room—that is, if the lighting were to be constant. Of course, were it only to be done very rarely, the risk would be comparatively little, as at the Royal Academy at present. But it was idle to enter into these matters and to argue on what was impossible, for unless the rooms at Trafalgar Square were altered, and that at a large expense, lighting would be impossible. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution quoted the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Institutions, which sat in 1860, as justifying his proposal. But the Committee distinctly laid down the principle "that proper precautions against fire should be taken;" and one of the first precautions insisted on by Professor Faraday was "that the roofs of galleries, which may be lighted by gas, should be of iron"—and he distinctly stated "he would hesitate to recommend lighting in the British Museum," and à fortiori in the National Gallery. A fortiori, because not only was there even a greater danger from fire there, but because, as Professors Hoffman Tyndall, and Faraday, in their Report on lighting pictures by gas, state—

"That London gas has not been cleared of sulphide of carbon, which it is not safe to permit to come into contact with pictures painted in oil or other colours."

But, as the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) had rightly pointed out, the real evidence which came home to every one was that of the experienced Chief of the Fire Brigade—Mr. Braidwood—who, after speaking of the desiccation and discolouring caused by the fumes of gas and of the danger of explosion wherever it is used, sums up by giving his deliberate opinion thus—

"I believe the risk to be such that, on no consideration, should a building intended to last for ages, and containing such invaluable property, be subjected to it."

After such evidence as this he would, indeed, be a bold man who would take the risk of advising gas lights for those galleries. If proper structural arrangements were made—as he hoped they shortly would be—in the National Gallery, he thought it would not be impracticable to open a room or two at night for the exhibition of drawings. Still, there was something to be said on the subject of locality. There was not much objection, on the ground of locality, to evening openings at the British Museum; but the National Gallery being just over barracks, where a large number of soldiers were collected, and where the neighbourhood was far from select, the consequence of nightly openings might easily be conceived. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution expatiated on the cheapness with which his proposal could be effected. The National Gallery would only cost £4,000; the British Museum £6,000 a year for lighting up. But as cheapness seemed so important, it was well it should be known that for Sunday opening the National Gallery would cost £150, and the British Museum £250. The hon. Gentleman talked of bringing the working classes to higher and purer pleasures than the public-house; but if he was in earnest in that expression, let him join in opening these galleries on the only day when those who had been toiling all the week could really enjoy them. In Dublin, last year, where the people had insisted on having their institutions open on Sunday, there were 118,942 visitors to the National Gallery, and of these 28,200 went on Sunday. The Director had written to him to this effect—

"The visitors on Sundays are almost exclusively of the working classes, and they are generally remarkable for the care and interest with which they examine the pictures, and for their quiet and orderly conduct while in the Gallery."

Such were the results in Dublin; and he hoped that if the lion. Member's conscience could stand galleries being open on Sunday at Hampton Court, it would not be shocked by a similar latitude being sanctioned in Bloomsbury and Trafalgar Square. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.

trusted the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne would be satisfied with the discussion, and would not press a Motion which could only be productive of negative results. Such institutions as the National Gallery and the British Mu- sum were places for the deposit of unique works of art, which, if destroyed, could never be replaced; and, therefore, much as he desired to give every facility for their being seen, he thought there ought not to be any danger of their destruction. The House ought to be satisfied with the risk run at South Kensington Museum, the loss of which would be irreparable. Having recently gone over the National Gallery, he was alarmed at the dangerous condition and position of that building; and was convinced that there would be great danger in adopting gas burners there, for the roof had been built without any such idea on the part of the architects; and, as far as it had gone, the debate had fully shown how strong were the arguments against the proposition before the House.

said, that the question before the House was not as to the opening of the National Gallery or the British Museum on Sundays, but whether those buildings could be opened with safety at night—a result which he was of opinion was quite impossible. Those buildings were constructed, before the fire-proof principle was understood, and when but little was known of the practical introduction of wrought iron; the roofs of these buildings were of ordinary construction, and not calculated to bear the great heat which would be produced by gas being lighted under them every night. With regard to the effects of gas products, he had in his own house done everything he could to prevent the fumes from penetrating into his library, but he had failed; and the same result had occurred at the London Institution, where books had been almost entirely destroyed. Notwithstanding all that had been done to absorb or abstract gas products, it would be quite impossible to introduce gas into the present National Gallery with safety. He differed from the opinion expressed by Mr. Cole as to gas-lighting, and could point to a picture, by Mr. Howard, which he (Sir William Tite) presented to the South Kensington Museum, that was cracked in all directions, and how it was to be repaired he could not imagine. He believed the action of gas upon pictures to be very mischievous, and suggested that time should be given for further consideration before an experiment was made upon national trea- sures, which were of inestimable value, and could not be replaced. He did not entertain the opinion that it was very important to open these institutions at night, because the working classes could see them at Easter and on other holidays; but with regard to the British Museum more particularly, he was sure that to open it at night would be much more dangerous to the contents than advantageous to the public.

said, he was sure that the House cordially sympathized with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) in the object he had in view, and it would be a great pleasure to all of them if they could carry out that object without a danger which would counterbalance the advantage to be gained. As a Trustee of the British Museum, however, he felt bound to say that, in his opinion, it would be a most dangerous thing to light up that institution by night. No one could say what might be the effect of gas-burners there. Both at the British Museum and at the National Gallery there were things which, as they hoped, would exist hundreds, nay, thousands of years. The effect of gas, continued for years in either place, might be most deleterious. All observation and modern science pointed in that direction, and therefore we ought not rashly to generalize and suppose that, because hitherto no such effects had been seen at South Kensington, the same results would not follow there as elsewhere after such a system of lighting had continued for 100 years. It should also be remembered that science was advancing very rapidly, and difficulties which seemed insuperable in these matters to-day might, if we waited patiently for a few years, be met and overcome. On this point he would read to the House an extract from the Report of the late Professor Faraday, who said—

"I am very strongly against the common practice of erecting a church or other building by one set of hands under one mind, and then giving it over to another authority and set for the introduction of gas apparatus and pipes, or pipes of hot air or water (frequently at high temperatures and pressures), into parts and places where no intention respecting them had existed before, where no preparation had been made for them, and where the final arrangements must partake more of accident and risk than of premeditation and forethought."

That was exactly the case here with buildings which were not constructed with a view to gas, and which would, therefore, be exposed to a formidable and unknown risk under any such system of lighting. Professor Faraday's remark applied strongly to the British Museum, and perhaps still more strongly to the National Gallery, which had a wooden roof. That being so, he would not dwell on the risk of fire, which was not to be contemplated without absolute horror, because the loss to the human race by the burning of the British Museum no words could express and no money could compensate. The blow to human knowledge and progress would be absolutely incalculable; and the House must therefore see that it would be very unwise to attempt any plan of gas lighting in the existing buildings. But the House was aware that considerable quantities of land had been purchased behind the National Gallery, on which sooner or later—and he hoped rather sooner than later—new galleries would have to be erected. It was not for him to presume to judge whether these galleries could be put up so as to exhibit pictures at night; but the subject would be most carefully and minutely considered, and, if it were possible, he could not doubt that the Government of the day, whatever that Government might be, would be only too happy to make suitable buildings. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would take this statement into consideration as affording, not an immediate, but a proximate hope that something might be done. It was impossible to say absolutely that it could be done, because even there he should be against incurring the risk of destroying these valuable pictures, even for so good an object as that contemplated by the hon. Member. As to the British Museum he could speak with somewhat greater confidence. It had long been decided that the Natural History Collections there should be separated from the rest of the contents. Of course the working classes might find some pleasure in seeing the Antiquities; but the objects which would naturally interest them the most would be those which dealt with the works of nature rather than the works of man—the Ethnological, the Mineralogical, and Natural History Collections; because everybody knew that, in order to enjoy works of high art, particularly Antiquities, there was required a cultivation of the eye and the taste involving more previous study than could be expected from the average working man. The removal of this collection from the British Museum to some other site was a crying necessity; and it was not impossible that he might be able to make some proposal to the House on this subject during the present Session. At any rate, new buildings were to be put up, and. if this could be done without any danger or inconvenience, they would, be lighted with gas and thrown open in the evening for the use and amusement of the working classes. Of course no one could say that the risk of fire would not be increased; but lions and crocodiles might be replaced, while objects of art and antiquities could not be. As so much assent had been given by the House to the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, and as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been able to hold out some not very distant prospect of in some degree realizing his wishes, probably the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press his Motion.

