said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If it is true that the continued state of Leicester Square arises from a disputed ownership; and, if so, whether some steps could not be taken to ascertain who is liable for the present condition of that Square?

said, in reply, that some years ago an Act was passed by which local authorities in the metropolis were entitled to take possession of any vacant space of which there did not appear to be an owner, and under that Act an attempt was made to get possession of Leicester Square; but then an owner appeared and claimed it as his property, and he sufficiently established his right to prevent any action being taken in the matter. Being private property, of course the owner might do whatever he pleased with it, however disreputable it might be in the eyes of those who passed by it. He knew of no mode by which the place might be made more sightly, except by putting in force some law for dispossessing the owner and appropriating it to some public purpose. There was a general Act to enable local authorities to take property for the purpose of widening or altering a street on certain conditions; but he was not aware of any Act enabling any local authority to deal with any square or place enclosed or partially enclosed, however badly. It would be necessary, he believed, to introduce a private Act for the purpose, by which in the ordinary way the owner would be compelled to sell the property for a public purpose. An Act of that kind, however, did not come under his Department, but should be introduced and promoted by local authorities.

said, before putting the Question of which he had given Notice, he would take the opportunity of thanking Lord Dufferin the Chancellor of the Duchy, for the kindness with which he had met him in regard to that matter. The Question he now would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury was, Whether such arrangements have now been made as will prevent for the future political appointments to the Magistracy in the county of Lancaster; and, if so, if he will be good enough to state the precise nature of such arrangements?

Sir, it has been felt by the community in Lancashire, and likewise in this House, that the mode of appointing magistrates in the county of Lancaster recently introduced has not been satisfactory, without attaching any blame to any party or any person in particular; and it appears that the remedy is not a difficult one, because it consists simply of returning to the ancient practice, or to the wisdom of our ancestors. In former times the magistrates of the county of Lancaster were appointed, like all other county magistrates, on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, only that the Chancellor of the Duchy discharged the same function on the part of the Crown as the Lord Chancellor discharges in the case of other counties. But it has now been arranged simply to return to that ancient practice—the Chancellor of the Duchy will now appoint on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. An official Minute was passed on the 1st of this month, with the approval of Her Majesty, by the Chancellor, directing that for the future that shall be the practice. I, therefore, hope this may be regarded as a permanent change, and I have no doubt it will be satisfactory in its operation.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If negotiations are in progress or completed for International Copyright Arrangements with the United States of America; if he will state the general tenour of these arrangements; and if Parliament will have an opportunity of considering them before they are confirmed in the form of a Treaty?

said, in reply, that as negotiations were still pending on that subject between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, it was impossible now to state what the tenour of the arrangements would be. The question was not unattended with difficulty, and his noble Friend the Secretary of State was very desirous of conferring with certain eminent authors and publishers on the subject. As to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, he was informed that the General International Copyright Act might be put in operation by the Crown by Order in Council in favour of any country which conceded reciprocal advantages to this country. A Convention with the United States would be within the power given by that Act, and therefore would not necessitate further legislation on the subject.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the Court of Appeal in Chancery; and whether he is aware that there has been only one Lord Justice of Appeal since August last; that Causes can be heard on Appeal only by two Lords Justices sitting together, or by the Lord Chancellor; that the Lord Chancellor has sat on only eleven days, or fragments of days, since the 23rd of March, and has in that time heard only one Cause; that forty-seven Causes are already waiting to be heard on Appeal, and if he supposes that they will be heard before the long vacation, considering the present state of the Court of Appeal; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there being only one Lord Justice, Causes on Appeal from the Vice Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be heard except by making the Chancellor of the Duchy, who is not a lawyer, one of the Judges of Appeal; if he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt at Causes being heard on Appeal by one Lord Justice sitting alone; whether the Government intend to appoint at once another Lord Justice in the place of the late Lord Justice Selwyn; and, by what prerogative the Crown abstains from filling up judicial posts created by statute?

said, in answer to the first Question of his hon. and learned Friend, he had to say that of course he was aware of the fact stated in that Question. In respect of the statement that the Lord Chancellor had only sat 11 days, or fragments of days, since the 23rd of March, and in that time had only heard one cause, he had to observe that he had been informed that one cause was an exceptionally long one. He was aware that 47 causes were already waiting to be heard on appeal, but he believed they had been only entered four months ago—in February. He was informed by the Lord Chancellor that he intended to sit during the Whitsuntide Recess, and that his Lordship expected all the appeals would be cleared off before the long vacation. He (the Attorney General) admitted there was some difficulty with respect to appeals from the Duchy of Lancaster; but those appeals were very rare. There had been only one for a long time; and that of itself would hardly justify the appointment of another Judge if there were not other reasons for such an appointment. His hon. and learned Friend asked him whether he was aware that dissatisfaction was felt at causes being heard on appeal by one Lord Justice sitting alone. In reply, he had to say that he was not aware of such dissatisfaction. With regard to the inquiry, as to whether the Government intend to appoint at once another Lord Justice in the place of the late Lord Justice Selwyn, he need not remind the House that two Bills of a very important character were now pending in the House of Lords. If those Bills should pass, the office to which the question of his hon. and learned Friend related would be put an end to, or, at all events, considerably changed. Under those circumstances the Government would not feel justified in at once appointing another Lord Justice; but, in the event of such an appointment becoming necessary, it was not improbable that a short Bill would be introduced to enable the Government to make an appointment of the kind for a limited period. In reply to the last Question of his hon. and learned Friend, he had to reply that it did not require a prerogative of the Crown to enable the Crown to dispense with the exercise of a prerogative.

