said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the survey of the anchors at the various Dockyards, with a view of setting aside for sale such as are unfit for the Service, has been completed; and, if so, if he will state to the House how many have been condemned in each Yard; also, if it is true that there are large quantities of useless anchors in the Foreign Yards?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that Mr. Warren, one of the ablest officers in the service, has just completed a survey of the entire stock of anchors in the home yards. No fewer than 639 are reported obsolete and unserviceable, distributed as follows:—106 in Sheerness, 142 in; Devonport, 105 in Woolwich, 34 in Pembroke, 193 in Portsmouth, and 59 in Chatham. Many of these are not expected to realize more than the price of old iron, as nearly all have been lying in the dockyards for 30 years—some, indeed, for 50 years. In addition to the anchors thus condemned, it is proposed to sell 341 others, which, on account of their size and inferior pattern, will never be used by any of Her Majesty's ships. That will leave us with a stock of about 1,000, which, in the opinion of the Chief Constructor of the Navy and all concerned, is ample for all the requirements of the service for many years to come. It is true that there are also large quantities of anchors in the foreign yards, many of which, no doubt, are useless. At Malta there are 144, at the Cape of Good Hope 96, at Bermuda 117, at Jamaica 80, at Hong Kong 200, and so on. Steps are being taken to survey them, with a view of disposing of such as are not required.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true that arrangements have been made for handing over to the War Department the eastern portion of Woolwich Dockyard; and, if so, if he will state when and how he will be prepared to dispose of the remaining portion?

The delay in disposing of Woolwich Dockyard has been occasioned partly by the necessity of exercising caution in not parting with property which might be required by the War Office, and partly by the extreme intricacy of the title. We have, however, decided that part of the Dockyard to the west should be handed over to the War Department, and we are in communication with the Woods and Forests, who have the principal interest in the eastern part, with a view to arrange for its sale or letting immediately. I am to receive in a few days a deputation from the town on the subject; but, meanwhile, the ground has been carefully lotted out, and I have received much valuable assistance from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir William Tite), as to the best arrangements in the matter.

said, that various rumours had been circulated with respect to the recent changes which had taken place at the Admiralty. He believed that many of them were untrue, and he, therefore, begged to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Shipping Agents to the Admiralty re- ceive any remuneration whatever from the Shipowners, or otherwise, beyond their commission of 1s. 3d. per ton?

I am glad, Sir, that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity of contradicting a report, reflecting no credit on its authors, which has been circulated since a Question was last answered on this subject. The shipping agents of the Admiralty are strictly prohibited, by the terms of their agreement, from receiving any payment whatever from the shipowners, whether in the shape of primage or other percentages which may be customary in certain cases, and they have requested me to give their unqualified and indignant denial to the statement that they have received a single farthing in addition to their commission.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to bring in any measure to restrain the Conservators of the Thames from imposing the penalties under the 60th Section of "The Thames Navigation Act, 1866," upon populous places below Staines, until some general Act shall have been passed giving them facilities for obtaining some other outlet for their sewage than the River Thames? Perhaps he might be allowed to add that it would give great satisfaction to those whom he represented if the right hon. Gentleman can state, in case he does not mean to do that, what course he intends to take with regard to this important matter?

said, in reply, that the Question put by the hon. Gentleman was part of a much larger and extremely difficult subject now under the consideration of the Government, and he was unable to state whether or not it would be possible for them to deal with it in the manner suggested in the Question. In respect, however, to places situate on the Thames, they had advantages that were not possessed by many other populous towns, such as Leeds and Birmingham. The "Thames Conservancy Act of 1866" provided, that a month before the expiration of the limit of time up to which they could drain into the Thames, the various districts affected might apply to the Board of Trade for an extension of time, so that places like Staines had still the power of applying for an extension of time, if they could make out a good case for it.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state to the House the number of petty officers, seamen, marines, and boys constituting the complement of the so-called "Flying Squadron," and the numbers that have died, deserted, or been invalided up to the latest accounts received from Rear Admiral Hornby?

The complement and supernumeraries of the Flying Squadron amounted to 2,882 petty officers, seamen, marines, and boys. Of these, up to the last accounts from Admiral Hornby, 33 had died or been invalided, and 221 had deserted or were stragglers. It is believed that many belong to the latter category, having taken free advantage of the hospitality of the Colonies, where they even had passes over the railways. As many as 16 were recovered out of those who absented themselves at Melbourne. Of the 221 only 92 were bonâ fide seamen, and two were petty officers.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. What steps he proposes to take with reference to applications made for an allowance of Drawback on Duty paid Sugar in Stock on the close of Tuesday the 12th day of April last?

said, in reply, that the Government had taken into their careful consideration the applications made to them with reference to the drawback on sugar that had paid duty and been in possession of different persons in this country on the day named by his hon. Friend—namely, Tuesday, the 12th day of April last, and they had come to the conclusion that the claim of one class of claimants ought to be admitted—that was sugar-refiners other than those who were originally admitted to be entitled to the return of drawback on their sugar. With regard to these refiners, those who manufactured by machinery what were called pieces and crystals, it was proposed that the Customs Department should ascertain and satisfy itself as well as it could—and it had already taken steps for doing so—what amount of sugar was in their possession on the 12th of April last on which they had paid duty; and it was proposed that they should have a return of that duty, with this qualification, that they should be put as nearly as possible on a level with the refiners of all those sugars that had been admitted, and who had been allowed to export their sugar to get the drawback. It was computed that the expense of exporting sugar to get the drawback and re-importing it was about 3s. per cwt., and what the Government proposed was to give to those other sugar-refiners the same drawback on the quantity of sugar they had in their possession on the 12th of April, deducting from each cwt. the sum of 3s., to place them on a level with other refiners who might have exported their sugar to get the drawback and re-imported it at the lower rate of duty. It was not proposed to grant any other drawback.

said, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, would not be satisfactory to the dealers in sugar. ["Order!"] He begged to give Notice that he would bring the matter under the consideration of the House at a future stage.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his Department has received any information relative to the reported Fenian aggression in Canada?

Sir, the latest information received by Her Majesty's Government on that subject states that the Fenians from St. Albans have crossed our frontier near Phillipsburg, that skirmishing is reported to have commenced, and that various other points are threatened along the frontier. I am happy to state that Sir John Young also adds that the Militia in Canada were called out three days ago, and that every possible preparation has been made to resist the Fenian aggression. Sir John Young further states that a telegraphic despatch has been received from Mr. Thornton, dated the 25th instant, to the effect that there is evidence of a Fenian movement against Canada towards the east and west of Lake Champlain, but principally towards the eastern portion, and that their numbers are supposed to be between 3,000 and 4,000. I am glad, likewise, to be able to say that a proclamation warning United States subjects against the violation of neutrality has been issued by the President of the United States, and that General Meade has been authorized to send troops to the frontier to prevent any such violation.

I see, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) has given Notice of his intention, on the Motion for going into Supply to-night—

"To call the attention of the House to the rule or practice of ordering strangers to withdraw, and the effect thereof."

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would allow two or three days for the consideration of the matter on the part of the Government, and I hope on Monday to be in a condition to state to the House whether we have any measure to propose in reference to it. Under these circumstances, probably, it might not be disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone raising the question for two or three days.

If the right hon. Gentleman will make his statement on the subject on Monday, I have not the least objection to give way.

It shall certainly be made on Monday next.

rose to move—

"That the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of introducing a Clause fixing the increased amount of the additional salaries to be paid to the judges and officers of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland for the additional duties by this Act imposed upon them."

He said, his object was not to intercept the Bill in its course through the House. He would have moved in Committee an Amendment such as that which he desired to see introduced, only for the accidental circumstance that the clause in which it ought to have been inserted was, among others, passed hurriedly through Committee at a time when most of the Opposition were absent from the House. On the evening of that occurrence those hon. Members who took an interest in the Land Bill were in the House for nine hours, and it was during the absence of many of them for a space of about 20 minutes the clauses to which he alluded were ordered to stand part of the Bill. A more honourable body of men than the Chairmen of the Irish Civil Bill Courts did not exist. They must be men of considerable attainments and barristers of 10 years' standing. It was for the interest both of landlord and tenant that those learned gentlemen should be men of the highest character. He thought that the additional remuneration which it was proposed to give them for the duties which this Bill would impose on them ought to be fixed by the Bill. He was told that there might be some objection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of fees paid into the Exchequer from the Irish Quarter Sessions Courts, which last year amounted to £14,000, would be largely increased by this Bill. Again, after a short time the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant would cease to be paid. He did not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would look at the question in a narrow way; and, therefore, he preferred to rest his Amendment on the ground that its adoption would be an act of justice to the Chairmen, and one which would commend itself to all classes in Ireland.

pointed out the impolicy of permitting the Government to fix, from time to time, the amount of the salaries to be paid to the Chairmen of counties under this Bill, as such a course would be calculated to cast suspicion upon the decisions arrived at by the Land Courts. The Chairmen of counties would be content with whatever sum was fixed as remuneration for the additional duties they would be called upon to discharge under the provisions of the Bill; but they were most anxious that the amount should be determined by Parliament, and not left to the discretion of the Government for the time being. He had given Notice of his intention to move that, in the event of the scale of remuneration fixed upon being found to be higher than was justified by the amount of work performed within the first five years after the passing of the Act, the Lord Lieutenant should have power to reduce the amount of the salaries.

drew attention to the case of the clerks of the peace for the different counties in Ireland, who would also have extra duties cast upon them under this Bill. These gentlemen would also prefer that the amount of additional remuneration they were to receive should be settled by Parliament, and that they should be paid by salaries and not by fees.

said, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick Heygate), because he felt that if Parliament in its wisdom should determine to impose the duty of carrying this Bill into effect upon the Chairmen of counties in Ireland, the latter would be entitled to additional remuneration. He did not know precisely at what amount it was proposed to fix those salaries; but the lowest sum he had heard mentioned out-of-doors was £500 per annum, which would amount to an aggregate sum of £17,000 per annum for the whole 34 Chairmen of counties in Ireland. He thought that a far better tribunal might be secured at a cheaper rate, by the appointment of two or three additional Judges, who would be competent to regulate the new practice which would spring up under the Bill. How could uniformity of practice be secured if there were 34 officers before whom those questions were to be stated? If his proposition was adopted, formal rules might readily be laid down, and much doubt and confusion would be avoided.