said, he would suggest, in reference to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), that during the six weeks including the longest days in the year the working classes should have the opportunity of visiting the Museum six, or, at all events four, evenings in the week.

rose, according to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the question of illegal lotteries. The first lottery established in England for public purposes was in 1569, and the money thus raised was applied to the repair of certain harbours. Lotteries for various private purposes were authorized subsequently, until the passion for this species of gaming rose to such a height, that, in 1699, a statute was passed, "for suppressing of Lotteries," whereby they were declared public nuisances, and the penalty of £500 was inflicted on the persons who should keep any lottery open; and this was followed by a series of statutes in the reign of Queen Anne, and in the subsequent reigns. State lotteries, however, continued to be authorized by law, and down to 1826 the statute book was crowded with. Acts, authorizing the raising of money "for the service of His Majesty," by this means. In 1808, however, a Committee reported most strongly against the consequences which resulted from the speculation to which they gave rise. They said that numerous families were ruined by this species of gambling and their members reduced to destitution, whereby trade was greatly injured and the poor rates greatly increased; while, at the same time, there was no mode of raising money for the State which was so burdensome, pernicious, and unproductive. The practice, however, still continued. The last statute by which money was authorized to be raised for the public service by way of lottery was the 4 Geo. IV. c. 60, by the 19th section of which it is recited that "whereas it may be expedient to discontinue raising money for the public service by way of lottery after the sale of tickets authorized by this Act;" and subsequent sections provide for the termination of the system on the expiry of three years from the passing of the Act. Virtually by this statute public lotteries were abolished. Whilst, however, State lotteries had thus been sanctioned, the Legislature had endeavoured to suppress all other kinds of lotteries, and from 1699 to 1845 various statutes were passed for their suppression. They were declared illegal, and the prohibition was attempted to be enforced by the infliction of heavy penalties upon the promoters, which, were assigned in varying proportions between the informers and the Crown, or by indictment of the projectors as rogues and vagabonds. By the earlier statutes any person was able to institute proceedings; but by the 42 Geo. III., while any person was still at liberty to proceed by indictment, the consent of the Attorney General was necessary to proceedings whereby any pecuniary penalty was sought to be recovered. By the statute 6 & 7 Will. IV., entitled "An Act to prevent the advertising of Foreign and other illegal Lotteries," it was recited that, whereas the laws in force were insufficient to prevent the advertising of foreign and other illegal lotteries, it was enacted that no person should advertise such lotteries under penalty of £50, which might be sued for by any person, one-half of which were to go to the informer, and the other half to the Crown. This Act gave rise to vexatious proceedings by informers against printers and others, who had unwittingly violated the statute; and a Bill was introduced in 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 74), by which all such actions then pending were summarily stopped, and it was enacted that thereafter all penalties under the former statute should be sued for in the name of the Attorney or Solicitor General in England and Ireland, or of the Lord Advocate in Scotland, and that the whole penalties should go to Her Majesty. That was the present state of the law. When this statute was passing through Parliament, no debate took place upon it in the House of Commons; but in the House of Lords there were brief discussions on the second and third readings, in the course of which Lord Derby, who had charge of the Bill, assured Lord Monteagle that the statute was not intended to remain a dead letter. To a certain extent that undertaking had been carried out. In Scotland he believed there had been no complaint of any infraction of the law; and in England proceedings had been occasionally instituted; and in the present year persons had been indicted and convicted at the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. Now, under these circumstances, he might be asked, what was the complaint he had to make? From a correspondence entered into by the secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society with the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home Office, he found that it was complained that while, on the one hand, an endeavour was made to enforce the law with regard to other kinds of lotteries, no attempt was made to do so in the case of Roman Catholic lotteries. That was the charge which was brought against the Government, and it was one which he thought was worthy the consideration of the House. In the course of the correspondence to which he was referring, mention was made of Irish lotteries, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a letter addressed to the secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society, directed him to apply to the Irish Office with reference to those lotteries. Three letters were accordingly addressed by the secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject; but to those letters no reply-whatever was received—so that the right hon. Gentleman had acted towards the writer in a manner which could hardly be regarded as courteous. He had put Questions both to the Chief Secretary and to the Secretary for the Home Department in relation to these lotteries, and the replies which had been given to those Questions were, in his opinion, highly unsatisfactory. The Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to think that the Roman Catholic lotteries were not at all illegal; while it appeared to be the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, though illegal, they did not deserve to be prosecuted. In his reply the right hon. Gentleman said that these lotteries were like raffles held at bazaars; but there was a very wide difference between raffles at bazaars held for charitable purposes, and lotteries where the tickets were sold publicly, and commissions or allowances paid to those who could dispose of large quantities: but the question was not whether raffles at charitable bazaars were or were not illegal—it was certain that these Roman Catholic lotteries were illegal. Again, those lottery tickets were circulated under false pretences. It was impossible to ascertain from them that the lottery was for the benefit of Roman Catholic institutions. The word "Catholic," at all events, was not to be found on any of the tickets which had come under his notice. Again, these tickets held out a pretence that the lotteries were connected with the system of Art Unions, and it was thus endeavoured to persuade the public that they were perfectly legal under the Act of 1845. Now, it was by no means his intention to attack Art Unions; but he would remind the House that the late Sir Robert Peel expressed his dissatisfaction at Art Unions being legalized, and stated his opinion, since cited with approval by the Committee which investigated the subject in 1866, that, while the promoters of Art Unions supposed they were the promoters of art, they were in reality the promoters of gambling, and that, instead of elevating the public taste they had rather tended to lower it, while they had conferred very little benefit indeed on artists. His present object, however, was merely to show that these Roman Catholic lotteries did not come within the exemption in favour of Art Unions. In the first place, an Art Union could not draw a lottery without the sanction of the Board of Trade, or, as an alternative, it must be incorporated by Royal Charter. Neither of these conditions, he presumed, would be found to exist in the case of these Roman Catholic lotteries. Again, the Act sanctioned no lotteries, unless they were for the distribution of drawings, paintings, and works of art exclusively; but certainly some of the prizes in Roman Catholic lotteries did not come within that category. He held in his hand a ticket connected with a lottery in support of St. Clare's Female Orphanage, Harold's Cross, Dublin, which the Lord Lieutenant had refused to suppress, although his attention had been drawn to it. Among the prizes enumerated were—"a hamper of the best wine," "a chest of black tea, containing 401b.," "a case of the best brandy," and "a barrel of the best sugar." These, certainly, were not works of art. Then, among the prizes in the lottery in support of St. Joseph's Orphanage, Mount-joy Street, Dublin, were—"a highly bred pony," "a hamper of wine," "a hamper containing a turkey," "a loaf of sugar," and "a gallon of Irish whisky." In another case it was announced that among the prizes there would be—"a pretty old cottage, freehold, value £75," "a stone-built cottage," and "a cottage and home forever, with a little garden." These, again, were certainly not works of art. The stone cottage, he might remark, was situate at Brailes, in Warwickshire, and it was added that it would give a vote for the county: the winner of the prize might, therefore, have a voice in the return of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The vicar of Brailes stated that those cottages had been raffled for and put in lotteries more than once. That seemed to be a dishonest practice, and it was very strange that those cottages should always find their way back into the hands of the promoters of lotteries. With regard to the Roman Catholic Poor Schools in Homer Row, Marylebone, the secretary of the Scottish Reformation Society had drawn the attention of the Home Secretary to the illegal character of the lottery that was set on foot for the promotion of those schools, and had received a reply in the following terms

"Whitehall, Feb. 14. "Sir,—With reference to your letter of the 11th instant, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Bruce to inform you that, in regard to the Homer Row Poor Schools' lottery, the Solicitor to the Treasury has been already instructed to take steps to prevent it. I am, &c, A. F. O. LIDDELL."