Sir, I am not going to detain the House from coming to a conclusion on a business which has occupied it so long; but I think it necessary to say a few words on the Bill before it leaves this House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Friends will admit that from this side of the House there has been no opposition that could in any sense be called factious. We took Divisions only on points of primary importance, and I think it will not be denied that much of the delay to the progress of the Bill has proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House. Now, Sir, with regard to the Bill itself, I must first say that in my opinion it has been made better than it was when introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill, however, still contains principles to which I strongly object, and which, I trust, will be amended elsewhere. Certain points of the measure are of such importance, that I hope the House will permit me briefly to advert to them. The first point in the Bill, with regard to which I have never felt any doubt or objection, is that which proposes to render legal the Ulster tenant-right. I, however, take exception to that which has been added to the Bill since its introduction into this House—namely, that in the case where the tenant has agreed with his landlord as to a certain mode of dealing on a change of tenancy, an option should be given him to elect whether he will place himself under the Ulster tenant-right or under the 3rd clause of the Bill. The Bill gives him power to throw aside that which you yourselves have given him, and to resort to another method of recovering compensation than that which has been marked out under the previous part of the Bill. That, in my opinion, is an unnecessary provision to introduce, making the Bill even more exceptionable than it was before. Passing over the 2nd clause, which is practically the same as the first, I come to the 3rd clause. Looking at that clause as laying down the principle that there shall be damages given for the removal of a tenant from is holding, I think it is objectionable in principle. But I cannot conceal from myself that Irish gentlemen have, as a rule, acted towards their tenants upon a liberal and generous system. When their tenants have been disturbed in their holdings the landlords in many parts of Ireland have given liberally—I believe, in some cases, even more liberally than is provided for by the scale under the Bill; not exactly as a compensation, but as a charitable act towards their tenants, who have thus been enabled to settle in other parts of the country or to emigrate at their option. It seems to me, however, an unreasonable thing that that which has been done voluntarily and very generally should become compulsory upon every landlord in Ireland, and this under conditions which do not allow the parties to exempt themselves from its operation under any circumstances. By the law as laid down in this Bill, tenants of holdings under a £50 rental are precluded from entering into any relations with their landlords other than those provided for by the Bill. And it is a remarkable thing that the Bill having originally laid down that non-payment of rent should disentitle the tenant to compensation, it now declares that, under special circumstances, the matter shall be considered by the Court—that is to say, that non-payment of rent shall no longer be regarded as a sufficient ground for removal of the tenant from his holding, and this although under the wording of the Bill the rent may be already two years in arrear. It is a curious thing that when the Government made such a point of the inability of the tenants to contract with their landlords, that then, in the later stages of the Bill and just before it left the House, a clause should have been inserted in it which proves that the Government feel that the tenants are in a position to contract with their landlords upon the very important subject of the right of distraint. If the tenant is not in a position to contract with his landlord upon other matters connected with his holding, I do not see how he can be in a better position to contract with respect to the very difficult question of the landlard's power to distrain for ar- rears of rent. I pass from that point to the question of improvements, and although the Bill with reference to this part of the subject has been very much modified and amended, still I object to it, inasmuch as it throws retrospectively the onus of showing that he made improvements upon the landlord. In my opinion it is the tenant who makes the claim who should be required to adduce the affirmative proof necessary to support that claim. Of course, there can be no objection to the Bill laying down the course by which persons are to be guided in future; but, as far as its retrospective effect is concerned, I think such a provision is most objectionable. There is another point to which I have already called the attention of the House, which, is this—No doubt, it is only reasonable that a tenant should have power to assign his tenancy, but does it not seem an unreasonable provision that, supposing that the tenant is about to be ejected for good cause, he should have power, at the last moment, to assign his tenancy to an incoming tenant against whom the landlord has no reasonable cause of complaint, and who, therefore would be entitled to full compensation under the 3rd clause of the Bill? It is clear that the Bill has not provided that no transfer shall be allowed to take place after notice to quit has been given. When the Bill was first brought forward I called attention to the litigation that was likely to ensue under its provisions, and I hope that the Government will, when the Bill is in "another place," endeavour to see whether unnecessary litigation may not be prevented. The tenant, on quitting his holding, will undoubtedly send in the highest possible claim for compensation, acting on the assumption that weak arbitrators frequently think to meet the justice of the case by splitting the difference between the amounts named by the two parties. Under Clause 14, the moment a single item of the tenant's claim is disputed, a dispute is declared to have arisen, and the Court, or arbitrator, alone has power to settle the matter, and no contract can be entered into between the landlord and the tenant whereby the claim of the latter can be invalidated. It is almost impossible to escape from expensive litigation under the Bill as it now stands. I would, therefore, ask the Government whether they may not deem it advisable to consider whether it is not very important that greater freedom of contract should be allowed—at all events between the period when the notice to quit is given and the time when the tenant leaves the holding? It is impossible that the tenant, who in negotiating would have the 3rd clause at his back, could suffer any disadvantage in entering into a contract with the view of avoiding future litigation. Then, under, the 23rd section, the limited owner appears to have greater power given him to agree with his tenant as to the amount of compensation than the owner in fee is to have. [Mr. GLADSTONE made a gesture of dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head; but I am not alone in the opinion I have formed upon that point. At all events, if the Act is doubtful upon the question it ought to be rendered more clear. I have already expressed my opinion upon the part of the Bill which relates to the purchase of the holdings by the tenants, which I regard as being highly objectionable; but, the House having approved that principle by a large majority, I do not intend to trouble it with any further observations in respect to it. Finding the Bill still very objectionable, I have to ask myself whether the objects that are to be gained by it are of such great importance as to render it unadvisable to offer further opposition to it. If I believed that the Bill would have the good effect predicted by the right hon. Gentleman and others, even perhaps in a more remote future than they refer to, I should be prepared to overlook many of the objectionable provisions that it contains, and to give up even a great deal more than has been given up on this side. I, however, never can believe that when you do injustice to one party for the sake of benefiting another you are acting upon principles that will bring about a permanent peace. On the contrary, although by adopting such a course you may, as by indiscriminate almsgiving, satisfy your conscience for the moment, and apparently be acting with generosity, you are really doing a great deal of harm. I believe this Bill will, instead of satisfying the people of Ireland, rather encourage them to ask for more, and that, therefore, you will fail to attain your object of restoring peace and harmony to Ireland, which you can only secure by meting out equal justice to all. Am I, then, prepared on these accounts to oppose the third reading of this Bill? No, I am not, because I should be extremely sorry that there should not be legislation upon the subject this Session, and because the Bill is now going to a House in which it will be discussed by those who themselves are deeply interested in the property of Ireland; and I hope it will there receive that fair consideration, and amendment which, without making it unacceptable to this House, will improve it for the benefit of the whole of Ireland. It is with that hope and that expectation I refrain from being a party to opposing the Bill at this stage; and, although I have a strong feeling that many of its provisions are unwise, it is my ardent prayer that it may confer those benefits which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government hopes it may.