had trusted that, after the long debates they had had, they would be allowed to go on with the Report without any Amendments; and he hoped that the Government would not assent to any material alteration being made in the Bill. If they raised the salaries of assistant barristers, they would have also to raise the salaries of all other persons engaged in the administration of justice. It would be ample time to increase salaries when the Government had experience as to the increase in the duties to be performed. He feared that the Amendment had been advocated on professional grounds only.

said, that no doubt that was a most important Amendment, but he could not say whether they were in a position to fix the amount of the salaries at present, for there might be an enormous addition to the business, or the addition might be so very slight, that a very little addition should be made to the incomes. But, whatever they did, it was most important that they should pay the Judges well, in order that they might procure the services of the best men; and, above all, in order that the greatest confidence might be reposed in them.

said, that as they had at length parted—no doubt with many pangs—from the consideration of this Bill in Committee, the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) ought to bring forward very strong arguments indeed to induce us to return to that blissful state in which we have been living for the last two months. He did not think that the hon. Baronet arguments entirely satisfied that condition. The hon. Baronet made two points—first, that the increased salaries of these gentlemen ought to be charged on the Consolidated Fund; and, secondly, that the House should settle at the present time what increase should be made. Now, he was not prepared to dispute either of those propositions. In order to carry out the first there was no occasion to re-commit the Bill, because they could introduce an Amendment in the 58th clause to make the salaries payable out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of providing that they should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament from time to time. Then the hon. Member asked them to go into Committee to fix the salaries at once; but the problem which he proposed was a very difficult one. The point was—given a certain amount of service, which was unknown, what should be the amount of remuneration? Nothing could be more uncertain at the present moment than the amount of additional duties which the Bill would impose upon these gentlemen. Some hon. Members thought the amount would be very large indeed; while others, including himself, were of opinion that, as the Bill defined the complications which might arise between landlord and tenant, and was a sort of guide as to the questions which might be brought forward, it would facilitate agreements being made between the parties without the intervention of a Court. Still, nobody knew what might be the result, and it was very objectionable to fix the salaries of these gentlemen without having the necessary data. If the salaries were fixed now, it might happen that they would turn out to be lower than they ought to be; in which event these gentlemen would very naturally apply for an increase, and would thus be liable to the suspicion of being biased by the Government of which they asked the favour. If, on the other hand, the salaries were fixed too high, no one could be credulous enough to suppose that any power on earth could reduce them to the proper level. They, therefore, asked the House not to ask them to make a definite proposal on this subject now, but to allow the matter to stand over till next Session, when they would have some little experience to guide them. The Government would undertake to bring the matter forward next Session for the consideration of the House. He could not help hoping the hon. Baronet, seeing that the Government did not oppose either of the principles he advocated, would not press his Motion to a Division.

said, that after the declaration just made on the part of the Government, there would be little use in pressing the Motion. He wished, however, to impress upon the Government that parsimony in judicial matters was very bad economy, and that the first object in a case of this kind was to obtain the services of persons who had a large amount of experience and legal knowledge.

said, he hoped the interests of subordinate officials would not be lost sight of. The success of a Court always depended very much on the manner in which the subordinates were treated; and in the present case it was peculiarly important that they should receive adequate salaries, because they would be brought into contact with the peasantry, and might exercise great influence either for good or evil.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Ball) says that parsimony in increasing judicial salaries is a very bad policy; but I think it must be admitted that that is not an error into which this House has often fallen. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, need not entertain any apprehension on that head. As respects the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am afraid it is not possible at the present stage of the Bill to modify the clause relating to the salaries of the Judges in precise correspondence with the intentions of the Government. This subject was not brought under our notice until after that clause had been passed Committee, and we shall not have any further opportunity of altering that clause. However, no practical result will follow from that circumstance, because we are pledged to propose next Session a Bill for the purpose of making a proper addition to these salaries.

regretted that the Government had not seen their way to fixing the salaries in the Bill. He hoped Government would relieve the minds of those gentlemen, and not wait till the first six months was over before they fixed their salaries. He made these observations in no hostile spirit, but solely from a desire that the Bill should work well.

said, he concurred with the hon. Baronet (Sir Hervey Bruce) in his regret that the salaries of the Judges had not been fixed. The County Court Judges in England got an increase of £300 a year to their salaries under the Bill giving them equity jurisdiction. He could not see, therefore, why that which was done in their case should not be done in the case of the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland in the present instance. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions was the criminal judge in Ireland, and guided the magistrates in all criminal business there.

said, he did not think any good reason had been given why the Amendment should not be agreed to. The House, he contended, would next year be in no better position to form an opinion as to the average duties of the Judges than it was at present. As to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions themselves, his experience in the North of Ireland led him to place in them the most implicit confidence.

said, the Government were of opinion that the Amendment which had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. D. Fortescue) might, slightly modified, be with advantage introduced into the Bill. The effect of that proposal, which had been put in the shape of a clause, would be to render it easier for the landlord to obtain land for the building of labourers' cottages, which was, he thought, a better way of dealing with the question than to leave them to be provided by the tenant. With that view he should move the insertion after Clause 8 of the following clause:—

(Exception in case of lands required for labourers' cottages.)

"Any landlord may, after six months' notice in writing, to be served upon the tenant, or left at his house, resume possession from a yearly tenant of so much land (in no case to exceed one twenty-fifth part of any individual holding), as he may require for the bonâ fide purpose of erecting thereon one or more labourers' cottages, with or without gardens attached, and such resumption of land shall not, unless the Court shall be of opinion that same was unreasonable, be deemed a disturbance of the tenant within the meaning of this Act, and shall not subject the landlord to any claim for compensation, except in respect of improvements, beyond a proportionate abatement of rent."

said, he could not concur in the principle of the Amendment. He hoped that this power would only be given to landlords in the event of the tenants declining or neglecting to build those cottages.

said, he thought the clause ought to be so modified that it should be in the power of the landlord to allocate a certain portion of land, for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, only when the tenant neglected to do so.

protested against the labourer being left dependent on the tenant for the necessary accommodation.

said, he thought it would be very much for the advantage of the labouring class in Ireland that they should be the immediate tenants of the landlord rather than of a middleman.

(Mr. DOWSE) proposed to amend the clause by omitting the words "in no case to exceed," and substituting the words "not to exceed in the whole" one twenty-fifth part of the holding. The hon. and learned Gentleman explained that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Andover was to meet the case of a landlord who was desirous of obtaining a portion of ground for the purpose of erecting cottages, which he could not do now without determining the tenancy for the whole of the land paid by the tenant.

suggested that the power should be confined to building cottages for labourers employed on the holding, and not on the domain of the landlord.

said, lie thought great amelioration would accrue to the labourers of Ireland from, this clause, and in no respect did their condition require amelioration more than with regard to their houses.

moved to amend the clause by limiting it to cottages required "for the cultivation of the farm" on which they were erected.

said, he thought the clause objectionable, inasmuch as it would give extraordinary powers to the landlord to go upon another man's land.

said, there was scarcely a provision in the clause that was not in favour of the tenant, and as this clause had been proposed in the interest and independence of the labourers he should support it.

said, it was not the object of the Government to introduce any positive enactment in favour of the labourers; but to take care that the provisions of the Bill should not have the effect of making the condition of the Irish labourer worse than it now was.

moved to insert, after Clause 62, a new clause (Exception as to county cess levied in certain cases). The object of the clause was to supply an omission to which his attention had been called by many hon. Members, especially by his noble Friend the Member for Donegal (the Marquess of Hamilton). As the Bill stood, the county cess would in future be divided between landlord and tenant; but in the case of extraordinary imposition of that rate for penal purposes, such, for instance, as under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act, it would be defeating the object of Parliament to divide it between landlord and tenant; and, therefore, the clause spe- dally excepted such impositions from the operation of the Bill.

objected to the clause in the Bill exempting tenants under £4 from the payment of the county cess. All tenants, whether great or small, had an interest in the formation of roads, and in the economical management of the funds raised by the county cess; and he hoped that the clause to which he referred would be struck out of the Bill by the House of Lords.

said, it would be very easy to separate the general from the special cess. It would be a great benefit to the tenants.

supported the clause. It would be received with satisfaction by the people of Ireland.

said, the next clause related to the Law of Distress. It would be remembered that the Government had promised to give the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim) full consideration; and what they were now prepared to recommend was, that the Law of Distress should not be held applicable to any holding under a tenancy created after the passing of the Act, unless made so by a written agreement between the landlord and tenant. Any landlord who did not choose to let his holding to a tenant without retaining the power of distress might do so if he pleased; but it would be necessary that there should be a written agreement to that effect. He therefore proposed, after Clause 63, to insert the following clause:—

(Distress.)

"It shall not be lawful for any landlord to make any distress for rent due out of any holding held under a tenancy created after the passing of this Act, unless such holding shall be so held under a lease or written agreement regulating the terms of such tenancy and giving a right of distress to the landlord."

expressed a hope that before long the Law of Distress would be entirely abolished.

said, he was opposed to the clause. He thought the expediency of altering the Law of Distress very questionable. Certainly, no sufficient grounds for altering it had been alleged on the other side. The Law of Distress had frequently operated bene- ficially even to the tenant, for it enabled the landlord to grant indulgences for payment of rent which would not be given but for the existence of that security.

said, he could not help thinking there was great force in the objections which had been urged to the abolition of the Law of Distress. The landlord would endeavour to fortify himself by some other security. He did not see why a landlord should be driven into the position of having an elaborate written instrument every time he let a tenancy under this Act from year to year.

(Mr. DOWSE) said, he did not think the clause open to the objections which had been stated. He had always understood that the great objection to the Bill on the other side was that it did not leave to parties freedom of contract; but the new clause was not open to that objection.

moved the insertion of the following clause after Clause 3:—

(Landlord not to be liable to payment for disturbance when caused by refusal of tenant to pay increased rent approved by Court.)

"In case the landlord of any existing holding valued at less than one hundred pounds, or of any holding let after the passing of this Act, valued at less than fifty pounds, should demand an increase of rent for the following year from the tenant, to which the latter on receiving one month's written notice before the date of his yearly occupancy, refuses or delays to give his written consent within one month, it shall be lawful for the said landlord to summon the said tenant to appear in the Court constituted by this Act, in order that the judge may determine whether such increase of rent is reasonable or not.

"In the event of the judge deciding that the demand for such increased rent was not reasonable, and that the landlord does not intimate in writing, within one month, his willingness to accept the former rent, but proceeds to evict the tenant, he shall be liable to payment for disturbance, but if the judge decides that the demand of the landlord was reasonable, and if the tenant refuses or neglects to give his written consent to pay such increased rent within one mouth after such decision, the landlord may evict such tenant without any right on the part of the latter to compensation for disturbance, and on payment of the value of his improvements."