Notwithstanding this intimation, the lottery continued to be advertised, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on being subsequently questioned in the House, said he would consider the matter, but rather thought a prosecution would not be necessary. This lottery had not yet been drawn, but had been postponed from the 7th of April to the 6th of June, and he hoped it would be prevented by the Government. Persons purchased tickets who had no interest whatever in the object for which those lotteries were got up, and it was clear, therefore, that they were actuated by a desire for gain, and the spirit of gambling. The effect of the action taken by the Lord Advocate in Scotland was that the illegal traffic had been stopped in that part of the kingdom, and a Roman Catholic Orphanage near Lanark, which cost upwards of £8,000, and was established chiefly by lotteries, admitted, in its report for 1869, that this hitherto proved resource had been put an end to. He asked the Government, therefore, either to enforce the law in England or to allow others to enforce it. It might be necessary to consolidate and amend the law, for there were no fewer than 12 Acts in force with regard to illegal lotteries; but if the Government thought the present law sufficient let them put it in force. If it were desirable to alter the law, and the Government did not think proper to introduce a Bill for that purpose, humble individual as he was, he would nevertheless be prepared to introduce a measure on the subject. He left the case in the hands of the House, feeling persuaded that it was their desire to secure an impartial administration of the law, and fair play and justices to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects.

said, that, as to the moral character of lotteries in general, he quite concurred with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charley); and in every case where it had been shown that the effect of these lotteries was to deteriorate the public morals, the action of the Home Office had manifested the disapproval of the Government, and their efforts in many instances had been attended with success. As far as he understood the complaint of the hon. Gentleman, it was to the effect that the Home Office did not exercise the power which it possessed of instituting proceedings against these illegal lotteries indiscriminately, and without exercising that discretion which he maintained that it could properly exercise as to the objects of prosecution. The hon. Gentleman did not pretend to say that, in the ordinary cases of illegal lotteries, where the object was speculative gain, the action of the Government had not been steadily exercised; what he said was that, in some cases where the object of the lottery was to forward some useful or religious object, the action of the Home Office had not been equally resolute and severe. He (Mr. Bruce) might say that the practice had been, without exception, to communicate with the promoters of the lottery, pointing out to them that, however meritorious the object, the proceeding itself was illegal, and subjected them to prosecution; and, within his experience, he had never known an instance—and he had inquired, with a similar result, as to the experience of those long connected with the Department—in which such interference had failed in attaining the object in view. He was happy to say that it had never been found necessary to institute proceedings against lotteries the objects of which in themselves were good. And he doubted very much whether the more direct interference of the Executive would have been approved by Parliament in cases where the lottery was proposed for some directly charitable and religious object. The hon. Gentleman said, with great exultation, that the action of the Executive in Scotland had been more vigorous, and that under it a Roman Catholic orphanage in Lanarkshire, which had cost upwards of £8,000, and was established and maintained chiefly by these illegal means, had been deprived of its revenues. For his part, he (Mr. Bruce) thought the injury thereby inflicted on Roman Catholic orphans was much greater than any advantage derived from the suppression of lotteries held for their support. Lotteries, as they knew, were got up for very different purposes; in the administration, therefore, of the Acts for their suppression the Government ought to exercise a discrimination. If they were to put the law in force with equal severity against lotteries set on foot for pious and charitable objects, as against those demoralizing schemes of which the object was to make money by gambling, they would simply be making these Acts unpopular, and probably producing a strong reaction. He quite admitted that some of these Roman Catholic lotteries were conducted in a manner that had a tendency to promote a spirit of gambling; and in such cases, where they were brought under the notice of the Government, he thought it would be their duty to enforce the law; but he did not think it was the duty of the Government to take the same steps which they would do if the more immediate object of the lotteries were gambling, instead of the promotion of charitable objects. That was the spirit in which the Executive had acted upon all occasions up to that time; and he could not think that the House would deem the course which they had pursued an improper one. As to Ireland, the Executive there had judged for itself. In Scotland he knew that the Lord Advocate had been called upon to interfere with respect to some of these lotteries, and had brought down upon himself the ill word of the Scottish Reformation Society, because, in certain cases, he refused to deal with them on the ground that having originated in Ireland they must be dealt with by the authorities in that country. For the same reason he (Mr. Bruce) referred the matter to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as the matter was one in which the Home Office had no power to interfere. That was the mode in which the Government had acted, and he thought the House would see that their course had been governed by a sound discretion.

moved the Amendments of which he had given Notice—in page 5, line 33, after "contract," to insert "un- less the Court decides that he ought on special grounds to be so entitled;" and to leave out sub-section (3).

opposing the Amendments, they were withdrawn.

said, he rose to move an Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson); but he did not wish to revive the question already decided as regarded the future, and he therefore would propose some variation in the wording of the Amendment to confine its operation to the past. He found that the number of leases for terms between 21 and 31 years was about 22,000, the number for lives was 28,000, and the number for lives or years was about 30,000. Under these circumstances, it would be grossly unjust that the leaseholders for 31 years should be dealt with differently from holders of leases for lives, which had extended in actual duration to the very period fixed upon by the Government. He therefore proposed that the exemption under this clause as regarded the past should extend not merely to cases of 31 years' leases, but also to cases of lives where the tenure had continued during 31 years. With this Amendment, if the life died before the end of 31 years, the landlord would have to pay for improvements; but if the life lasted for 31 years, the unexcepted improvements would be presumed to have been exhausted. He moved, therefore, in page 5, line 36, after "thirty-one years," to insert—

"Or in the case of leases made before the passing of this Act for a term of a life or lives, with or without a concurrent term of years, and which shall have existed for thirty-one years before the making of the claim."

said, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hit upon a case of omission in the Bill with respect to the past. He would at once accept the Amendment, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consent that the Amendment would read, "a term of lives," instead of "a term of a life or lives;" because the ordinary equivalent for 31 years' leases in Ireland was three lives.

moved in sub-section 4 to leave out "upon such terms as the Court may deem reasonable," and insert "as hereinafter provided for." The object of his Amendment, as carried out by words he intended to propose hereafter, was to lay down specific rules in the statute, by which the terms imposed by the landlord in giving permission to the tenant to sell his interest in the improvements should be adjudged reasonable or unreasonable, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Court.

thought the dangers which his hon. Friend anticipated were purely imaginary, and opposed the Amendment.

said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire had given Notice to propose in page 6, line 22, after "claim," to insert "for improvements effected before the passing of this Act." Doubts were expressed by his right hon. Friend on the second reading on this subject, and he had given Notice of similar Amendments on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses. The propriety of bringing forward the subject was now under consideration. It was not intended to move the proviso at present; but it might he expedient to propose these Amendments on the Report.

said, he wished to know whether, in the case of leases under this clause, it would be both retrospective and prospective; and, if so, whether the case he put last night would come under this Bill?

said, that the observations he made on the case put last night were equally applicable tonight.