said, he would not have interposed at this stage of the Bill but for the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought were of enormous importance as regarded the future of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not intend to oppose the third reading; but he suggested an amount of opposition which might be fatal to the measure, and create a most deplorable state of things throughout the country. He (Mr. Maguire) hoped the Bill was about to leave the House finally, and that discussion upon it was at an end; and, in the hope that this would really be the case, he asked the House to consider why the Bill had become necessary, and how far it was likely to fulfil the object for which it was designed. For nearly 50 years past the grave and active mischief in Ireland was insecurity of tenure, despite the existence of good landlords, whose word was as good as their bond. This abiding sense of insecurity, coupled with a system of agriculture more backward than that of any other country, had caused thousands, and even millions to emigrate, and had fostered a feeling among the people that they were the victims of British law and British tyranny, and, as many of them conceived, of British hate. A Roman Catholic Bishop, of great moderation, who would hail this Bill with satisfaction, and had given wise advice to the people, had testified to him of the feeling of bitterness with which Irish emigrants left their native land, and, on the authority of a friend in the United States, he was assured that this feeling of hostility to England continued. He believed it would require many years of liberal and kind treatment of Ireland to eradicate that feeling from the Irish heart, and when that was done, and not until then, would they see the end of the Irish difficulty. The popular demand for fixity of tenure meant nothing more than what was at present the custom on many estates, but Parliament declined to grant that. Still, he believed, that, when properly understood, the Bill ought to satisfy the wants of the Irish people. It was not as much as he would ask for them, or endeavour to get; but it was impossible for any Government to pass a Bill more advanced than that the House was sending to the Lords. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying the measure had not been factiously opposed from his side of the House; but it had been seriously opposed, and the opposition now foreshadowed was the most serious of all. He (Mr. Maguire) promised to urge his constituents to accept the Bill as it stood; but if it were cut down, mutilated, and deprived of its protecting properties the consequences would be melancholy and disastrous. If the other House obliged the rejection of the measure as unfit for the emergency, a fierce and violent agitation would be the result, to end no one knew how. Neither he nor many of his friends would join such an agitation; but there were men of a certain class in Ireland who would scoff at the people as dupes for having faith in the English Parliament and in English justice; a deep feeling of dissatisfaction would be raised and assume an active state, justified by the hopes Parliament had raised only to dash them to the ground. Ireland wanted repose, and there would be sufficient occupation for active politicians for some time to come in explaining the provisions of this Bill to those who did not understand it—in opposition to those who would not, and those who would prefer to misrepresent it—without having to oppose professional agitators. He did not believe the Bill would give rise to angry litigation, but litigation must, of course, result if persons could not agree; and what the Bill did was to lay down a good broad agrarian law to guide the Judges in their decisions. He could not think that the effect of the Bill would be to increase emigration. On the contrary, he believed that if the occupier had a hope of security he would look forward to passing his life in his native land. The Bill would not interfere with the good landlords; it would only compel the bad ones to act more justly towards their tenants. The right hon. Gentleman urged that, because the Bill contained a clause empowering the landlord and tenant to come to an agreement between themselves as to the question of distress, therefore there ought to be no interference with any contract between them. For his own part he should like to see the law of distress abolished; but he did not think that the clause referred to was worth the paper it was written on. Indeed, the proposal was uncommonly like a mockery. To the question whether the Bill would be accepted by the people of Ireland, his reply was that if carried in its present state it would, he believed, produce a beneficial effect, and he must testify to the earnest desire of English and Scotch Members around him to make the measure work for the good of Ireland, Provided the Bill passed in its present form, he would do all he could to reconcile his countrymen to their disappointment at not having obtained all they desired. This question could not be re-opened for years to come, and it therefore became the duty of every Irishman, who loved his country, and who desired to promote peace and order, without which there could be no progress, to render the measure as acceptable as possible to his countrymen.