The process suggested in the Amendment simply anticipated the natural course of some of the events which would inevitably arise under the operation of the Bill. The Amendment did not pro- pose that the Court should determine the precise annual value of the holding; but that it should decide whether the demand of the landlord was reasonable or not, and that was precisely the question that must be settled under the clause as it now stood. If the clause remained in its present shape, a landlord, who was advised by competent valuers that he was entitled to a rise of rent, would be obliged, in the event of a refusal on the part of the tenant, to serve him with a notice to quit, or renounce his just rights. On the removal taking place, the tenant would be entitled to claim compensation for disturbance if the Court should be of opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the additional rent demanded was excessive; and if the landlord, on finding, unexpectedly, that his demand was considered unreasonable, was to offer to allow the tenant to remain at the old rent, he might refuse to do so, alleging that he had arranged to emigrate, or to engage in some other business, and was now neither able nor willing to stay, and it would be obviously impossible to expect him to remain at the eleventh hour—in fact, when in the original Bill the landlord was allowed to escape the compensation for disturbance on tendering a 31 years' lease, it was considered unfair towards the tenant, and this proviso was expunged. To obviate that undesirable result, he proposed that a year before the time at which the tenant could be removed from his holding the landlord should give his tenant notice of his demand, and if it was not agreed to, he should have the power to bring the tenant into Court, and obtain a decision on its reasonableness or unreasonableness. If reasonable, the tenant would have to pay it, or go without compensation for disturbance; if unreasonable, the landlord would have to abandon it, or be liable to pay the compensation. It would be observed that his Amendment was simply permissive; and that whilst the prudent landlord would probably have recourse to it, and thus avoid altogether the costly and irritating process of serving a notice to quit where he only wanted a reasonable rise of rent, there would be nothing to prevent any bolder landlord from taking his risk under the clause as it stood. Without his Amendment no judicious landlord would venture to raise the rent on a £10 holding by £1, though the best valuers in Ire- land might advise him that he might fairly add £3, as in the event of a Judge deciding that his demand was, to however small an extent, unreasonable, he would be liable to a penalty of £70, or more than three times the fee-simple value of the rise demanded. It could not be fairly objected to his proposal that it would give to the landlord an undue advantage, by enabling him alone to test the opinion of the Court on an augmentation of rent, without the risk of having to pay compensation for disturbance, as, under Clause 8, any tenant in Ireland by refusing to pay his rent, and on being served with notice of ejectment for non-payment, could equally obtain the opinion of the Court, whether his rent was too high or not—if it was considered too high, he could obtain compensation for disturbance; if it was thought reasonable, he had only to pay the amount in time, and he was entitled to remain in his holding; whilst, as to the legal expenses which he might incur, there were plenty of low attorneys who would conduct his case on the no cure no pay principle—in short, Clause 3, as it stood, would be fixity of tenure in fact, though not in name, without, however, the periodical revisions of rent which the advocates of that tenure always approved and recommended, and which was unaccompanied by any liability to compensation for disturbance.

said, he was unable to accept the clause, because it was quite inconsistent with one of the principles of the Bill, inasmuch as it would provoke controversies, previous to the time at which any question of a change of tenancy arose, on the subject of the amount of rent. Questions which would arise on a change of tenancy were provided for by an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer).

moved to insert, after Clause 11, the following clause:—

(Lettings in conacre.)

"For the purposes of this Act the letting by conacre shall be deemed a subletting where the same land is let oftener than once in four years, or is let for the planting of any crop but potatoes or other green crop."

The hon. Baronet said, his reason for again calling attention to this subject was that, in his opinion, it was not raised on a right principle when it came before the House on the former occasion. At the same time, he gave Notice that he did not intend to press an Amendment relating to Chairmen of counties, adding that the salaries he had proposed were named by himself, without communication with those gentlemen.

assumed that this proposal was literally within the forms of the House, or it would have been stopped by the Speaker; but it was unusual, as it would be inconvenient, for the House to reconsider its decision on a particular subject; and he could only refer the House to the decision already come to in Committee.

rose to propose the insertion, after Clause 11, of a clause prescribing—

"Conditions under which labourers' cottages may be erected upon any holding, without being deemed a subdivision or subletting of the land."

In proof of the strong feeling which prevailed on the subject of improved dwellings for labourers in Ireland, the hon. Gentleman stated that it was one of several subjects considered at an important meeting of Liberal Members held in the early part of the Session, at which it was resolved unanimously that some Amendment of a character similar to that should be brought forward. The terms of the clause he moved to insert were not in exact accordance with the resolution to which he had referred; but every hon. Member present at the meeting concurred in the opinion that the clause was not satisfactory as it stood. When the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government introduced the Bill, his speech embraced in earnestness and sincerity the consideration of an improvement in the condition of the labourers of Ireland, and not long ago a Report had been issued by the Poor Law Commissioners on the same subject. This Report he had read. It gave a sad picture of the condition of that class of his countrymen, showing how miserable and reckless they were, and how discontented with their present position. It said the Irish labourer had two objects laid before him—either to obtain some small portion of land, or to make his way to the great Republic of the West. He feared there was much truth in what the Commissioners reported. There was, however, another side to the picture. He had witnessed the most remarkable change take place through the labourers being transferred from the wretched hovels in which they generally lived to comfortable dwellings where these were provided by the owner of the land; and the result invariably followed that the labourers rewarded the landlord for this accommodation with the best return they could make him—namely, a fair day's work for their wages. In his opinion sub-Section 2 of Clause 3 would have a contrary effect to that which was aimed at by the Bill. One great object of the Bill was to discourage subdivision; but under this sub-section no landlord, even if he had the eyes of Argus, would be able to prevent the subdivision of farms. Cottages would be run up under the pretext that they were for labourers, whereas they would be for sons, and sons' sons; and no remonstrance would have the slightest effect, for the tenant would flourish sub-Section 2 of Clause 3 in the landlord's face and bid him defiance. There was no desire on the part of the farmers to build for the accommodation of their labourers; but he earnestly asked the Committee to help to improve the condition of those persons, and provide them with tenements fit for human beings to inhabit. Hon. Gentlemen, unacquainted personally with Ireland, were scarcely aware of the wretchedness connected with the hovels in which labourers were generally placed; some of them were unfit to house a beast much less a human being. In one small village alone, in his neighbourhood, some 18 persons were recently down in fever hovels of the description he referred to. As Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Union, he sent a relieving officer to make inquiries. Five of the 18 persons died in dwellings without any roofs whatever, the rain having poured in on to the straw beds of the patients. These hovels were virtually those of labourers. The inhabitants gained their livelihood by work during a portion of the year. In order that this state of things might be effectually remedied, he brought forward for the consideration of the House a clause in which he would gladly accept any Amendment the Government or hon. Members might offer. His great object was to have some regulation for the proper structural arrangement of cottages. He agreed that the labourer should, hold, if possible, from the landlord, and not from the tenant, for in the latter case he would be the mere bond-slave of the tenant. Tenants were very hard taskmasters, and they would ask the maximum of rent and give the minimum of wages. He might be told that this was not the time or the Bill for such a provision as he proposed; but the question was raised by the subsection, and it was absolutely necessary to take care that the tenements which were sanctioned by the Bill were fit for habitation. The hon. Member concluded by moving, after Clause 11, to insert the following clause:—

(Conditions for erection of labourers' cottages.)

"The following shall be the conditions under which labourers' cottages may be erected upon any holding, without being deemed a subdivision or subletting of the land:—

"(a.) No tenant of any holding shall erect any labourer's cottage on his holding without first applying to the landlord or his known agent for liberty so to do;

"(b.) In case the landlord shall consent to erect the cottage at his own expense, the tenant shall not be at liberty to erect the same;

"(c.) In case the landlord shall decline to erect the cottage, the tenant may do so, provided the total of such cottages on such holding shall in no case exceed more than one cottage for every twenty-five acres of tillage land thereof, and provided also that no cottage shall be erected on any holding less than twenty-five acres of tillage land;

"(d.) All cottages erected for labourers either by the tenant or landlord shall be held directly from the landlord, and shall be subject to the provisions of 'The Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1856,' and in case the tenant shall have erected the cottage, he shall be allowed out of his rent the amount paid to the landlord, or such other sum as the Coint shall think fit in case of dispute;

"(e.) To every cottage erected in pursuance of this Act a garden not exceeding one acre may be attached by the tenant of said holding, and in such case such garden shall be held direct from the landlord, and such allowance therefor shall be made to the tenant as, in case of disagreement, the Court shall award;

"(f.) In case of disturbance of any tenant in his holding, any labourer's cottage erected by the tenant under these regulations shall be deemed to be an improvement, and the tenant shall be entitled to compensation therefor;

"(g.) The Court may, if it think fit, modify the structural requirements of labourers' cottages, as laid down in Clause eleven of 'The Cottier Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1856,' on the application of the person erecting the same, whether landlord or tenant."

supported the clause. He feared that five or 10 years hence there would be found an insufficient supply of labourers to meet the agricultural requirements of Ireland, and this clause gave the labourers some inducement to remain at home. The Bill gave great opportunities for making improvements on estates and for the reclamation of land; and he hoped a considerable portion of the £16,000,000 or £20,000,000 belonging to the tenant-farmers would, if opportunities be given, go towards the making of these improvements and reclamation. If, however, when the time came, there was an insufficiency of labour in Ireland, how could these works be carried out? From year to year, for some time past, there had been a gradual rise of wages in Ireland; but in the county of Dublin there was now actually in some localities a dearth of labour, and in other counties there was a difficulty in obtaining it, while only in a few was there anything like a balance between demand and supply. If emigration continued as rapidly as heretofore, this difficulty would be increased, and the clause now proposed ought, therefore, to receive favour from the Committee.