said, that although he attached great importance to the Amendments proposed to be made in this clause by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he and others felt bound, in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), to press the Amendment which stood in the hon. and learned Gentleman's name—namely, after "holding," to insert "under a tenancy created after the passing of this Act." The effect of the clause as it stood would be that whenever a case was about to be tried in which a tenant claimed compensation for improvements, which he asserted he had added to the value of the property, as soon as he had proved that an amelioration had taken place the law would presume that this improvement and every part of it had been made by the tenant. The Court would then be bound to give him the full value of that improvement, and to conclude that all the necessary money had been paid and all the materials provided by the tenant. The clause comprehended improvements made both before and after the passing of the Act, and the object of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond was to separate the operation of the clause in regard to the future and the past. With regard to the improvements made after the passing of the Act, the question mainly involved political considerations. As regarded the past, the effect of that section, even as it would be modified by the Amendments of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, would, as far as it had any operation, be very injurious and very unjust, and that towards the very class of landlords who, in their dealings with their humbler tenantry, had been liberal, open-handed, and unsuspicious, and who had taken no trouble to preserve any record of the assistance they had given. The main arguments used in support of that clause had been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and also by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. When he introduced the Bill to the House the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), speaking of that part of the measure, said that what they proposed to do was—

"To reverse the presumption of the present law; that the law as it stood absolutely gave the improvements to the landlord, and presumed them to have been his work."—[3 Hansard, cxcix, 374.]

That statement was founded on a slight misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject as if there existed in law a presumption of evidence in favour of the landlord; but there was nothing of the kind, and it was impossible to reverse what did not exist. Again, it had been argued by others that as in England, where the improvements were generally made by the landlord, the presumption of evidence was with him; so in Ireland, where the improvements were generally made by the tenant, the presumption of evidence should be with the tenant. There was, of course, a maxim in the law of real property, both in England and Ireland, which gave the landlord the improvements on his land; but what the Government had done was not to reverse that maxim. That was what no Government would dare to propose, for it would be to make it not a question of evidence as to who made the improvements, but to hand over the value of them to the tenant, no matter who had made them. There was, therefore, no inference to be drawn é converse. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had further urged, and with plausibility, that the Government proposed to cast the burden of proof on him who was best able to bear it; and the Chief Secretary had explained that they threw the onus of proof on "the stronger party," who, in that instance, the Chief Secretary said, was the landlord. That was exactly the question to be considered, and it was for the Committee to say, after due discussion of the point, whether for that particular purpose, as to the claim for improvements made before the passing of the Act, the landlord was really the stronger party. The landlord was, of course, the stronger party in the sense that he was stronger in wealth, in intelligence, in education and in station, and that he had agents and books, where such had been kept to refer to—all which might be reasons for making the presumption to be against him in future. But, as to the past, the question was, which party was the stronger in respect to the possession of evidence. The landlord had been encouraged by the existing law to discard documentary proof, and would have no such evidence as he could bring into Court to rebut the proposed presumption. For the meaning of the presumption being in favour of the tenant was, that the Court should presume that there had been a case, most complete, most cogent and coercive, made for him, and unless the landlord could produce full and formal proof to overthrow that case the presumption in favour of the tenant must prevail. What would be the position of the landlord under this clause even after the Amendments of the Chief Secretary had been adopted? The object of the Amendments proposed by the Chief Secretary was to exclude from the operation of that presumption of law certain classes of cases in which compensation was claimed in respect of improvements made before the passing of that Act. The first of those classes of cases was, where such improvements had been made previous to the time at which the holding in reference to which the tenant claimed had been conveyed on actual sale to the landlord, or those through whom he derived his title. Obviously, the object of that Amendment was to meet the glaring injustice that would otherwise arise owing to a large portion—one-sixth—of the landed property of Ireland having changed hands within the last 20 years in the Landed Estates Court, with that change of hands all possibility of getting evidence, to rebut the presumption in favour of the tenant, having in nine cases out of 10 gone from the landlord. The Amendment, no doubt, met the case of purchasers; but while it prevented one glaring injustice, it admitted the whole principle for which he contended,; for how could they distinguish between the instance of a landlord who had bought the land and been thus deprived of the possibility of rebutting the presumption in favour of the tenant, and the analogous case in which the landlord's agent had been changed or was dead? He, however, thankfully accepted that part of the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. The second part excepted claims made by tenants under lease; and the third excepted improvements made 20 years or upwards before the passing of the Act. That was a very fair Amendment; but he thought it gave up the strongest ground on which that section could possibly have been defended. For it might, perhaps, have been argued that, in instances where the date of the improvement was remote, and neither party could adduce legal proof, the landlord would, in the absence of the presumption of evidence, get all by force of the maxim of law. The fourth and last part of the Chief Secretary's Amendment excepted cases in which the holding was of more than £100 of annual value. And there again, although he was very glad to have the Amendment, he must say it exactly covered the class of cases in which it was least wanted; for in that class of large holdings the improvements made by the landlord were generally of a very palpable character, such as houses, buildings, main drainage, and the like, which could be easily seen and recollected, and some trace of which might possibly be found in the records of the estate. But where the landlord was the proprietor of acres occupied by a number of small tenants the injustice of the section would be very great, and especially if he had been kind and unsuspicious. Year after year he would probably have given slate, timber, and other materials to his tenants, who, coming to him with a poor mouth, asked him to do so. In those cases, and they were very numerous, the tenant contributed only his labour to the improvements. He thought the tenant should be remunerated for that labour, if he had not enjoyed the fruits of it while in occupation; but, on the other hand, he did no-think the landlord should be made to pay for what he had himself contributed. In 99 cases out of 100 no account had been kept of such contributions of materials, and the landlord would have very great difficulty in meeting the claim of the tenant. In what position would the landlord be when he came into Court? The tenant having shown on the testimony of his friends that the improvements did not exist at the time covered by the provision proposed by the Government, he might remain with closed lips. Then the landlord came to prove his case. He asked hon. Members, who knew Ireland, how far could the Irish tenantry generally be expected to prove a case for Irish landlords? There were, in ordinary cases, two ways of meeting a claim if it were not founded in fairness. You might either bring forward contradictory evidence or cross-examine the claimant; but the effect of this 5th section would be, in many instances, to deprive you of cross- examination. He objected to the proposal of the Government because it was not necessary, and also because it was not just. The true principle of the law of evidence to be applied to his argument was that, whenever the subject-matter to be proved lay peculiarly within the knowledge of one of the parties rather than within that of the other, that such subject-matter should be proved by the party having that peculiar knowledge of it. Now, the history of those small improvements was not likely to be within the recollection of the landlord. His attention was not concentrated on any one farm, and he had other interests to engage it. But the tenant who was adscriptus glebœ watched everything that was done to a hedge or a ditch on his small patch of land. These things constituted the history of his unfortunate and circumscribed life, and they were recorded on his mind. The provision was unjust to the landlord, because it was retrospective; and past custom and established law had not only afforded him an excuse for not keeping any record of his contributions to improvements, but had invited him to disregard doing so. The apprehensions to which the expectation of a Land Bill had given rise prevented English capitalists from lending money to Irish proprietors. Persons justly thought there would be no security for money on land which was covered with small tenants, who might fight their landlord over every hedge and ditch with the advantage of having this presumption of law in their favour. The clause would be injurious to the tenantry also, because it would act as an incitement to them to bring forward unfounded claims. It was an invitation to them to press unjust demands freed from the penalties of perjury; for their claims would, in many instances, not involve the sanction of an oath. The clause would hold out inducements to the tenantry to indulge in just that kind of litigation which must produce discord and bitterness between them and their landlords. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, he believed that the want of a settlement of the Irish land question, and not the apprehension of a Land Bill, had made persons reluctant to advance money on Irish property; but he was not one of those who thought that the introduction of English money was a great desideratum for Ireland. There was a great deal of money laid up in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down assumed that the perjury of the Irish tenant would prevent justice being done to the landlord; and the hon. and learned Gentle- man also assumed that so much of the land of Ireland had changed hands that all record of improvements by landlords had passed away. Now, the fact was only one-seventh or one eighth of the land of Ireland had changed hands [Mr. PLUNKET: I said one-sixth], so that the difficulty the hon. and learned Member had assumed did not exist. It was idle to say that the landlord was at a disadvantage as compared with the tenant in the matter of records, for, while the tenants were comparatively uneducated, the landlords were rich and intelligent, and most of the landlords, through their agents or sub-agents, kept books in which every transaction was entered, and which could be produced in Court; so that, if an improvement had been made by the landlord, or with the assistance of the landlord, the fact was susceptible of proof. He could not understand what his hon. and learned Friend meant by saying that if a claim were made by the tenant, the tenant was not liable to cross-examination. Any tenant would be liable to cross-examination in such a case. The Committee need, therefore, have no fear that wrong would be done by false swearing on the part of the tenant or by the want of evidence on the part of the landlord.