said, he thought the hon. Member had better have waited till the Bill came back from "another place" before making the remarks with which he had favoured the House as to the reception it was likely to meet with there. The hon. Member had paid a compliment which was fairly deserved by Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House when he stated that, although landowners themselves, they had endeavoured to consider the Government proposals with fairness and impartiality, and without selfishness. When the Bill went to "another place," it would, he felt assured, receive from the distinguished individuls who formed that House the same consideration it had received in the House of Commons. No tenants in any part of the world had ever been so favoured as the Irish farmers would be by this Bill; but although the measure contained many provisions the policy of which was more than doubtful, still, on the whole, the question had become an Imperial one, and it was necessary for the Government to see how it could be dealt with. As these provisions had given rise to hopeful expectations in Ireland he was unwilling to throw any obstacles in the way of their passing. The English and Scotch Members generally, he believed, had been actuated by the same feeling. He particularly wished, however, to recall to the remembrance of the House the fact that the charges brought against the landlords as to the number of evictions and the harsh treatment of tenants had not been substantiated. The boon conferred on Irish tenants by this Bill was enormous. No one could indeed look carefully through the Bill without being struck with the circumstance that all the benefits were on one side. Almost every presumption in favour of the owners of property had been reversed. Having always felt, however, that a half measure would do more harm than good, he trusted to the good feeling of the Government to introduce certain alterations into the Bill; but he regretted to say that of all the proposals made on that side of the House not one of the smallest importance had been accepted. While we were holding out such large promises to Ireland, the wanton disturbances now going on in Canada formed a commentary on much that had been said respecting the causes of Irish disaffection. It was, of course, ridiculous to suppose that Fenianism could be cured by any legislation of this kind; but he trusted the Government would strictly and firmly administer the law of the land and not encourage the idea which had been prevalent in Ireland for many years past, that every misfortune of the country was to be cured by legislation. Everyone ought to share in the sentiment of the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) that there should be no more legislation for Ireland, but that peace should be established in the country. As to the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), who had devoted some years to attacking the Irish Church and the owners of land, he hoped the hon. Gentleman, following the advice of a noble Earl (Earl Russell), in "another place" in reference to another matter, would now "rest and be thankful." Let any Englishman put himself in the position of an Irish landlord. How would he like to see the Church of his country disestablished and disendowed, and to be told that it was the duty of the landowners to display their liberality by re-endowing the Church? What had occurred in the last two years was enough to make every good man despair. He earnestly hoped, however that Ireland would no longer be made the battle-field of party or a practising ground for Government to make their legislative experiments upon. As to the landlords, though they might be placed in a somewhat unfair position, he felt assured they would do their best, and the increased prosperity of the country would be an adequate return for any sacrifices they might make; while, he trusted, the tenants would show themselves worthy of the boon conferred on them by the Bill, by becoming industrious and prudent. As to the labourers what had been done done for them? Nothing. He could only say, as someone else had said in that House—"God help the labourers." A day he hoped would come when something would be done for them also. As to the Bill tending to put a stop to emigration, all he could say was that of all the absurd modes which could be devised for that purpose, none could be more absurd than the subdivision of land into minute plots, at a time when the price of provisions was constantly rising, and when it could not be expected that men would rest contented with a wretched pittance. It would be found that so long as the temptation of high wages and constant employment existed on the other side of the Atlantic, and so long as no adequate means of livelihood were to be derived from the pursuit of trade or commerce, men would not be satisfied with the subsistence to be drawn from a few miserable acres of land at home; and that no legislation, however just, would stop that stream of emigration from the shores of Ireland which was sapping the lifeblood of the Empire.

said, he did not rise to oppose the third reading of the Bill. A Motion of this kind would, he thought, come better from those Irish Members who had voted against his Amendment on the second reading, and who then stated that unless the Bill were so modified in Committee as to meet their views they would not assent to its passing its final stage. In the absence of any op- position, however, on their part on the present occasion, he must, he supposed, take it for granted that in their opinion the Bill met all the requirements of Ireland. In that view he, however, could not concur with them; for he did not think the Bill had been much improved in Committee, and he could not allow the third reading to pass without expressing his great regret that Her Majesty's Government had not thought it their duty to introduce a clause for the amelioration of the condition of the agricultural labourer in Ireland—a class in whose behalf legislation was for some time imperatively demanded. It had been, he might add, stated by more than one Member of the Government that the Bill was growing in favour in Ireland from day to day. Such, however, was not the nature of the information which reached him from that country. But, upon that point, he would merely observe that, believing it be honestly meant, no one could rejoice more than himself if it were, in practice, found to be a panacea for the discontent of the tenant; and should that happy consummation be the result of its enactment, no one would acknowledge his error with greater humility.