trusted that the Bill would not pass through the House without another most important ingredient in connection with the subject. It seemed that there were at least 479,000 agricultural labourers in Ireland; 386,000 other labourers who occupied cottages and, in some cases, small gardens; and no fewer than 80,000 living with their families in one room. In fact, in the country districts of Ireland, where land was worth only 35s. an acre, the same system of crowding existed as was found in London and our large towns. In a small town in the county of Cork there was a cottage intended for one family, in which four families, consisting of 27 individuals, were housed. Scores of houses, cot- tages, and tenements in that same town had been pulled down in order that settlements might not take place in the parish. The noble Lord (Viscount St. Lawrence) had told the House that labour in Ireland was now paid a higher rate of wages than a few years back; but he must have forgotten that the wages were so small that labour was paid very badly indeed. Labourers could, in fact, be hired at 4s. 6d. a week, with milk and potatoes; and out of these miserable wages rent had to be paid and the family supported. If labour was better paid than it used to be, the price of living had materially increased. Thus, it had been shown that, while the cost of maintaining paupers in an Irish workhouse a few years ago was 1s. 3½d. for food and 3d. for clothing, the present cost was 2s. 6¾d. for food and 6¼d. for clothing, so that the total cost was double what it used to be. It followed, therefore, that while wages might have increased 70 or 80 per cent, the actual cost of living had increased by 100 per cent. If the physical condition of the labourers had improved, their morale was not what it used to be; there was no longer in the Irish peasant the heartiness and cheerfulness which enabled a man to struggle with difficulty; but in their place you could not help observing a saddened expression of countenance, and a lack of the apparent happiness and contentment which once existed. And no wonder, because we were sending out of the country every year the cream of the labouring people. In 1868, 72,000 emigrants had left Ireland: of these, 23,000 men, between 20 and 25 years of age, emigrated, and 13,000 between 25 and 30; so that 36,000 men, between 20 and 30, had left the country, that being the period of life when they were most valuable to the country. Legislation had been tried with a view to provide better accommodation for the labourers in Ireland. In 1856 an Act was passed declaring that no cottage should in future be built of less than two rooms, or without casements, and there was to be a place at the end of the house for the pig and the muck. In 1860 another Act was passed, which expired in the present year, empowering landlords to borrow money from the State for the building of cottages. Although, however, a large sum of money had been advanced for land improvements in Ireland, only £51,000 had been taken up by owners of property for the purpose of building cottages, and only £414 of this had been borrowed last year. Any person who had travelled in Ireland was aware of the degraded condition in which the dwellings were allowed to remain. He trusted that the House would receive from the Government an assurance that something would be done in the matter. The extension of chargeability over the whole Unions would, he thought, accomplish the object. The question called for the interference of the House. In 1866 the net rental of lands sold in the Landed Estates Court was £68,350. They sold for 19 6–7th years' purchase, yielding £1,258,585. Then, in 1867, came disturbance, and lands of the net rental of £89,953 were thrown into the market, and they sold at only 16 8–9th years' purchase, yielding £1,578,307, or, in fact, £257,900 less in proportion than they would have done the year before. With a more quiet state of things in 1868, lands of the value of £72,689 net rental were sold, rising to 18 1–3rd years' purchase, and producing £1,382,108, or an increase of £125,000 on the market price of 1867. In the past year, for which Return he was indebted to the Registrar of the Court in Dublin, the sales were of land of a net rental of £67,968, and the proceeds were £1,168,857, or 17 1–5th years' rental, being £180,793 less than when land, in 1866, was sold under a more settled condition of Ireland. The sales in the Landed Estates Court might, therefore, be regarded as so many market quotations of the value of land, and of the sense of security in Ireland. During the last four years land to the value of £5,327,837 was sold, and had it realized 20 years' purchase, as in 1866, upwards of £750,000 would have been added to the total amount realized. He considered it of great importance that the condition of the labouring population should be, as far as possible, ameliorated, so that their eyes might be turned to this country, instead of to their "home across the water," as it was called. He had, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory).

said, he strongly sympathized, and the Government strongly sympathized, with the object which his hon. Friend who had just sat down and his hon. Friend the Member for Galway had in view; and if the Government were unable to agree to the Motion it was simply because they did not believe that in this Bill it would produce the effect which was expected. The clause would not benefit the class they desired to benefit, and it would be a serious danger to tenant-farmers. What he had to put to his hon. Friend and to the House was, that these elaborate and carefully-constructed provisions for the benefit of the labourer had been built upon a foundation which was totally unable to bear them; for, at the point where it was proposed to introduce them, they were merely so many exceptions to an act of forfeiture which was altogether absolute, and without the slightest discretion left to the Judge. The Government, therefore, could not agree to the proposal, inasmuch as it would be a provision not for the benefit of the labourer, but a trap and snare for the tenant, into which, if he fell, he would lose the benefit of all claims under Clause 3. If his hon. Friend thought that by this proposition he would induce the Irish tenant-farmers to erect cottages for labourers and give the cottagers a garden, he submitted that the clause would have a directly contrary effect. Legislation upon this subject ought to be positive; and there were various ways, outside the present Bill, in which the condition of the labourer might be improved. The rigid requirements, for instance, of the Cottier Tenant Act, hitherto almost null and void, might be simplified, and something might be done as to the question of Union rating, upon which it was well known to many Members that he himself felt very strongly. Questions such as these ought to receive and would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and he knew no way, both in England and in Ireland, in which the condition of the labouring classes could be advanced with better promise of ultimate success than by studying these questions with a view to effectual legislation. He hoped his hon. Friend would rest satisfied with this assurance, and would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

regarded this as one of the most important Amendments that could be introduced into the Bill, and regretted that, as on too many occasions when important provisions were proposed, the Government should decline to allow it to be introduced. The necessity for such an Amendment was clear from the fact that, though Parliament some years ago had agreed to advance at reasonable interest about £250,000 for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, but little of that money had been applied for, although in one place as many as three families were compelled to live in a single room. If the landlords would not build these cottages, facility for building them should be afforded to the tenant, and he, therefore, approved the principle embodied in the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Galway.

said, that he was unable to agree with the clause, though he hoped that to dissent from it was no evidence of want of friendliness for the Irish cottagers. He considered that the provisions of the clause would be prejudicial to the tenantry, and would enable the landlords to take undue advantage of them. They would also tend to encourage subletting, and to sow the seed of division between the labourers and tenants.

said, he thought the alternative scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Galway possessed great advantages; because, if the landlord refused to build the labourer's cottage, the power would be lodged in the hands of the tenant, upon whom pressure could be brought to bear with a view to make the structures more habitable than they usually were at the present time. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that if it were left to the tenant alone to build the labourer's cottage it would furnish a pretext for subletting, and be a trap for the tenant as well as the landlord. He hoped, therefore, the Chief Secretary would reconsider the matter.

expressed the opinion that it would be anything but desirable to give encouragement to the setting up of a wretched class of cottages.

observed, that there was no necessity for introducing an element of opposition between labourer and tenant in this matter. He had not heard any good reason in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland why an option should not be given in the first instance to the landlord. He feared that the system of cottage building for labourers would make the labourer the mere serf of the farmer upon whose land he lived.

said, there were two questions very distinct indeed which had Been satisfactorily brought to issue, the one in relation to the whole clause as it stood, and the other to limited portions of the clause comprised in sub-sections (a) and (b). The apprehension of the Government was that the addition of the clause as it stood would simply paralyze what had already been inserted in Clause 3, with regard to the erection of labourers' cottages by tenants. It was not credible that any tenant—unless he had just come out of a lunatic asylum, or was about to go into one—would consent to build cottages under the provisions of this clause. But with respect to the option that would be given to the landlord in sub-sections (a) and (b), the Government did not see any such objection to it as would induce them to resist the appeal of gentlemen highly competent to pass a judgment on the subject. The idea that was in his mind was this—that it would be better for the labourer to have a cottage erected for him, bad as it might be, for why should he go into it if he could do better? However, he would be glad to bring the discussion to an end by accepting the substance of sub-sections (a) and (b).

said, he had heard, with some satisfaction, the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman had come. The arguments, however, of the right hon. Gentleman against the proposal went to the root of the whole Bill, which was founded on an exception to the principles of political economy and of free agency. He regretted that the concession of the Government did not go far enough. It did not embrace two important points—namely, a provision to secure the ordinary decencies of life for the unfortunate peasants, who lived in miserable hovels, and some safeguard against the exaction of an exorbitant rent for the privilege of inhabiting them. No class in Ireland, he believed, was more deserving of the sympathy of the House than the peasantry; and he had watched with an almost painful attention that interesting discussion with respect to their dwellings, on the state of which their material, social, and moral welfare must so much depend. He rejoiced that at almost the last stage of the Bill that important question had been raised, and hoped it would be settled in a manner that would tend to ameliorate the condition of the Irish peasantry.

said, some modification would be necessary in the part of the clause accepted by the Government, in order to make it effectual in its working, and to empower the tenant, if the landlord refused him permission to erect a labourer's cottage on his holding, to erect it in that case himself. There ought, he thought, also to be some provision as to the character of the building to be erected—as for example, requiring it to consist of two rooms at least, and the like.

expressed his gratitude to the hon. Member for Galway for his benevolent proposal. He was glad that the Government had acceded to sub-sections (a) and (b); but thought that concession would be useless unless accompanied by some provision regarding the structural ar the rangements of the cottages, and trusted hon. Member (Mr. W. H. Gregory) would take the sense of the House on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said he was surprised the labourers should take bad cottages when they might go elsewhere. But the fact was they had nowhere else to go. There was a constant struggle on the part of the farmers—and he was not surprised at it, considering the small size of many of their holdings—to drive the labourer down to the lowest point that would keep soul and body together. He would remind the House that the labourers constituted half the labouring population of Ireland. The Fenian movement was confined to that class, which was not surprising, considering how badly they were housed.

said, he could not vote with the hon. Member for Galway, because his Amendment would restrict the power given to the tenant under the 3rd section of the Bill.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Galway would persevere with that part of his proposition which would provide that the cottages of labourers should be up to a certain standard.

said, he could not allow this discussion to close without expressing a strong opinion in favour of the clause, especially of that sub-clause which had respect to the structural arrangements of the cottage. If there was no restriction put upon these erections, he was afraid they would see cottages run up like those in the north suburbs of Dublin, many of which, as he could state from his own knowledge, were not fit for the habitations of human beings. His belief was that these miserable residences tended to a lowering of the moral feeling of the people. The families became dead to all moral ideas and associations; while the men were to be found employing their Sundays in the public-houses, or playing at cards on the road sides. When he complained to the proprietors of this state of things, their answer invariably was—These are cottages over which we have no power; they do not belong to us, but to the tenant-farmers. He would say further that there was no use in leaving this question to the ordinary operation of supply and demand, for as Sir George Lewis said, there was a tendency in the Irish mind, the effect of which was that they would never improve unless an inspiration came from above.

moved to insert the following clause after Clause 64:—

(Compensation for improvements on eviction.)