said, he hoped the Committee would not accede to the Amendment. There had been, and could be, no difficulty in understanding what was meant by the clause. Under the present state of the law the tenant from year to year had no property in his improvements when the tenancy was terminated by a notice to quit, and he knew a case in which a tenant had built, at a cost of £3,000, a house which would become the landlord's if the tenancy were terminated by the usual notice. Even under a lease the improvements of the tenant, unless they were made under a contract allowing him the benefit of them at the expiration of that lease, became the absolute property of the landlord. This was a question, not of presumption, but of property; there was no more presumption in the matter than there was in saying that a man's watch was his own. That being the state of the law, it was admitted that it required a remedy; and if the proposition of the Government were not acceded to the tenant would, to a great extent, be de- prived of the advantage which it was intended to confer upon him. The Bill gave the tenant compensation, to be paid by the landlord, in respect of all improvements of the holding made by the tenant or his predecessor in title, and in that respect it put the tenant in a fair condition; but it was not intended to give the tenant anything he was not honestly entitled to, and Clause 5 only regulated the evidence by which the tenant would be able to prove his case. If there were to be any prospective limitation, the probability was that in 40 or 50 years landlords and tenants would again be in the same position that they were now, and the arguments that had been used now would be repeated. The clause, if it became law, would enact that the presumption should be in favour of the tenant, and why should it not be? He submitted that it was easier for the landlord than for the tenant to prove the expenditure incurved in making improvements. Landlord's improvements wore generally made upon a largo scale, and upon some sort of a predetermined plan; a landlord would have books and vouchers, which he could produce; and a landlord could have no difficulty in proving his case. Another argument in favour of the clause was that the hon. and learned Member had taken up the Amendment which had been placed on the Taper but afterwards abandoned by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundel Palmer), who had carefully weighed all the clauses of the Bill, and had brought to the consideration of each a philosophic and lawyer-like mind, and that traditionary respect for the laws of property which a study of English law was calculated to engender. Further, he had the opinion of Viscount Lifford, a Conservative in politics, one of the most experienced of Irish noblemen in matters, respecting land, who had stated that the difficulty of distinguishing between landlords' and tenants' improvements should be avoided by presuming that all improvements were made by the tenant unless the contrary was proved—an opinion which had been embodied in the 5th clause by the Government. To allow that presumption, he contended, was just, because it was the duty of the Legislature to protect the weak against the strong, and he deemed the landlord to be the strong party and the tenant the weak one. The clause, however, admitted exceptions, because it might happen that a landlord purchased an estate, knowing little or nothing about it, in which case the presumption would not be allowed to the tenant, whose claim would be decided according to the ordinary principles of law. He submitted that the clause as it stood, coupled with the exceptions, would be fair to both landlord and tenant, and promote a better understanding between them. With regard to the evidence that was given in Irish Courts, the style of cross-examination, which had been described, was only one of those forensic tricks to which occasionally both English and Irish lawyers had recourse, and it was hardly fair to base on that an argument against this clause. If the clause had provided that the presumption was in favour of the landlord, the tenant might still bring in his false witnesses; but as the clause stood the landlord would be entitled to obtain the tenant's testimony, because when a tenant made a claim and alleged the presumption to be on his side, it would be in the power of the landlord to dispute it and inquire into it. And was an Irish landlord unable to protect himself in such a case? Why the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) could plead for a landlord as well as for a tenant, or an attorney for the landlord might call the tenant into the witness-box, and, treating him as a hostile witness, cross-examine him as to his claim; so that after all the question resolved itself into one of evidence, and the Chairmen of the Courts before which such cases would come, were quite capable of dealing with Irish witnesses and of ascertaining on which side the truth was told. He submitted that the Committee should pass the clause, subject to the Amendments of which Notice had been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

said, the clause gave the tenant a primâ facie right to all improvements, and threw upon the landlord the onus of proof to the contrary, and there could be no doubt that the result would be that which had been described by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket). A tenant would merely have to call evidence to show that buildings or other improvements had not been made 20 years before, in order to give him a right to claim for all such matters upon the landlord, who would have to pay the compensation if he could not disprove the testimony of the other side. And how was he to do that? The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland said he might call the tenant; but he (Mr. Gregory) never heard of a claim being rebutted by a hostile witness. It was said, however, that a landlord might call his agent; but many cases would occur in which the agent either had no books or had lost them. The management of an estate was a series of improvements which were done by dribblets, and the cost was sometimes allowed from the rent, at others paid by the landlord, and at others by the tenant; it would therefore be impossible in half the cases that would arise for a landlord to show what improvements he had made during a period of 20 years. To a legal mind this was one of the most objectionable clauses of the Bill, because it altered the general law of evidence, which threw upon a person making a claim the onus of proving it. Here the principle was to be reversed, the only reason for it being that the landlord was supposed to be stronger than the tenant. But was this principle carried out in English jurisprudence? Was it there provided that the first issue for decision was as to who was the stronger party, and that then the onus of proofs should be thrown upon him? The provisions of this Bill would militate against the employment of English capital in Ireland. Already there was a prejudice against investments in that country, and wills and settlements were constantly drawn with provisions guarding against such investments. He feared that, under the Bill, provisions of this nature would be increased, and English capital already invested in Ireland would be withdrawn wherever this was possible.