Sir, the point—the advanced point, happily—which we have reached in the progress of this Bill is one of great importance, and it is desirable to take some notice of the position in which we stand. I cannot be at all surprised, therefore—nor do I make any complaint—that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) should have made use of this opportunity to state the objections which he feels to the measure; and to state, further, the hopes which he entertains that those objections may be removed by alterations made in "another place." There was, indeed, a phrase he used which was most ominous in its character; but I do not think it ought, from the subsequent tenour of his speech, to have a very literal construction placed on it. I allude to the sentence in which he declared that there were principles in the Bill which he thought ought, in some degree, to be amended. Now, it is not for me to seek to limit the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. He has a perfect right to desire that amendments or alterations should be made in any way in which they can be legitimately introduced in the principles of the Bill. It is, however, impossible for the Government to hear the expression of his opinion upon that point without feeling that any alteration in those principles, in the sense which he has indicated, would deprive the measure of all its force and value. But with respect to the particular points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it necessary that I should go over them all in detail. In one or two instances, I think it is plain his objections may be removed by a mere statement; or, if they be well founded, we should offer no objection to removing them in any other manner. He says, for example, that there will be much unnecessary litigation under the Bill, because after a dispute has arisen the parties will have no power to retire from it. Now, that is entirely contrary to our opinion. There is nothing whatsoever, it seems to us, independently of the power of arbitration and the proceedings of the Court, to prevent the parties from coming to an agreement and dropping the prosecution of their dispute at the very outset. Who, I am at a loss to know, will there be to prosecute? If both parties retire, our belief is that any arrangement made between them, after they have entered into the dispute, will be as effectual as if they had entered into an agreement without any dispute whatever. As to any changes in that clause in the Bill which provides that non-payment of rent under special circumstances should not be a bar to a claim for disturbance, the right hon. Gentleman cannot, I am sure, forget that it is entirely limited to tenancies already in existence. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was inconsistent in my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) to have introduced a clause into the Bill permitting a tenant hereafter to contract in regard to the process of recovering rent by means of distress when the general operation of the Bill was to destroy freedom of contract. I think the right hon. Gentleman has erroneously stated the principle of the Bill. Its principle, as a rule, is to leave freedom of contract, and it is only with respect to particular matters in the 3rd clause that it is interfered with. By any contract made by any tenant, from the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent, to pay any rent whatsoever reasonable or un- reasonable, he will be absolutely bound, and he will not be able to escape from the obligation. I was not, I may add, surprised at the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman; but I own I was somewhat surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir Frederick W. Heygate) should have found fault with my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) for saying that he hoped the Bill would not be altered in "another place" in a sense opposed to his views, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had just expressed a hope that it would be altered in accordance with his views, and that the hon. Baronet himself went on to exhibit his sense of the value of the complaint which he made regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Cork by imitating the example of the right hon. Gentleman near him. Surely, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But, leaving matters of detail, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford has stated his general view of this measure, there are two or three propositions to which I would wish to call his attention. I will not ask him to re-call his charge—which has been echoed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry—that this is a one-sided Bill against the landlord and in favour of the tenant; but I will just point out this fact, that for generations and centuries legislation has been almost entirely in favour of the landlord. What has been the result? What is the position of the landlord in regard to security of life, security of property, and in regard to the price which his estate will fetch in the market? And when we find the result has been what it is, of the adoption of the too one-sided policy pursued by Parliament in former generations, will not the right hon. Gentleman bring himself to admit that legislation in favour of the tenant for the purpose of giving him security in the prosecution of his industry may turn out to be the best and surest method of legislating for the interest of the landlord? But that is a disputed matter, and I cannot ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree in our views as to the operation of the Bill in that particular, however strong may be the conviction on the point which we ourselves entertain. I wish, however, to state that in framing this measure we deliberately and advisedly declined to meet the popular demands in Ireland. There can be no question at all as to what those demands were. There were demands widely spread that the Ulster custom should be recognized as the universal land law of Ireland. To that demand we declined to accede, and we have refused to admit into the Bill the recognition of any custom out of Ulster as the Ulster custom, unless we found it to possess in the most stringent way all the characteristics of that custom. Another demand which went though the whole of Ireland was one for the valuation of rents and for fixity of tenure, and there are those who say that valuation of rents is involved in the Bill as it stands. Now, that is true where the Ulster custom prevails up to a certain point; but that case does not stand on the ground of conventional legislation, but on the recognition of rights already in existence. I contend that the principle of the 3rd clause, establishing damages for eviction, is entirely different from the principle of the valuation of rents. It places a burden, I admit, on the landlord who evicts without a cause; but that burden is limited and cannot go beyond a certain point. A valuation of rents would fix the absolute amount of rent that should be paid; the amount under the Bill is left wholly free, and the fine or burden that may be levied on the landlord is confined within the limit of a certain maximum. It is, notwithstanding, well known in Ireland, and the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny county (Sir John Gray) is a sufficient proof of it—that we declined to found our Bill on the principle of the valuation of rents. We, therefore, advisedly declined to accede to those popular demands. We have declined to accede to them, and having brought in a Bill founded upon a distinct and much more limited basis, we have presented it to the House after an amount of labour on our own part such as in the course of a long political life I have never known bestowed on the preparation of a Bill; and I must add, entirely agreeing in the main upon this point with the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons, which has spent 22 or 23 nights in the discussion of the Bill, has bestowed on it an amount of care, attention, and time for which there are but few precedents; but this, so far from being matter of reproach, was amply warranted and even demanded by the gravity, magnitude, and intricacy of the case, and we are thankful to the House for the assistance we have received. The hon. Baronet opposite says that no Amendment of importance has been received from that side of the House. But when an Amendment was proposed we have not asked ourselves from which side it came; at all events, this is a statement which the hon. Baronet will not question—that many Amendments have been made in the Bill tending to render it more acceptable or less unacceptable to him and those who think with him. I would also ask the House to consider whether we have not framed a measure of which we can fairly allege that when it comes into operation it will do so without shock to any interest in Ireland. I know of nothing that it would be incumbent upon any man, be he landlord or tenant, to do under the clauses of this Bill—I mean in the way of exercising legal powers—after it becomes law. What I hope will be is this—that the tenant will prosecute his industry with a greater sense of confidence; that the landlord will find the benefit of that increased industry in the augmented value of his property, and that the labourer, for whom it seems to be supposed that we ought to have invented some nostrum, will receive some advantage in the only important way in which it is possible for Parliament to confer it—in the greater demand for what he has to sell, the strength that lies in the muscles of his arm. That gentle mode of operation which we have tried to secure is, I believe, likely to characterize the action of this Bill when it becomes law, and to it I trust the words of Dryden on another subject may be applicable—