"In all cases not herein before provided for, every occupier of land shall be entitled before eviction to recover from the owner thereof the present value of all improvements made thereon by such occupier or his predecessors in title, in good faith, or in ignorance of defects in the title under which the same was held."

The object of his clause was, that if it should be found the landlord's title was unsound, his tenant should be compensated by his successor for improvements made in good faith.

(Mr. DOWSE) objected to the clause, thinking it would open too wide a field to enter upon at the present stage of the Bill. Even if the principle of the clause were agreed to, it would require considerable amendment in order to carry out the intention which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.

said, that it would be very dangerous to insert into the clause the words proposed, which were rather vague and general. The class of cases to which the Amendment was designed to apply already came within the competency of the Bill, and it would be well to leave them to be dealt with by the Bill.

proposed the insertion of the word "waste," after the word "of," in line 9.

said, that the effect of the introduction of the word would limit the claim for compensation to the reclamation of waste land only, whereas there was a very large portion of land in Ireland which was not strictly waste, such as tracts known as snipe-shooting land, which were quite wet and rocky. Now, the removal of rocks was the best method of reclaiming land, and very often more expensive than thorough drainage. He asked the Secretary for Ireland to put in the words "waste and other lands," and then it would be left to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions to decide whether other lands which were reclaimed came within the meaning of the section or not.

(Mr. DOWSE) said, his hon. Friend was in error in supposing that the proposed alteration would deprive the tenant of any right he might possess in regard to the reclamation of land other than waste land, because the improvements were defined at the end of the Bill as any improvements which added to the letting value of a holding. A distinction was, however, drawn between the reclamation of land and other improvements, and the object of the Amendment was merely to render more clear what had always been the intention of the Government in reference to this matter.

said, the reclamation of land meant something very different from the reclamation of waste land. The Amendment made a material change, not in favour of the tenant, but in abridging improvements. There were some lands which, though not waste lands, were very nearly so, and if they were reclaimed by the tenant he ought to be paid for their reclamation. For once he was unconvinced by the ability and ingenuity of his hon. and learned Friend and he should therefore give his cordial support to the Amendment.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Limerick somewhat mistook, in the fervour of his eloquence, that which the Government proposed. It was not proposed to do away with compensation for improvements under the operation of the Improvements Clause, in the case of any species of reclamation; but that the reclamation of waste land should only be brought under that category of permanent improvements which stood on the same footing as permanent buildings. That, in his opinion, was a perfectly just proposal.

thanked the Government for having introduced the word "waste." As the Bill stood before there was great confusion as to what was meant as between reclamation and general improvements.

pointed out that the Government had more than once in the course of the discussions in Committee promised to introduce some definition of the word "reclamation," and that they never intended it to apply to anything but reclamation properly and strictly so called.

said, he had always understood that the reclamation for which the Government contended was, that which had been defined in the Acts of Parliament to which the Solicitor General for Ireland had so often referred when the Bill was in Committee. The reclamation of land, he maintained, meant something more than the draining of a bog or a morass. It meant, for instance, the removal of rocks as well as furze from ground which was not exactly waste, and which might have been used for the pasture of cattle. He knew a case in which some land, for which the tenants paid only from 4s. to 8s. per acre, was, by the expenditure of some £8 or £10 an acre upon it by the landlord, made worth £2 2s. an acre at the end of four or five years. Now, such reclamation as that would be excluded under the proposal of the Government.

pointed out that in such a case as that just mentioned, the tenant could recoup himself for his outlay in four or five years, while with a 31 years' lease he could do much more than recoup himself.

said, there was a difference between waste land and bog. Bog land was land where turf could be cut; but waste land was land where the turf had already been cut off.

suggested that if the tenant actually reclaimed land, which would be useless without his labour, although it might not come under the description of waste land, he ought to be entitled to compensation.

said, he thought it desirable that the words "or other land" should be inserted, or that the words "waste lands" should be omitted. English Members might not be fully acquainted with the local considerations affecting the matter; but they could use their common sense with regard to the statements of Irish Members that there was some land which required reclamation, while it could not properly be said to be waste, and thus they would be led to the conclusion that the tenant should be compensated for the work which he bestowed on such land. He could not admit that the word "improvement," as explained in the Interpretation Clause, would apply to such cases as had been mentioned, for it was used almost in contradistinction to reclamation.

moved, in Clause 3, sub-Section 2, page 3, line 21, after "the consent of the landlord," to leaveout "in writing." He explained that the object of his Amendment was to enable the tenant to benefit by the 3rd section, even where he only received the verbal permission of the landlord, and to restore the Bill to the form in which it appeared when first introduced by the Government.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that verbal contracts led to litigation, and that a subletting was an important matter, which ought to be the subject of a written contract.

thought the words "in writing," had better be retained.

said, he would withdraw the Amendment.

proposed to add, at the end of sub-Section 2, words to the same effect as the two first conditions in the rejected clause of the hon. Member for Galway, in relation to the erection of labourers' cottages. The Amendment was as follows:—

"Provided no tenant of any holding shall erect any labourer's cottage on his holding without first applying to the landlord, or his known agent, for liberty to do so; and in case the landlord shall, within 12 months of such application, consent to erect the cottage at his own expense, the tenant shall not he at liberty to erect a cottage.

proposed to amend the phrase, "by the act of his immediate landlord," by omitting "immediate" and inserting "the."

said, the reasons for retaining the word "immediate" had been stated in Committee. This was a retrospective clause, which did not affect future tenancies, and he did not think they could go further.

proposed in Clause 6, page 6, line 42, to insert after "tenant" the words "on quitting his holding," the object of the Amendment being to provide that a tenant should not be entitled to receive compensation under the clause unless he quitted his holding.

(Mr. DOWSE) explained that the words were unnecessary, as the fair meaning of the clause was that a tenant should not be entitled to receive compensation until he had given up possession to the landlord.

said, the words were in one clause, and they ought to be in the other, or there would be danger of producing confusion.

said, that the Compensation Clause was quite separate from Clause 3.

proposed at the end of Clause 14 to add the following proviso—

"And, in any case in which compensation shall be claimed under section three of this Act, if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been willing to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding upon just and reasonable terms, and that such terms have been unreasonably refused by the tenant, the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed."

The words of the clause were somewhat vague, and open to some uncertainty; but with the proviso there would be no doubt as to the principle by which the Court would be regulated.

said, he thought the proviso quite as vague and indefinite as the original clause. For instance, it provided "if it shall appear to the Court that the landlord has been willing" when? 10 years ago, or how long since?—"to permit the tenant to continue in the occupation of his holding"—for how long?—"upon just and reasonable terms,"—he was entirely at a loss to know the distinction between "just" and "reasonable;"—"and that such terms have been unreasonably refused"—how could the tenant reasonably refuse what was reasonable?—"the claim of the tenant to such compensation shall be disallowed." Why, if a tenant had been a little unreasonable, was the Court to deprive him of all compensation? He did not think the proviso would make the clause more easy of interpretation.

supported the proviso. It certainly would assist in the interpretation of this clause. It clearly pointed out one principal matter in which the Judge was to exercise his discretion against the tenant—where the landlord had offered him fair terms of continuance in his holding. If the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had to construe the proviso as a Judge he would soon show there was no difficulty in it.

said, he would have some hesitation in opposing the Amendment, coming, as it did, from so high a quarter; but for the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Jessel) had strengthened the objection which he entertained to it.

said, he thought there was no difficulty in understanding the wording of the proposed Amendment; but the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) was willing to consent to an alteration which would make it read, as to the landlord, "has been and is willing," and as to the tenant, "have been and are unreasonably refused."

(Mr. DOWSE), on the part of the Government, accepted the Amendment as amended.

said, that the Bill, as it stood, required the hearing of every appeal to be before two Judges of Assize, which, upon reconsideration, was thought to be going too far. He accordingly proposed, in page 11, to leave out lines 23 and 24, and to insert these words—

"And every such appeal, so far as the same involves questions of fact, may be heard and determined by one of the said judges; but in case any question of law shall arise upon any such appeal, such question shall be heard and determined by both the said judges, who shall for such purpose sit together."

, in proposing an Amendment in Clause 23, the object of which was to give the power to Irish landowners to grant to their tenants tenancies for life, expressed his belief that the insertion of such a provision would render the Bill more acceptable to the Irish tenant than it would be if it conferred solely the power of granting leases for 31 years, inasmuch as a tenant would usually prefer a lease for his own life to one for 31 years.

observed that this Bill was not a leasing Bill, and that the object which the hon. Gentleman sought to attain—that of putting the tenant for life on the same footing as the holder of a lease for 31 years—could not now be done, inasmuch as the matter had already been settled in a. former portion of the Bill.

said, he had supported the hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, when he had made a similar proposal, and believed still that a lease for life would be regarded as more valuable than a lease for 31 years. When a man holding a lease for 31 years died, the small remaining interest was subject to probate, succession, and legacy duties; and, to his knowledge, the whole of the assets had frequently been wasted in a contest among the children with reference to the division of the property. Every one of those inconveniences would be obviated by a lease for life, a tenancy which, he believed, would be preferred in most cases. All the Amendment asked was to give the landlord and tenant the alternative power of agreeing to a lease for life.

wished that the Government had originally adopted the very reasonable suggestion which was made by his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Wren-Hoskyns). A life tenancy was not only a popular term in Ireland, but a good agricultural term, as at the end of even a 31 years' lease there was a great temptation to exhaust the soil; whereas that temptation would be removed in a tenancy for life, as the tenant, like every other individual, would consider all men mortal but himself.

trusted that the Government would not give way upon this point. He believed that, in the case of a tenancy for life, when the tenant became ill every endeavour would be made on the part of his relatives to get as much as possible out of the soil. The result of such a proposal as this being adopted would be bad for the landlord, bad for the tenant, and bad for the community.

, in moving that the clause be left out, said that Clauses 60 and 62 were both classed under the head of Miscellaneous; the reason being, in his opinion, that they were not germane to the subject-matter of the Bill. The latter clause operated most unfairly upon landlords of small tenancies valued at £4 and under, by throwing upon them the burden of the Grand Jury cess. No landlords were more to be pitied, as they had the least improving tenants, and they deserved great credit for not having exercised their power of ejectment. The Solicitor General for Ireland had stated that most of these small tenants were Roman Catholics, and as it was well known that the landlords were almost all Protestants, the fact that the power of ejectment had not been exercised showed the kindly fooling that existed. Instead of throwing a protection around the smaller tenants, this clause would expose them to the danger of eviction. He begged to move that the clause be omitted.