said, that as he had given Notice of the Amendment now before the Committee, he thought it right to explain the view he took of the position in which they were placed by the Notice since given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Throughout the proceedings on this Bill he had felt, and strongly felt, that it was much better to waive abstract views than attempt to force them upon the Government in preference to such an approximation to them as the Government themselves might be willing to accept. Beyond all doubt anything which they were able to do with the concurrence of the Government would be much more likely both to be accepted by the House and, at the same time, to be received with satisfaction out-of-doors, than anything which might appear to be the result of hostile or adverse criticism. Holding this opinion, he had thought it his duty to be prepared to waive the precise form in which he should have preferred to see particular clauses in the Bill, whenever the Government wore willing to do that which would substantially accomplish what seemed to him to be the just objects at which they ought to aim. Now, as this clause originally stood, it was open to the serious objection that it inverted indiscriminately the burden of proof with regard to all improvements whatever, and, under whatever circumstances, threw it upon the landlord to show that he had made improvements if the fact were so. Such a provision could not be right with regard to the large class of valuable and important improvements, especially upon the larger tenancies, as to which there was abundant evidence that the landlord had constantly made or had largely contributed to them. On the other hand, no one could have studied the copious literature of this subject without seeing there was at least equally abundant proof that, upon the small holdings, the improvements, such as they were, had usually been made by the tenants. That being so, it appeared to him that, looking candidly and reasonably at the proposal of the Government, although there might be some exceptions in which the burden of proof might still lie upon the party who had actually made the improvements, and, possibly, cases of difficulty and hardship might thus arise, yet, upon the whole, the safeguards now proposed would leave the burden of proof very much in each case where the actual evidence applicable to the subject taught us it might be fairly left. For example, the proposal of his right hon. Friend, still left the burden of proof upon the claimant where the property was above the annual value of £100; and in his evidence before the Committee, Lord Dufferin, one of the best witnesses on the whole subject to whom one could refer, said that, according to the Ulster system, it would be rarely for the landlord's interest to make the improvements in tenancies of a lower value than that here indicated. Then the Amendment provided for the case of sales under the Encumbered Estates Act and all other sales, and would not throw upon a person who had bought an estate the burden of proving who made the improvements existing before the purchase. Again, the 20 years' limit seemed sufficient to exclude all, or almost all cases where the memory of living men was not likely to be able to throw light upon the matter. When such provisions were made to meet the particular cases in which the clause, as originally framed, might probably have had an unjust operation, he felt it would not become him to press the more extreme form of the proposal he had submitted, more particularly as his proposal was open to the objections that it spoke of tenancies entered into before the passing of the Act, and not of improvements. Improvements made, under tenancies now existing, after the passing of the Act would be covered by the form of the Amendment; and with regard to the future, it was not unreasonable to throw the burden of proof upon the party on whom the Legislature thought it might most conveniently rest, and who would then preserve the necessary evidence of these improvements. He would now suggest, for the consideration of the Government, an additional safeguard which he should be willing, if he received any encouragement from them, to put into shape in a later stage of the Bill. Every Member who had received communications respecting this Bill must know that great numbers of persons wore anxious that, in some form or other, provision should be made for the registration of improvements. Now, the Committee had heard from the head of the Government yesterday—and he was not surprised to hear it—that anything like compulsory provision for the registration of improvements, or provisions which might make the relief given by the Bill to the tenant depend upon registration, was considered open to such grave objections as to be inadmissible. Probably, however, the Government would take a different view of a suggestion for a mere power of registration, which, if adopted, would greatly mitigate the incidence of the clause. He thought there should be a provision by which, if either the landlord or the tenant desired to preserve a record of improvements made by him or Ms successors either before or after the passing of the Act, he should be at liberty to register a schedule specifying these improvements in the Landed Estates Court, subject to the condition that he should, give notice to the other party before doing so, and that the other party should be at liberty, within a reasonable time, to state whether he disputed the improvements or not, and if he did, then the matter might be brought by either party before the County Court, and no registration be made except upon the allowance and certificate of the Court. It appeared to him that a permissive power of registration of that kind could not work any injustice upon any party, and would greatly tend to mitigate the uneasiness and alarm felt by many persons in Ireland, whose views were well worthy of consideration, as to the indefinite nature of the burden of proof, which might be held in suspense for a long period of time before any claim was made. He thought that compulsory registration should not be pressed; but he hoped the Government would favourably consider this suggestion for permissive registration.

said, that, as he understood the clause, it simply proposed to throw the onus of proof, which now rested with the tenant, upon the landlord, who was supposed to be the stronger party. In his opinion, however, it would be impossible for the landlord to furnish the required proof so far as retrospective improvements were concerned. He hoped he would not be considered egotistical if, in illustration of the justice of that view, he referred to his own experience. He had within the last few months made some of the ordinary improvements in a farm, such as grubbing fences, claying, draining and bringing water into the yards, at a cost of £60 or £70, and he maintained that it would be utterly impossible for his landlord to prove those improvements, inasmuch as he believed he knew nothing whatsoever about them. Unless a landlord had notice that he should have to pay for improvements he would not, as a matter of course, look after them. As to improvements made after the passing of the Act, he quite concurred in the view that the presumption should be in favour of the tenant, because it would serve to make the landlord more thoroughly acquainted with every holding on his estate, and if he looked after his property more closely it would be all the better not only for himself but for the tenant. To return to his own case, it might be argued that he was in a position to keep books and to produce records to show the amount of money which he had expended on improvements; but would not the fact that the Irish tenant, who, in all probability made his improvements with his own hands, be more likely to make a greater impression on his mind than the mere payment of a certain sum of money for the purpose. It was impossible, he would repeat, for the landlord to prove retrospective improvements, while, on the contrary, it would be very easy for a tenant to substantiate his claim.

pointed out that the claim for improvements would not always be made by the identical man by whom those improvements had been effected, who might have emigrated to Australia or America, or sold his interest in his farm to someone else. He must, however, confess that he did not attach much importance to the clause. The result of his experience led him to the belief that, presumption or no presumption, if a case could be proved, persons would come forward to prove it, and that the question was likely to be settled in accordance with the right of the party who had right on his side.

said, that exceptional privileges having been conferred on the Irish tenant—hetsaid exceptional, because at present they were unknown to English or Scotch law—by the previous clauses of the Bill, it was by the clause under discussion proposed to advance a step farther, and throw the onus of proof with respect to the making of every single improvement on the landlord. Now, he utterly denied that it was in the power of the landlord to prove to the full extent what were or were not the improvements towards which he had contributed. He frankly admitted that on large properties in Ireland which were managed through the medium of agents, provided those were the same agents who had managed the estates for 20 years, and that there were regular offices and books carefully kept, there might not be any great difficulty—though there were many exceptions even to that rule—in proving the nature of the improvements made. But large properties were far from being universal in Ireland, and especially in the great county of Cork, with which he was best acquainted, there was a great number of small properties, sometimes managed by their owners, sometimes by small agents residing in adjoining counties. Now, he could state, as a fact, that in the case of many of those properties no books of account were kept, and that it would be quite impossible for the owners to prove what were the improvements towards the making of which they had or had not lent their assistance. The clause, he might add, distinctly favoured the estates of absentee proprietors, because, those estates being managed on a business footing, the facilities of proof in their case would be comparatively great. It was only the other day, he might add, that he had been told by a most improving Irish landlord, who had been resident for the last 25 or 30 years on his property, that he could not possibly distinguish the improvements made by his tenants from those which he had made entirely himself, or towards the making of which he had largely contributed. He concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. G. B. Gregory) in thinking that the proposal of the Government would inflict a great injustice not only on the landlord, but on the tenant, by making the security of land so different from that which it had hitherto been. From his own experience he could say that especially within the last few months hardly a large insurance company in the City of London would lend a 6d. on the security of Irish property, and some of the most respectable and influential offices stated that the result of the present Bill would be to make it impossible to ascertain what the value of property was on which they were asked to advance money. The Chief Secretary for Ireland indeed admitted that it would be unfair to put the provisions of the Bill in force where property was acquired by purchase; but he would ask whether a man who inherited property was not sometimes almost a stranger in blood to his predecessor? He knew a case of a man who succeeded his cousin, and it became necessary to change the agent, who was hostile to the new owner. During three of the five years which would have come within the term of 20 years mentioned in the Bill, the new owner did not receive a 1d. from the estate, having expended for the benefit of the tenants, the whole of the money received. In this ease, however, it would have been next to impossible to prove that anyone of the improvements had been effected by the owner, and not by the occupiers of the land. These were practical difficulties which he desired to lay before the Committee. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) to say that he represented a large proportion of the landowning interest of the county. He had frequently heard that hon. and learned Gentleman most admirably represent the sacerdotal element of the country, but he now learnt for the first time that he also claimed to be a representative of the landowning interest, with which he himself was as well, if not better, acquainted than the hon. and learned Gentleman. As long as the Bill contained this clause the landowners of Ireland would feel that neither justice nor equity was conceded to them. He was perfectly willing to give the fullest compensation to the tenant for all improvements which he could prove to have been executed by him; but he protested against the landowners being incessantly dragged, in consequence of this clause, before the new Courts which were about to be constituted. His hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell) never spoke more truly than when he said there was too much law in this Bill. He was not surprised, indeed, that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite should not regard this as a defect, but he begged leave to remark, on behalf of those who were to be made the corpus vile of this crucial experiment, that they would prefer to be dragged before the new Courts as seldom as possible. If there was one thing which an Irish tenant understood better than another it was the full value of the land he occupied and the increased value he had given to it by his own exertions and expenditure. Therefore, within the limit of 20 years prescribed by the Bill, every fact would be within his own personal recollection, or he would have learnt it from his father, his elder brother, or whoever else preceded him on the land; and in 99 cases out of every 100 where the landlord had one chance of proof the tenant would have a dozen. Again, the throwing the onus of proof on the landlord would press more heavily on the large owners than on the small owners, who could least afford to lose the money. In conclusion, he sincerely hoped the Committee would pause before they sanctioned a clause which conferred on the tenant exceptional privileges, which could not on grounds of justice or of morality be granted to men who, having deliberately contracted to take one thing, now asked for another.