"The flood of mercy that o'erflowed our isle, Calm in the rise, and fruitful as the Nile."

said, the object of some hon. Members below the Gangway might be described as confiscation pure and simple. Allusion had been made to the overwhelming majorities by which the different clauses of the Bill were carried. But how had these majorities been obtained? Were they obtained from the convictions of hon. Gentlemen that they were voting for what was just or expedient, or were not the clauses carried rather by the force and power of a tyrant and unreasonable majority? He was supported in that view by the leading organ of the Press, which said that English Members in supporting the Government during the progress of the Bill had abnegated their own opinions on every important occasion. The Government found the Province of Ulster peaceable, prosperous, and contented. The relations between landlord and tenant rested there on a sound and healthy basis, and the tenant-right of that district was not the cause but the result and sign of the existence of those happy relations. The Government, by legalizing the Ulster right, had taken a strong step towards destroying that happy state of things to which he had alluded, and which had existed for centuries in that part of Ireland. They had destroyed the rights of property and substituted litigation for peace and contentment. He regarded the measure as unstatesmanlike in its conception, and as likely to act most detrimentally and mischievously upon the welfare of Ireland. No one could more fully acknowledge than he the necessity for some legislation which should give to the tenant security for his improvements—but he must enter his protest against this Bill; and so monstrous and unjust did he think it that he should place his protest on record by dividing the House against the third reading.

did not intend to trespass at any length on the indulgence of the House; but he could not remain silent after the allusion made to the course he pursued in reference to the Irish Church and Irish land questions by the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry. He accepted all the responsibility of the Church agitation and of the land agitation; and he would confidently ask, would the Irish Church be now disestablished and disendowed if that agitation had not been earnestly pursued, or would even the incomplete Land Bill be before them in its present form if public attention had not been awakened on the subject of the tenants' wrongs? When he began the agitation of the Church question in that House, four years ago, the present Ministers were in Office, and all he could get from them, in 1866, was a cold "God speed." In 1867 he got some aid, but not the votes of the Leaders, and the Liberal party was beaten only by 12 in a large House; but, before two years from the date of that Division, religious ascendancy was put an end to by the complete measure introduced by the Prime Minister. The result he was proud to point to now, though he was abundantly sneered at when he first began that agitation. He (Sir John Gray) had hoped the Minister who had given them a complete and final measure on the Church question, would have settled the land question in the same complete and final manner. In this he was disappointed; for, though hon. Members on the other side talked of the Bill as a great concession and a great boon, he would ask what was it but a tardy act of justice? They no doubt, with all the old feudal ideas still fresh in their minds, thought they had made great concessions in allowing the tenant to enjoy the fruit of his own industry. Thanks to the agitation which men were ready to decry in order that the country "might have repose"—and perhaps other "repose" than that of the country was also thought of—the agitation produced the conviction that the tenantry of Ireland would no longer submit to be deprived of the fruits of their industry; and to give them their property was no boon, but a simple act of restitution. The Irish tenantry did not desire to interfere with the landlord's just rights in his property. They asked for no penalties against landlords; for, acting in accordance with law, what they did ask was that the notice to quit, except for statutory causes, should end for ever, and that so long as the tenant paid his rent and performed all his duties, capricious eviction should be rendered impossible by law instead of being recognized, and the landlord fined for doing that which was legal. This Bill, while fully recognizing principles to which he would not then advert, fell immeasurably short of what it ought to be; but he was, nevertheless, thankful that the Committee had amended the measure so far, and he hoped the House would persevere until they passed a measure of complete justice, and one which should be a full and successful settlement of the land question. This Bill was not such a settlement—it was not, and would not be, accepted by the Irish people as a full settlement. Some hon. Members assured the House that the Bill was looked on with great favour in Ireland by the tenantry, and accepted as a final settlement. He would be the last to detract from the really useful parts of the Bill, to discredit the advantages it would confer, or deny to its authors the full meed of praise for what they had done; but he saw no indication that the Irish tenantry accepted the Bill as a settlement. The Petitions presented in favour of a measure formed the true test of the popular feeling with regard to it. He would apply that test to this measure. When the Minister introduced his Irish Church propositions in 1868 nearly 2,500 Petitions were presented from Ireland, signed by more than 500,000 people. How many Petitions were sent from Ireland in favour of the Land Bill? Not one. The 22nd Report of the Petitions Committee stated that two Petitions had been presented to the House in favour of the Bill, though it was three months before the country, and neither of these came from Ireland—one being a Petition from Scotland, signed by one person; and the other a Petition from Newcastle, also signed by one person. ["Divide."] These might be bitter truths, and disagreeable to have uttered; but it was better for hon. Members to know the truth, and recognize the fact that, whatever the benefits conferred, the Bill was not accepted in Ireland, and would not be accepted as a settlement. The Bill did not deal out the same measure of benefit to all the tenantry; and equality of treatment was the first essential of a settlement of a question by which all are equally affected. When the Prime Minister introduced this Bill he repudiated the doctrine of fixity of tenure as something so monstrous that no man having regard to the rights of landed proprietors could even consider it, and he promised instead "stability of tenure." But what did the Bill do as modified by the Amendments made in Committee? It actually gave perpetuity of tenure to more than two-fifths of the of the present tenants-at-will in Ireland, and this statement, and these words, "perpetuity of tenure," or rather "perpetual leases," were taken from the Report of the Landlord's Committee, of which many hon. Gentlemen opposite were members, as the true description of the condition in which more than 200,000 tenants would now be under the 1st and 2nd clauses of the Bill, as the consequence of important alterations made. As the Bill was first framed these 200,000 tenants, who have Ulster custom in either North or South, would only be compensated after being evicted like other tenants; but as the altered Bill stands they will have fixed or perpetual tenure, and, as has been admitted to-night by the Premier, valuation rents. ["Divide!"] He would wish to say in the House what he would say outside the House, as to the reason why he I did not, and why the people of Ireland I would not, accept this unequal Bill as a final settlement. When the Bill was read a second time he objected to it, because the tenant-right of Ulster was not secured, and that of the South would be abolished by the Bill as it then stood, and the result would be consolidation of farms. He objected to it now, because, though the clauses which dealt with the custom of continuous occupancy at fair rents were so altered after the exposure of them, that 200,000 tenants obtained perpetuity and valuation of rents, the remnant were still subject to capricious eviction, and had neither stability nor fixity, and because the smaller of these tenants would be liable to be consolidated out of their farms, and converted into that class of labourers whose misery was so well described in the official Reports. He would not be unjust to the Bill or to its authors. It was a Bill most humane and most effective for its purpose of putting an end to the cruelties that heretofore attended on evictions in Ireland, and the details of which so often harrowed the feelings of that House. These cruelties could never again be repeated, and for that he thanked the Government. No father, with his wife and little ones, could again be cast wantonly into the ditch-side to die in the presence of his ruined cottage; he must at least be provided with means to emigrate, or to obtain shelter and food; and for putting an end for ever to all the torturing cruelties of the eviction process he could find no words too strong to express his approbation. The 200,000 tenants secured perpetuity and valued rents had all they could justly ask—all that he ever asked for the Irish tenant—and his discontent and dissatisfaction were, that the same benefits were not extended to all the Irish tenants. He said, in his speech on the second reading, that he feared the Bill would lead to the consolidation of small farms. As regards the farms held by those excluded from perpetual leases and valued rents, he was of the same opinion still; and he would, with the indulgence of the House, proceed to show that others—many of them persons who did not think as he did, were of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Saunderson), recently in discussing his (Sir J. Gray's) proposal to permit other landlords to do for their tenants what the Bill did for 200,000 of the tenants-at-will, referred to the great number of holdings under 15 acres in Ireland, and asked whether it would be well for that country that such a state of things should remain for all time. He asked would any friend of Ireland stereotype the 15-acre farmer, and in continuation, said that if the Member for Cork City (Mr. Maguire) were in his seat he would ask him whether a farm of 15 acres was a desirable holding, and whether, if they acceded to his (Sir John Gray's) proposition, there was any hope in our time of seeing any alteration in the condition of Ireland. That speech of the hon. Member for Cavan, which in terms declared that the 15-acre farms must be consolidated if there was to be any hope for Ireland under the improved legislation, was applauded in a marked manner by the occupants of the Treasury Bench; and after it was concluded the greatest authority in the House passed on it a most glowing eulogium, which he confessed increased his (Sir John Gray's) conviction as to the ten- dency of the Bill. But, high as was the authority of the hon. Member for Cavan, a still greater authority on the policy and effect of the Bill—and an authority which Government conld not repudiate—had interpreted the Bill in the same way, and in much more forcible language, in commenting on the speech of the Member for Cavan. The language was so remarkable that he would quote it verbatim. This eminent authority thus wrote on the morning after the debate he referred to—