Sir, I ask the kind indulgence of the House whilst I bring before it a subject of great importance—namely, the right of naval officers when on half-pay to exercise all the rights and privileges of English citizens. The immediate cause of the Notice which I have given is to be found in a speech addressed by an hon. Member, whom I see present, to this House on the subject of the West African Squadron. He, with some geographical incoherence as it seemed to me, drew the House upon this Notice into a China debate, and then thought it his duty to comment in very disparaging terms upon the conduct of some naval officers in that part of the world, whose only fault seems to have been obedience to orders and gallant performance of duty. Two of these gallant seamen, Admiral Sir Henry Keppel and Commander Gurdon, are Norfolk men, of whom Norfolk is proud; and they were so well defended by their hon. Member on that night, that the hon. Member who brought forward the consideration of the West Coast of Africa Squadron stated to the House that he had no desire to attack their personal characters. Perhaps that hon. Member does not know how sensitive naval officers are as to their honour, and is not aware that to call naval officers pirates is attacking their honour. Be that as it may, Commander Gurdon, so soon as he saw the debate, and observed that his character had been maligned, did what many others do—he sought redress and relief in a letter addressed to The Times. The letter did him honour. It was temperate and discreet, and merely quoted official correspondence, then in the hands of hon. Members, to show that he had carried out the orders of his superiors in a gallant and faithful manner. Well, a few days after another hon. Member addressed a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the right of a naval officer on half-pay to write such a letter. I have consulted with my right hon. Friends the Members for Tyrone and Droitwich, and they say that to such Question they would have replied that the matter was beyond their jurisdiction, and that they had nothing to do with it. A Question indeed might, perhaps, have been addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, for Commander Gurdon, though in most respectful terms, did introduce the name of an hon. Member into his letter, and in so doing perhaps violated the privileges of this House. I am quite sure that you would have done all that might be needful to protect the freedom of debate; but as this indiscretion has frequently occurred of late, I am sure you would have done so without damaging the prospects of this gallant young officer. The First Lord of the Admiralty, however, returned an answer which very much surprised many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have been connected with the Board of Admiralty. As far as I recollect, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty replied in these terms to the Question of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. R. Shaw)—

"I beg to say that my attention was drawn to a letter published in a newspaper by a Commander in the Navy commenting on debates in this House, and that by the 12th chapter of the Queen's Regulations officers are forbidden to write to any newspaper on subjects connected with the naval service, or publish, or cause to be published, directly or indirectly, in any newspaper or other periodical, any matter or thing relating to the public service. There is no doubt that the publication of that letter was not in accordance with the regulation I have just read; but I am bound to say that this regulation has been, both lately and for some time past, so frequently violated by officers of much higher rank than the officer to whom I presume my hon. Friend alludes, that I should think it far from fair if I took public notice of this letter, considering that others have committed the same irregularity without any notice being taken of it. Under these circumstances, it is not my intention to take any public notice of this proceeding; but the attention of myself and my Colleagues has been given to this subject, and before long we propose to take such steps with reference to the Queen's Regulations, as in our opinion will be advisable, with a view to preventing a repetition of irregularities in this respect."

Now, the House will observe in this reply three points which require its attention. First, the First Lord of the Admiralty asserts that naval officers on half-pay are not free to write letters to the public journals; second, he promises that Commander Gurdon shall not suffer for writing; third, that the Board are about to issue more stringent Regulations to prevent officers writing letters to the Press. I propose to examine the second of these propositions first, to see in what way the Board keeps faith with naval officers, and how the First Lord has fulfilled his promise that Commander Gurdon should not suffer for doing what he had a perfect right to do. Commander Gurdon has written me a letter, which, with the permission of the House, I will now quote. It will show the manner in which he has been treated after the First Lord's public statement that no notice was to be taken of his having written a letter to a newspaper. With the per- mission of the House I will read an extract from Commander Gurdon's letter. He writes—

"As I see that your question of any law against half-pay officers writing to the papers is coming on, I take the liberty of writing to acquaint you with the particulars of my case. I wrote what I believe everybody acknowledges a very temperate letter to two papers, pointing out several inaccuracies in Mr. Rylands' speech. Three or four days afterwards I went to the Admiralty, to ask for the appointment of Commander of the Clio, which my old friend Commodore Stirling (whom I had served with previously) desired me to do. On asking Sir Sydney Dacres for the appointment, he said to me—'I shall not give you the appointment, Captain Gurdon, because you have been writing to the papers.' I mentioned that, being on half-pay, I conceived that I had a perfect right to do so, more especially as I had been attacked. Sir Sydney told me that I had no such right—that the Admiralty had determined to put a stop to officers writing in the papers, and then said—'You are not fit to be a commander of a ship if you write in the papers.' Commodore Stirling stated in his telegram to me that he expected to sail in three days. I may add that on my speaking to Sir Sydney Dacres three weeks before about this appointment, he then told me that Captain Stirling should have anyone he asked for as commander On my reminding him of this he said—'Ah, but you had not written to the papers then.'"

This is the way in which the present Board fulfils the promises made by the First Lord to the House of Commons. Commander Gurdon is one of the youngest and most distinguished Commanders now on the list; yet, stung by the treatment he has received, he has resigned his commission. I perceive that the First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I understand from this letter that Commander Gurdon has sent in his resignation. Of course, I cannot say whether the First Lord has accepted his resignation; but I am not surprised at his intention to resign after the scandalous treatment to which he has been subjected. I understand that the Admiralty, to avoid an unpleasant scrape, have stated that Commander Gurdon is too junior a commander to receive the appointment to the Clio. The House will judge of the value of this excuse, for if they look at the official Navy List they will find that Commanders Fisher, Durrant, and Sheepshanks are all junior to Commander Gurdon, but are all employed. But if the treatment of Commander Gurdon is scandalous and contrary to the pledge given by the First Lord to the House, I also contend that his whole reply is founded on an entire misapprehension of the law. The only clause which in any way forbids any naval officer to write a letter to the papers is the 12th clause of the Queen's Regulations. This clause is in the chapter on Discipline. It is as follows:—

"Every person belonging to the Fleet is forbidden to write to any newspaper on subjects connected with the naval service."

The chapter on Discipline contains instructions to those who are embarked and employed in the Fleet on full-pay, and the Regulations themselves are addressed "To the Flag Officers, Captains, and Officers commanding Her Majesty's ships and vessels of war." A half-pay officer not only is not bound by them, but he may have no legal knowledge of their existence. Indeed, where, as in the case of receiving presents from those with whom he may have served, it is deemed desirable to guard against an officer retiring on half-pay to evade the Regulations, the phraseology is changed, and that clause is addressed to all the officers of Her Majesty's Navy. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman had turned to Article 70, the last clause of the chapter on Discipline, and generally considered to govern it, he would have found that Article 70 declares—

"Officers, &c., shall, so long as they are borne on the books of the ship, be deemed to be persons in and belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, and subject, &c., to the Naval Discipline Act."

It will be seen from this that "belonging to the Fleet" and borne on the books of; Her Majesty's ships must qualify the condition of naval officers over whose power to write letters the Admiralty can claim any control. Why, Sir, the only power the Admiralty has to issue and enforce these Regulations is contained in the Act for the Government of the Navy, passed in 1861, and the Naval Discipline Act, passed in 1864. Clause 83 of the Naval Discipline Act thus provides—

"Every person in or belonging to Her Majesty's Navy, and borne on the books of one of Her Majesty's ships in commission, shall be subject to this Act; and all other persons hereby made liable thereto, and all spies, shall be triable and punishable under this Act;"

and the First Lord has no power whatever to extend the application of this law to officers on half-pay. No such attempt has been made for more than a century. In 1749, indeed, an attempt was made to bring half-pay officers under the authority of martial law; but it met with a defeat at the hands of the then House of Commons; and I trust that the present House will not be less vigilant for the rights and liberties of any class of Her Majesty's subjects than was its predecessor in 1749. I quote from Mc Arthur on Courts Martial, Vol. I., cap. ix.—

"The Bill for amending, explaining, and reducing into one Act of Parliament the laws relating to His Majesty's Navy, when it was first presented to the House (Feb. 1, 1749), contained an article rendering the half-pay officers subject to martial law, in the same manner as if they were on full-pay. As this was a subject that had never been canvassed, it met strong opposition. The reading of the Bill was put off till the 24th of February, at which time a petition was presented against it by Sir John Norris, and supported by Sir Peter Warren. This Petition was signed by three admirals and 47 captains. In the subsequent readings and progress of the Bill (April, 1749) this article occasioned warm debate, and the Minister, Mr. Pelham, beginning to apprehend some disagreeable consequences from the spirit then manifested without doors, yielded to the Opposition, and agreed that the article should be omitted."

Further on in the same volume it stated that in 1785—

"The court-martial appointed to try General Ross respecting a letter written by him reflecting on General Boyd, met to receive the opinion of the 12 Judges on the point submitted to them—viz., whether General Ross, as an officer on half-pay, was subject to the tribunal of a court-martial. The Judges gave an unanimous opinion—'That he was not, as a half-pay officer, subject to military law.'"