wished to say a few words in reference to what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) on the subject of the registration of improvements. The Government fully recognized the distinction he had drawn between compulsory and optional registration. To registration, as a condition of compensation, the Government had strong objections; but with respect to optional registration, as a matter of convenience, the case was different. The Government did not think even optional registration was free from certain difficulties. He therefore would not pledge the Government with regard to it; but, at the same time, he should be sorry to reject the suggestion on the spur of the moment, as it deserved, and would receive, further consideration on their part. The last speaker and several other Gentlemen who preceded him, had looked at this question exclusively from a landlord's point of view. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be shocked at the idea of conferring exceptional privileges on the Irish tenant; but what would have been the state of law in England and Scotland at the present moment if, for many years past, the relations between landlord and tenant had been the same here as they had been in Ireland? Everybody must feel convinced that, if that had been the case, there would have been an end put long-ago to the law which not only raised a presumption in favour of the landlord, as some speakers in this debate had stated, but which gave him absolutely everything he might find upon the land. The hon. Member talked in the same spirit of the hardship of throwing the onus probandi on the landlord, and of the vast difficulties he would experience in proving certain improvements to have been executed by him; but surely those difficulties would be felt quite as much, if not more, by the tenant as by the landlord. The Government proposed to make the presumption in favour of the tenant, subject to the limitation he should presently move, merely because the presumption of proof ought to follow the facts of the case. He should feel greatly surprised if any hon. Gentleman were to deny that, in the vast majority of cases in Ireland, the improvements were the work of the tenant. He would not trouble the Committee with numerous quotations on this point; but would be content to read a very brief extract from an authority which could not be questioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Master Fitzgibbon said—

"It is well known that in Ireland, as a general rule, the landlord spends nothing on the improvement of his tenants' land."

A more decided opinion of a more competent and impartial authority, couched in as few words, it would be difficult to quote. The Government simply proposed that, with the important exceptions he should presently introduce, the presumption of law should follow the facts of the case, the difficulties of proof being far greater upon the side of the tenant than upon the side of the landlord. The argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brodrick) was altogether one-sided, for he shut his eyes to the position and fair claims of the tenant. The terms of this Amendment went far beyond the question of retrospective improvements; for they would apply not only to them, but to all improvements executed after the passing of the Act until a new tenancy was created. He hoped the Committee would feel that the Government had done everything they could to obviate fair objections, and that injustice would be done to the weaker party if this Amendment were adopted.

said, he, on the contrary, regarded this as one of the most mischievous clauses in the Bill. Not only was it a complete discouragement to all improvements in the future, but it worked serious injustice to those landlords—and there were many—who had improved their estates in the past. To show that this was no mere random assertion, he would mention one case within his own personal knowledge. A nobleman had told him that for upwards of 20 years he had made it a rule to spend £2,000 a year in improvements upon his estate. He secured the services of a first-rate Scotch agriculturist; and the improvements which were everywhere visible upon the property had been carried out in perfect harmony with his tenants. The moment he read this clause in the Bill he felt that he had done an injustice to those who were to follow him in the estate. The vast expenditure which for over 20 years he had been making, in the belief that he was thereby improving the value of the estate, would simply be turned into a long bill of costs against his successor, which the latter would have no means whatever of paying. The agent, under whose eye the greater part of this money had been spent, was now no more; and, not expecting that any Government would propose, or that any Legislature would agree to such a proposal as was contained in this clause, the noble Lord told him he had kept no accounts which would enable him to meet claims on the part of the tenants. This was the statement made by one of the best of the Irish landlords; and so impressed was he with the nature of the Government proposals, that he felt it his bounden duty to stop all further improvement and to relinguish the course of action which he had pursued for so many years. As regarded the future, Parliament, of course, might make any arrangements which it thought proper; but what was here proposed was an arbitrary, sudden, and peremptory reversal of the existing law, acting retrospectively for an unlimited number of years. In the revised edition of the Prime Minister's speech it was distinctly stated that "what we propose to do is to reverse the presumption of the present law." Surely this was both uncalled for and unjust! Why not act as had been done in an earlier part of the Bill with regard to the Ulster tenant-right—leave each case to be decided upon the merits, without any presumption at either side? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland asserted that all the improvements were made by the tenant. If that were so, surely there could be no difficulty in proving it. But his experience in the North of Ireland and in the county of Wicklow led him to a totally different conclusion. And in the great improvements which had been made in Ireland during the last 40 years, the initiative, at least, had always proceeded from the landlord. The tenants had such a love for the habits of tillage inherited from their forefathers, that they regarded any departure from these as almost impious. So far from the Irish tenant being inclined for improvements, the great difficulty of the Irish landlords had always been to get their tenants to improve, or to allow them to improve themselves. The improvements that had been effected were the result of years of action on the part of the landlords, who had urged their tenants, both by precept and example, to improve their holdings. Many of the improvements, although actually done by the tenants, were paid for by the landlords; and therefore it was a wrong principle that the tenants should be compensated for them. He did not wish that it should be assumed that the improvements had been made by the landlords; but he contended that each ease should stand upon its own merits. Surely there would be no injustice in this. The value of Irish land was falling in the market, in consequence of the retrospective effect of the Bill. This clause, as it stood, was a great hardship upon those proprietors who had borrowed money on mortgage for the purpose of drainage and other works; and he thought also that there would be gross injustice inflicted upon those who had bought their land in the Encumbered Estates Court, under the belief that their rights would be guaranteed by Parliament. By reversing the presumption of ownership in improvements in land, that House would be creating a state of things in Ireland for which it would be held responsible.

said, he believed that the clause would be no injustice to the landlords, while it would do a great act of justice to the tenants. It would be very easy for the tenants and the landlords to prove what improvements they had respectively executed.

said, he could not help entering his protest against the principle involved in this clause. It was a well-known principle of both ancient and modern law that he who claimed a right should prove it, and this principle the clause proposed to set aside altogether. It had been said that under the 3rd and 4th clauses of the Bill the old fundamental principle of law was repealed, that whatever was planted in the soil should pass with the soil; but he could not concur in that assertion, because all that was given to the tenant was a right, not to the improvements he had effected himself, but to compensation for them. It was not, because they were going to give the tenant a right to compensation for improvements, that therefore they should presume that the improvements were his, without calling upon him to prove his title to them. He would be the last person to take from the tenant anything justly given to him by the Bill, and if he had placed the improvements on the land he was the person having the best knowledge of what those improvements were.