"As Mr. Saunderson pointed out, the plan would likewise have done enormous harm by tending to perpetuate those small holdings, under 15 or 20 acres, on which it is impossible for a family to live save in a state of squalor and starvation. He is the worst enemy of Ireland who would lift a finger to prevent such miserable holdings from being merged in larger farms. The process of extinction must, of course, be made gradual, in order to prevent the hardship which would come from a sudden change; but the doom of the 15-acre farmer is written, and any attempt to put off the day of destruction—as Sir John Gray's clause would have tried to do—is utterly mischievous."

said, he had not intended to make a single observation on the third reading of this Bill; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray), he did not think he would be doing his duty, as the representative of one of the largest agricultural constituencies in Ireland, if he remained altogether silent. To a certain extent he agreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The Bill was not all that he could have desired it to be. He wished it had a still larger scope, and conferred larger rights on the agricultural population of Ireland; but as one who took a very deep interest in this matter, and had devoted whatever experience he had acquired to the task of improving the measure, he must express his belief that the Bill would have the effect the Government intended. It would put an end to capricious evictions. He was pretty well acquainted with the administration of the existing law, and he knew what the feelings of the people were. What they wanted was protection for their improvements and protection against eviction. He did not say that as a rule evictions were extensively carried out by large proprietors in Ireland but, unquestionably, there were evictions which in too many cases were unjustifiable. He was satisfied that if this Bill became law in the shape it was leaving the House of Commons no long period would have elapsed before the people of Ireland would thank the Government for having passed another great remedial measure. Within the last few days he had had an opportunity of talking to one of the largest landed proprietors in Ireland. The nobleman to whom he referred was a Member of the other House of Parliament, and a man who had been always much opposed to legislative interference with landlords. Well, that noble Lord agreed with him in thinking that this Bill did not interfere with the landlord who was disposed to act properly, justly, and generously towards his tenants, but only with those proprietors who brought disgrace on their country. He thought that certain Amendments which he had proposed and which the Government had not accepted would have been beneficial; but, in fairness, he must remember that, while refusing to accede to those Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench had shown equal determination in resisting Amendments coming from the other side of the House, and which would have trenched on advantages which the Bill gave the tenants. He thanked the Government for the Bill, believing, as he did, that before 12 months it would be generally regarded as a measure worthy to have followed the measure for the disestablishment of the Irish Church, and as one which would contribute to make Ireland prosperous and contented.