The offence with which General Ross was charged was exactly the same as that with which Commander Gurdon has been charged; and I venture to say that if it was referred to the Bench of Judges they would affirm the judgment of their predecessors, and decide that the First Lord of the Admiralty has not only exceeded his powers but mistaken the law. The right hon. Gentleman has exceeded the most arbitrary act that any of his predecessors have ever attempted, for he has refused employment to Commander Gurdon, a most distinguished young officer, for having done that which he, being on half-pay, had a perfect right to do. A more unjust and uncalled-for act has, in my opinion, never been perpetrated by a Minister of the Crown. The subject of officers on half-pay writing to newspapers has come before the Admiralty on several occasions. When that very excellent scientific officer Captain Coles was on full-pay during the building of the Captain, he entered into a very stormy correspondence in the newspapers, which appeared to reflect upon the Admiralty; but even in that case the Admiralty did not take proceedings against him, but had merely cautioned him against a repetition of such conduct. In the case of another distinguished officer, known to many Members of this House, the late Sir William Bowles, who was appointed Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth in 1863, and who became engaged in a correspondence in the newspapers, the Admiralty of the day, thinking it improper that the correspondence should be continued, Sir William Bowles resigned his command, and continued the correspondence as an officer on half-pay, a proceeding which the Admiralty felt they had no right to object to. The course which has been taken by the present First Lord of the Admiralty is not only unjust, but imprudent and impolitic, because it tends to induce officers to write to newspapers anonymously instead of under their own names. Should the officers cease to place their signatures at the foot of their letters to newspapers, it might be possible that they might attack their superiors more freely than is at present the case—not that I believe for a moment that those gallant gentlemen are likely to be guilty of such conduct. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the step he has done in this matter in order that he may attempt to introduce a regulation which has never been attempted since 1749. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person who ought to have attempted to stop officers writing to the newspapers, inasmuch as when he took the command of the Channel Fleet he took with him his own reporter on board his ship to write criticisms upon the conduct of gallant officers who, being officers on full-pay, were precluded from writing to the newspapers in their own defence. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman should be the last to attempt to muzzle those who, having been called "pirates," sought to defend themselves from the imputations cast upon them, and in making such an attempt he is doing that which he has no business to attempt. It is under these circumstances, and for the reasons I have assigned, that I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to lay upon the Table of the House any Regulation which prohibits Naval Officers on half-pay or retired pay from writing letters to the public journals; and to move, That any new Regulation on the subject which may be decided upon by the Board of Admiralty, be laid upon the Table of the House.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken at so great length compared to what I had expected from him upon this subject, has ended his statement with a facetious remark, which is as little founded as I shall be able to show are the charges contained in the earlier part of his speech. He states that on a recent occasion, when the Admiralty went to sea with the combined fleets, I had employed a person on board the flag-ship as reporter for a certain newspaper, and that he made observations which could not be answered by the very numerous persons to whom they referred. I will at once dispose of that assertion by stating that on board several of the ships, by permission of the commanding officers, there were present persons who afterwards wrote very interesting accounts of what passed during the cruise, which appeared in the newspapers; but I was not responsible for what happened in this respect on board one ship more than another; and on the whole, the persons who wrote those accounts reflected more upon the Admiralty than upon anyone else. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that upon that point, at all events, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn upon his imagination. Passing from that subject, however, I will now proceed to deal with the main question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. About two months ago a debate arose in this House, nominally upon the strength of the fleet upon the West Coast of Africa, but which really branched out into matters that related to the fleets generally. During that debate allu- sion was made to circumstances connected with several officers who had been employed upon the China Station, and two very young officers, whose conduct had been the subject of some correspondence during the previous year, and had not been entirely approved by the Admiralty, although they had exhibited very considerable gallantry, were particularly referred to. Under these circumstances it became my duty to defend these officers as well as other officers who had been personally alluded to in the course of the discussion. A day or two after that debate took place these two young officers felt disposed to write to the newspapers with the view of questioning the accuracy of some of the statements that had been made in the course of the debate. One of them having consulted a relative of his who has a seat in this House, was advised not to enter into such a correspondence, and he very properly acted upon that advice; the other, however, unfortunately did not take that prudent course, and wrote a letter to the newspapers on the subject on which he felt himself aggrieved. The attention of the public having been drawn to the subject, an hon. Member (Mr. R. Shaw) asked in this House whether it was my intention to take any notice of the letter written by that officer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has pretty fully, but not quite accurately, as far as words go, given the substance of my reply to the Question. What I did state on that occasion was, that it had been of late, not unfrequently, the custom for officers to write letters to the newspapers of the nature of those that had been written by this gentleman, and that, therefore, I thought that it would have been very unfair if I had taken notice of this particular officer's conduct when others who had written similar letters had not been interfered with. I said that it was not my intention to do so, and I further stated generally what was the Admiralty Regulation upon this subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, from these observations, jumped to a very wide conclusion—namely, that I intended or wished to bring half-pay officers under the Naval Discipline Act; and he has entered into an argument to show that for many years past it has been understood that officers on half-pay should not be subjected to naval discipline. I will not enter into any argument on the question, for every tyro in politics must know well that it is one of the most vital constitutional principles, that officers on half-pay are not subject to the Naval Discipline Act; and any First Lord of the Admiralty who attempted to bring an officer on half-pay before a court-martial would deserve the censure of this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore, was quite wrong in assuming that I had any idea of subjecting officers on half-pay to naval discipline. There is, however, another, and a very different question—namely, whether officers on half-pay are in such a position that it is not competent for the Admiralty under any circumstances to take notice of anything done by them.

said, he was quite aware that in cases of felony and of conduct unbecoming a gentleman, the Admiralty would have power to take notice of the conduct of officers on half-pay.

Exactly; although I should have thought that it would scarcely have been necessary to consider whether the Admiralty could take notice of the conduct of officers who have been guilty of felony. But what would be the consequences of the doctrine laid down in his speech by the hon. and gallant Member? If the view of the hon. and gallant Member were carried out—and, except as to cases of felony, a half-pay officer was to be treated as an ordinary civilian in private life—what was there to prevent him from publishing information which he might have obtained while employed, or threatening to do so, or to enter into newspaper controversies, unless employment was given to him? Let me remind the House what a half-pay naval officer now is. At the present moment, to a considerable extent, and soon I hope almost universally, a half-pay officer is a public servant who has lately been on full-pay, and who is urging the Admiralty to re-employ him. Surely it cannot be said that he is, under those circumstances, to have no more reticence with respect to newspaper writing or controversies than any ordinary civilian. I will illustrate this by examples taken from other articles in the Queen's Instructions, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman says do not relate to half-pay officers. The article as to newspaper writing is the 12th in the chapter as to Discipline. The 13th for- bids officers to receive presents from foreign Sovereigns or States. If this does not refer to half-pay officers, what is to prevent an officer the day after he strikes his flag or goes on half pay from receiving presents for service done while employed? So, the 12th article prohibits an officer from being "complimented" by presents or by collective expressions of opinion on the part of officers and men of the fleet. Will anyone pretend that the day after he goes on half-pay he would be allowed to receive such presents or testimonials? Again, the 11th article prohibits combinations of officers to bring about alterations of regulations, especially as to pay. Is it to be understood that while officers on full-pay may not combine to get their full pay raised, officers on half-pay may combine for such a purpose? Such a doctrine would be destructive of the discipline of the service. The real fact is, that while half-pay officers are not subject to naval discipline—that is to say, cannot be tried by court-martial, they are like all other public servants, bound to obey the lawful Regulations of the Service laid down by competent authority, and applying to them, and may be reprimanded or refused employment for breach of those Regulations. As to newspaper writing, this is by no means a new question. The matter has been very carefully considered, and decided in the most unmistakable manner by previous Boards of Admiralty. In 1849, Sir Charles Napier, while on half-pay, wrote several letters to Lord John Russell, then Prime Minister, through The Times newspaper, reflecting upon the administration of the Navy, and Sir Francis Baring, then First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom it appears he had had an interview and some conversation, wrote to him disapproving officially of the correspondence, and informing him that he had "set a most unfortunate example to the naval service, for having made such attacks on those to whom Her Majesty had intrusted the administration of the Navy," complimenting him "for his professional character, but doubting his discretion." This drew an impetuous letter from Sir Charles Napier to the Board, asking their protection against Sir Francis Baring's remark on his want of discretion. Sir Charles was informed in reply that, in the opinion of their Lordships, he had evinced considerable want of judgment and discretion in the publication of these letters. The Board at that period consisted of Admirals Deans-Dundas, and Berkeley, and Captains Lord John Hay and Milne. I have examined the Papers left on record at that period, and find the greatest unanimity of opinion among these officers on the subject. Admiral Dundas says—

"I highly disapprove of the improper mode Sir Charles Napier has adopted of stating his opinion and grievances on naval affairs."

Admiral Berkeley says that "it is a bad example to junior officers." Lord John Hay states that he—

"Cannot admit the circumstances of Sir Charles Napier being on half-pay sanction in any degree a practice dangerous to the discipline and best interests of the naval service."

Sir Alexander Milne, now in command of the Mediterranean Station, and Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty during the last Administration—

"Recommends that Sir Charles Napier should be informed that their Lordships deeply regret he should have adopted a course likely to prove mischievous in its results, and that by so doing he has shown a most pernicious example to the junior officers of the fleet, tending in a high degree to subvert the discipline of the service."

Nothing could be further from my wish than to prevent officers on half-pay writing temperately to newspapers, as long as the subject of their correspondence does not relate to their own services, but to matters connected with the service generally. I agree that the public often gains much from the free and open discussion of general naval questions by officers on half-pay; and it would be most impolitic to interfere with the absolute liberty of half-pay officers in this respect; but the discussion must be general and not personal to themselves, I admit that in parts of the Queen's Regulations there is considerable ambiguity with regard to their application to officers on half-pay, and it is desirable that that ambiguity should be cleared up. When we have an opportunity of revising the Regulations in this respect, care will be taken to lay down the principle which I have endeavoured to explain, and I should hope that the present misapprehension will be entirely removed. With regard to the particular officer whose letter is referred to, I have heard with some surprise the statement of the hon. and gallant Baronet. I have already stated in this House that it would be very unfair to punish that gentleman for an act which I think he ought not to have committed, but which had been committed by others, and which I did not intend to take notice of. He is, I believe, the youngest commander in the service, or, at all events, one of the youngest, being only 25 years of age, and it is very rare that officers of that rank are employed until they are three or four years older. He stands almost at the bottom of the list, and the House must remember how great would be the complaint from senior officers, who have been for years unemployed, if he were selected for employment on full-pay in preference to them. He was distinctly told when he applied for employment some time before he wrote this letter, that he must wait his turn, and I still see no reason why he should be appointed to a ship in preference to many others. If there has been any misunderstanding as to words used by officers at the Admiralty to this young officer I will do my best to set it right; but on the general question, I wish it to be perfectly clear that I have not the remotest intention of interfering with the absolute liberty of officers on half-pay to write temperately on any subject which does not relate to their own services.

remarked that he had never heard a clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman, who was an adept in that species of oratory which was only to be acquired in official circles. On the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman had utterly and entirely shirked the question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rylands), who occupied the singular position of representing a minority, had endeavoured, to distinguish himself by taking part in questions which he knew nothing whatever about; and, on this subject, he had only shown the most utter, and miserable, and wretched ignorance. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward a Motion for reducing our foreign squadron. He (Sir James Elphinstone) should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman ever saw a squadron? The hon. Gentleman had calumniated two of the finest; young officers in the service, making statements which were actually inconsistent with the facts of the case: he described the inhabitants of Formosa, who were the greatest miscreants in the world, as the "peaceful inhabitants of Formosa." Now, ever since he first went to sea, it had been as much, as a man's life was worth to be wrecked on the island of Formosa. The natives were mere banditti, who defied the law of nations, and over whom the Chinese had no control. The hon. Member made the most calumnious accusations.