said, he deemed the observation made by the hon. Member for Mid-Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), to the effect that he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) was more a representative of the sacerdotal party in Cork than of the landed aristocracy, to be totally uncalled for. The hon. Member said that the proprietors most benefited by this Bill would be the absentee proprietors; in that case the hon. Member should not complain, as he represented a nobleman who was an absentee in the fullest sense of the term, for he not only resided altogether out of Ireland, but spent little, if any, of his income in it. For his own part, he (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) felt he was justified in saying that he was the representative of the landed interest in Cork. He represented the constituency generally, and the hon. Member's relative, the Earl of Bandon, indirectly supported him at the election. With reference to the assertion that had fallen from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, to the effect that people would not purchase land in Ireland, all he could say was, that an estate in Ireland was sold the other day, for which 26 years' purchase was paid, and that partly by the tenants in possession. With regard to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer), he would not ask the Government to accept it. He recommended the Government to leave the clause as it was, for there could be no difficulty in the Court deciding whether the improvements were made by the tenant or the landlord. It was a mistake to suppose that the landlord kept no record of improvements. One of the first entries in the landlord's book was the sum allowed to the tenant for any specific improvement.

said, he desired to know on what authority the hon. Member stated that the Earl of Bandon gave him the slightest support of any kind at the election.

replied that he had seen a letter from Lord Bandon's brother, the Hon. Henry Bernard, requesting certain electors to vote for him.

said, that he objected to the present clause, because it effected an alteration of the law of evidence in a vital particular. The universal principle of English law was, that he who asserted should prove. As a general rule, it was extremely undesirable to interfere with the law of evidence, except for indispensable purposes, as it was not the creation of statute, but had grown up out of the experience and wisdom of the tribunals charged with the administration of justice, and was founded on an extensive observation of the operation of human motives, conduct, and feelings. He admitted that the Amendments put on the Paper by the Chief Secretary for Ireland narrowed very much the range of operation of this clause; and he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) that when the Government made solid concessions in matters not involving a vital principle in questions of compensation, it was better to meet them by not raising captious objections, but what, after all these Amendments, was left of this clause invaded a most important principle of evidence, and therefore it was extremely objectionable. His belief was, that the tenant could have justice without striking a blow at the principles of jurisprudence. It could not be difficult for a tenant to prove what improvements he had made within 20 years. This being so, and the clause being now confined to improvements within the last 20 years, was not persisting in the principle, an uncalled-for and wanton violation of principles of jurisprudence common to every country. It had been said this was Mr. O'Connell's clause; but he had read his evidence before the Devon Commission without finding any trace of such a clause. The fact was, as he had been informed by Mr. Tighe Hamilton, formerly Under Secretary for Ireland, it was the proposal of Mr. Pierce Mahony, an Irish solicitor, formerly a Member of that with surprise to the observations of the House. It was said the clause was to protect the weak; but he had never yet heard there was any necessity for that, because equal attention was paid in a Court of Justice to the evidence given, whether by rich or poor. He did not see why presumption should be called in at all. The tenant should be left to state his case, and take his oath that he believe it to be true. He should support the Amendment.

said, he must remind the Committee that they were dealing only with small tenants and tenants from year to year. They had already enacted provisions of a highly exceptional character in their favour, on the hypothesis that they were so poor, helpless, and dependent, and unable to protect themselves. With respect to this class of tenants they went on to enact that in certain cases, where certain improvements had been made, the presumption should be that they had been made by the tenant rather than by the landlord. This presumption was in accordance with the fact. They must deal with what was usual, not with the exception. Nothing was more clearly admitted than that in Ireland improvements were made by the tenants, not by the landlords; while in this country the reverse was the fact. It was on the recognition of the essential difference in the customs of the two countries that, in some respects, the Bill was based. They proposed that the presumption would be in favour of what was generally found in experience to be the fact. Another presumption, which was equally clear, was that the landlord would be in a better condition to prove his case than the tenant who kept no books, had no record of his improvements, was a poor and illiterate man, and unable to make a contract. Again, where the tenant had succeeded another, it would be almost hopeless to prove his case. This presumption of evidence, however, was only a matter of convenience, not of law, and no solid objection had been shown to the proposed change. He entirely agreed with the able argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland. He thought this provision would be highly advantageous, and would strongly recommend the Bill to the Irish people.

said, he had listened with surprise to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General). Nothing was clearer in law than that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff or pursuer to establish his case. It was not just to the landlord to require him to prove that the improvements claimed for by the tenant had not been made by the tenant. Hon. Gentlemen on his (the Opposition) side of the House had submitted to a great deal in the course of the deliberations on this Bill. They were anxious to see the question settled on an equitable basis; but were not prepared to allow exceptional legislation for Ireland to the extent of reversal of universal principles of law.

said, it was natural the feelings of Scotch lawyers should be outraged by the clause, because Scotch law was encumbered by a great many superstitions of which we had long since disposed. The principle of law for which hon. Gentlemen opposite contended was not as universal as they made out; even in our criminal law the prosecutor was not in all cases bound to prove every part of his case. Possessors of certain kinds of goods, for instance, had to prove they were honestly in possession. The clause, as it stood, would, he believed, not increase, but check litigation, because if a poor man made a claim which, if not successfully disproved, would be allowed, the landlord would prefer to settle it out of Court by payment rather than allow it to go before a Judge; whereas, if the burthen of proof were on the tenant, the landlord's agent would often advise a resistance to the claim, in the hope of succeeding by failure of the tenant's proof, owing to the enormous cost and difficulty to a poor man, of bringing up the necessary witnesses, perhaps some years after the event.

said, he could not admit the force of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down either in point of policy or of law. In further illustration of the last argument of the hon. and learned Member, and in order to carry it to its legitimate conclusion, he (Mr. Plunket) would observe, that if the tenants of Ireland were presented with all the improvements made on their holdings up to the present time, an entire stop would be put to litigation between landlord and tenant on that account. As to the argument from the analogy of the criminal law, the hon. and learned Member must know that the principle involved in the instance he had cited was very different from that now under discussion. On the question of going to a Division, he must say that, although it was with extreme reluctance he had assumed a duty which the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) had originally proposed to himself, he preferred adhering to the hon. and learned Member's original view rather than following him in his more recent conclusions. The course pursued by the hon. and learned Member left hon. Members on that side in a difficult position; having argued in his place in a way which was perfectly unanswerable in support of the Amendment, he, by some mysterious mesmeric process, came to the exactly opposite conclusion, persuaded, no doubt, by arguments forged in the same smithy, but not exhibited for the consideration of the Committee. He (Mr. Plunket) would certainly not make the old appeal from "Philip drunk to Philip sober;" but he would venture, with all respect, to appeal from Philip mesmerized to Philip as he was before he was mesmerized.

said, he had but one word to say. There was neither mystery nor Mesmerism in the course which he had felt it his duty to take. That course was dictated by the simplest and most intelligible principle upon which a man could act—a principle intelligible to every man—that of endeavouring to get all he could, and of taking that which he was able to get.

said, he must express his decided opinion that the majority of improvements of any value were in Ireland made by the landlord.

said, he wished to point out that these words did not make the smallest difference in the nature of the clause.

said, he took an entirely different view. The whole course of argument for the last three hours was, that the general principle of the law threw the burden of proof on the claimant; therefore the claimant must show the improvements in cases to which this clause did not apply. It was clear it was not for the landlord to prove anything about the matter until the burden of proof was thrown on him.

said, that the Landed Estates Court had often to deal with cases other than those of actual sale; for instance, cases of investigation of title. What was granted to an owner who purchased, could not be withheld from an owner who sought an investigation of his title.

said, the clause did not make any reference to the Landed Estates Court; it applied to all sales in which property passed to a stranger.

said, he must express his entire disapproval of the retrospective nature of the action given to this clause, which would open the door to fraud, and place the landlords of Ireland under so many unnecessary disabilities as to induce him to throw his land to a great extent into large farms.

moved to report Progress, so that the clause might be printed, and that Members might have a better opportunity of understanding it than they could now.

said, the clause could not be printed until it was passed.

Then, he would move to report Progress. So great was his objection to the clause in all its principles and all its words, that he could not consent to its going further without seeing what would be the effect of the Amendments that had been introduced in it.