rose to Order. "Calumnious" was not a word which ought to be used by one hon. Member when speaking of the statements of another.

said, the word had been called in question before, when it was not considered to be a word which was un-Parliamentary.

said, he would adopt any word which went as near the Parliamentary margin as possible to describe the statements of the hon. Gentleman. They were such statements as the hon. Gentleman could not possibly substantiate. This young gentleman, one of the most promising officers in the Navy, wrote a most temperate letter, explaining the real circumstances of the case. Thereupon the hon. Gentleman got a Friend of his to ask whether an officer on half-pay was permitted to write such a letter. Now, if he had been the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should have said that such a letter was perfectly right, because this had no analogy with the case of Sir Charles Napier and the other cases cited by the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Charles Napier was a great Friend of his; but, he was not a very subordinate officer, and sometimes said things which he could not justify, although he truly loved him. With regard, however, to the gentleman whose case was under discussion, it might be true that he was one of the youngest commanders in the service, but he was not one of the least distinguished, for, under the most difficult circumstances, he had shown more than ordinary ability and gallantry, and he ought not to have been treated in the way in which he had been. The right hon. Gentleman, at all events, ought not to complain of what had been done, considering that he himself in his celebrated cruise had employed a reporter, who dated his letters from the gun-room of the Minotaur, and who enjoyed the sherry and biscuits and other luxuries which were usually found in a gun-room. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, hoisted the Admiralty flag, and took upon himself the whole functions of an admiral of 50 years' service, though he had not been a Member of the House for 10 years. None of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, he believed, had ever hoisted the Admiral's flag. ["Question!"] As the House was about to discuss the Navy Estimates, he would take the opportunity of making a few more remarks. ["Order!"]

pointed out that the subject under discussion was the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant officer (Sir John Hay).

said, he would support that Amendment, and reserve his other remarks for a future occasion.

said, that he would not follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir James Elphinstone) by using language calculated to excite animosity, nor would he descend to the use of personalities; but he would content himself by telling the hon. and gallant Member that the right by which e (Mr. Rylands) held his seat in that House was quite as good as the right by which the hon. and gallant Member held his seat. The hon. and gallant Member had charged him with ignorance; but he was not concerned at that, as he recollected that when Mr. Cobden in that House condemned the extravagant expenditure upon the Navy, there were always hon. and gallant Admirals on the other side who got up and told him that he knew nothing of what he was talking about. As he was now charged with being ignorant, he might return the compliment to the hon. and gallant Baronet, who had evidently never read the despatches upon which his statements were founded, and was quite ignorant of the Papers which had been laid upon the Table of the House. He (Mr. Rylands) stated no facts which were not contained in those Papers. And he must take exception to the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, that the Admiralty had "not entirely approved" of the conduct of the young officers at Formosa. The fact was, that the Admiralty entirely condemned the conduct of those officers. ["No, no!"] Well, as there seemed to be some doubt upon that matter, he would read to the House some extracts from the despatches which he held in his hand, and which were contained in the Blue Book pre- sented last Session. On February 23, 1869, Mr. Hammond, under the direction of the Foreign Secretary, wrote to the Secretary to the Admiralty in these terms—

"There was clearly no occasion for these two subordinate officers to commit any acts of hostility whatever; any danger to life or property was, for the time at least, at an end, and had been so for many weeks; the question at issue was the amount of reparation which might be due to be ascertained by local inquiry, and not one to be adjusted by a precipitate recourse to reprisals by a subordinate, civil, or naval officer."

Lord Clarendon further instructed Mr. Hammond to state to the Lords of the Admiralty that—

"His Lordship strongly disapproves of the proceedings on the part of the British officers concerned, and he sincerely trusts that the instructions recently sent to China will prevent the recurrence of these unnecessary acts of violence. Equally reprehensible in Lord Clarendon's view are the many particulars stated in the correspondence, whether as regards the guarantee of 40,000 dollars demanded by the Commander of the Algerine, or the two sums of 5,000 dollars each, one under the title of indemnity for expenditure of warlike stores in attacking the Chinese fort, the other under that of prize money, which were exacted from the Chinese authorities."

Lord Clarendon directed that these sums of money should be immediately returned to the Chinese, and the conduct of the British officers "disavowed." The Admiralty sent out this letter of Lord Clarendon to Sir Henry Keppel, the Admiral of the Chinese station, and concurred in this "unmistakeable" judgment upon Lieutenant Gurdon's conduct. He (Mr. Rylands) thought he safely considered that these despatches entirely justified the statements he made on a former occasion. But his object in drawing attention to the subject was to condemn the line of conduct pursued in China, and not from the slightest wish to injure Lieutenant Gurdon. Nor did he desire that any further notice should be taken of that gallant officer's letter to the papers, though he entirely supported the action of the Admiralty in the matter. The effect of Commander Gurdon's letter was to justify his conduct at Formosa, which had been condemned by his official superiors; and it must be contrary to the proper discipline of the Navy if officers were allowed to act in this manner, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would support the First Lord of the Admiralty in laying down such rules as would prevent in future insubordinate criticism in the newspapers on the part of members of the public service, in defence of conduct which had met with animadversion from, their superiors.

said, he should merely allude to the cruise of his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty with the Channel Squadron last year so far as to express a hope that the precedent then set would not be followed by anyone holding the same position in future. The precedent of Sir Charles Napier was not, in his opinion, applicable in the present instance, inasmuch as, if he remembered rightly, the letters of that gallant officer were written to the Board of Admiralty, and strongly censured not only the Board but Her Majesty's Government; whereas in the case under discussion the letter written was written by a gallant officer solely in defence of his own honour, which had been most unjustly and improperly assailed by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But the point to which he wished particularly to draw attention was the discrepancy between the language of the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to Commander Gurdon and the treatment which that officer received at the hands of the First Naval Lord. His right hon. Friend opposite, if he remembered rightly, told the House that Commander Gurdon should not suffer for his conduct in China; but he had suffered. There seemed to be some great mystery in the case; but it, at all events, appeared that Commodore Stirling offered Commander Gurdon the command of the Clio when he was appointed to the Australian Station, and that when he went to the Admiralty to claim the command Sir Sydney Dacres said—"You cannot have it; you have written a letter to the newspapers." It was no use, therefore, to say that Commander Gurdon would not suffer, for he actually had suffered, and that, notwithstanding the First Lord of the Admiralty had declared in that House that he should not. Those facts did not, in his opinion, speak well for the new state of things at the Admiralty.

explained that Commander Gurdon was distinctly informed, in answer to his own application, some days before the letter to the newspapers was written, that he would not be appointed to the Clio.

stated that on behalf of his relative he had applied for the appointment some days before the letter was written, and he had been told by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that he could not have it because he was not advanced enough in the service.

asked whether, in accordance with the custom of the service, Commodore Stirling had not a right to nominate an officer to a command under him?

A commodore very frequently applies to be allowed to appoint his own commander; but it by no means follows that his application for a particular officer will be complied with, especially when that officer has been told on his own application that he cannot have the appointment.

said, he would have accepted in silence his right hon. Friend's disclaimer of any intention of extending military law to half-pay officers, but for the expressions that had fallen from the hon. Member for Warrington; and he was astonished to hear from any Member on the Liberal side of the House—and especially from one below the Gangway—a desire expressed to restrict free discussion among any class of Her Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member wished to tie the hands of naval officers in order that he might attack them with impunity. Did he also propose to apply to the Foreign Office for a similar restriction in the case of those Consuls in China whose conduct he had impugned? Officers in the Navy had certainly taken alarm in consequence of its being understood that Commander Gurdon had been refused employment solely on account of his having written a defence of his conduct in the newspapers. He (Admiral Erskine) was ready to admit that nothing could excuse the betrayal of official correspondence on the part of any officer, and that the Admiralty would be fully justified in noticing such an offence. But Commander Gurdon's letter was a moderate and modest statement, in which the only official communications alluded to were portions of published correspondence from our Minister and the Minister for the United States; and, in fact, his justification was that he had obeyed the orders of his superiors. But this was not merely a naval question, but one for the constituencies; and, as representing a large constituency, he claimed—al- though a half-pay officer—the fullest right to correspond publicly on any subject or in any manner he pleased, and he hoped we should hear no more of any proposed restrictions. His hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay) had alluded to attacks on officers made in the public prints during the late cruise of the First Lord of the Admiralty, by a gentleman writing from the very flag-ship of the Lord High Admiral, and who was himself at the time subject to military law, as being borne on that ship's books; whilst the officers so attacked were prohibited by the Queen's Regulations from making any reply to his censures. He (Admiral Erskine) had, in common with many naval men, read some of that gentleman's effusions with much amusement. In language strange to nautical ears he told us how one ship sailed "through the lee of another;" how, when the wind drew on one quarter of the fleet, studding-sails were set on the "opposite side;" and, in one of his last letters, he described, with great praise, a brilliant manœvure, when one ship was laid alongside of another, by what he called "flattening in the topsail-sheets," an operation which he would be bound to say nobody in the fleet understood but himself, unless it were the waggish midshipman who probably suggested the expression. As long as he confined himself to such topics, no great harm was done. Seamen, or even men who had ever seen a ship at a distance, smiled at such nonsense; whilst old ladies at their tea-tables were doubtless astonished at his learning, and wondered "how one small head could carry all he knew." But when it came to praise or to blame, the gentleman used no such ambiguous language. Officers of the highest rank and position were clearly designated and held up to public censure for acts of the most trifling character, and which it was clear, from what he had said before, he could know nothing about; whilst others, with whom he probably came into closer and more hospitable contact, were more favourably mentioned; whilst neither the one nor the other had the power to repudiate his praise or deny his right of censure. He put it to his right hon. Friend whether the toleration, on his part, of such proceedings was not injurious to his own authority, misleading to the public, and unjust to officers; and if this debate had the effect of stopping them for the future, besides having elicited from his right hon. Friend a repudiation of any intention to restrict the rights of a class of men as loyal and as amenable to authority as any of Her Majesty's subjects, some good would have been achieved by the discussion.

believed it to be the right of every Englishman to write to The Times; but the privilege of having a letter inserted was a very limited one, and he saw no reason why calumniated half-pay officers should be deprived of that privilege. With regard to Commander Gurdon, a blight had been thrown over the prospects of one of the most rising young officers in the Navy. The right hon. Gentleman had said that Commander Gurdon's promotion should not be retarded, and he (Mr. Read) hoped that employment would be offered him directly, which would be the best possible means of removing the impression that he had been unfairly treated by the Admiralty.