said, he rose for the purpose of recommending his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Captain Archdall) not to divide the House. He agreed in the views of his hon. and gallant Friend, and had supported those views from the beginning of the discussions on this measure. Day after day, and night after night, he and a number of his hon. Friends attended in that House to do their duty to Ireland as well as they knew how. The House, by large majorities—arrived at in what manner he would not say—had decided that this Bill should go up to "another place" in its present shape. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether the Conservative Members had not done their duty in a more consistent manner than the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) had discharged what he said was his. What would be the effect of the speech which that hon. Gentleman had just delivered? Had he not given utterance to opinions which, when circulated in Ireland, would be most dangerous to the people whom he professed to love? Half of the mischief which had been brought about in Ireland might be attributed to the expression of such opinions. He thought it right that the Members of that House should speak plainly when they heard such addresses as that of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He (Colonel Barttelot) and his Friends felt they had discharged their duty. They knew not what would be done with the Bill in "another place;" but if it became law he hoped it might at least, conciliate the Irish nation, and in that spirit he asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division.

Sir, I do not know whether we are to divide [Captain ARCHDALL: No!]; but I rise to enter my protest against the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray). Part of that speech we do not quarrel with. He has given much time and attention to this Bill, and he has a right to express his opinions on it. He said it would put an end to evictions. [Sir JOHN GRAY: To the cruelty of evictions.] Well, the cruelty of evictions; but he then went on to say, for reasons which I cannot explain, that this was a Bill which would encourage clearance and undue consolidation in Ireland, and that under its operation the small tenantry would disappear. Nothing would induce me to sit in my place and hear such an assertion without at once rising to protest against it. I say further that nothing would induce me—and I can equally answer for my right hon. Friend the First Minister of the Crown and those who act with him—nothing would induce us to frame such a Bill as this if we for one moment believed its operation would be of the cruel character described in the prophecy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny. I do not know his authority for the statement he has made on this point. He referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan, but when, in his lively and vigorous speech, he (Mr. Saunderson) was applauded by my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government and by others on this Bench, we did not cheer him for anything he said on the subject of consolidation, but for the spirit in which as a landlord he accepted this Bill. My hon. Friend referred to some other authority. I do not know what it was, but how any human being can think that a Bill framed for the special protection of poor tenants can deserve the character he has given it passes my comprehension. All the changes made in the Bill with reference to that class of tenants have strengthened their position. The changes which have modified the provisions relating to tenants refer mainly to the richer and more independent tenants; but as respects protection to the poorer classes of tenants, the Bill has come out of Committee stronger than when it went in. We are now, however, told that a Bill, which will afford exceptional protection to the small tenantry against the cruelties of eviction, is a Bill for their extinction, and the consolidation of their farms. I protest against such a description of the Bill; but I am not at all frightened by the strange views of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. I am sure they are not shared by the small tenants of Ireland. These tenants know very well what they are about; they know who their friends are; and if they have not yet learnt they will before long discover the benefits which this Bill confers on them. They entertain no such views—I call them morbid and distorted views—as those on which my hon. Friend's gloomy vaticinations are founded. It would, indeed, be disheartening to those—and I am not afraid to say that I am one of the number—who have laboured day by day, for many months past, in devising a measure of protection for the Irish tenantry, to find that the Bill would work in the way the hon. Member for Kilkenny has described. But I protest against his forebodings. My hope and confidence are very strong that the predictions of the hon. Member, who on this occasion has made himself a prophet of evil, will not be realized.

said, that, as a landlord in the South of Ireland, he could not but express his satisfaction that the discussions on this Bill had come to an end. He did not say he liked every provision in it; but he thought there was so much good in the Bill that every sacrifice the landlord might have to make would be small as compared with the benefits which would result from the measure. He hoped the Bill would become law in its present shape. He also trusted that the country would be warned against the mischief which words spoken that evening would effect, if they were not met by counter-statements. An hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gray) had told the House plainly that he was going to begin another agitation; he said the Bill could not content the country, and the country would not be satisfied with it. He believed that if the hon. Gentleman went about the country telling the people those things he would find men to meet him. He for one would raise his voice to prevent another agitation and to forward the views of the Government in this matter.

said, he was anxious that the Bill should pass, inasmuch as it gave great satisfaction to the inhabitants of that portion of Ireland which he represented. With regard to the observation of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he felt assured that in every word he uttered he had the welfare of the country at heart; but the hon. Member had been mistaken. He (Mr. Brady) believed that, in a short time, the measure which the Government had introduced, would confer great and lasting benefit on the people of Ireland.

said, that representing as he did, a constituency—the City of Cork—which felt a strong interest in the Bill; and having watched the measure in its progress up to the present stage, it was impossible that he could sit silently in his place and not rise to repudiate, as far as his words could repudiate, the baneful consequences which the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Sir John Gray) had predicted with regard to the operation of this Bill. That hon. Member began by giving the measure almost unqualified praise; but when he spoke of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Cavan, he said they would have the effect of consolidating small farms, and he then described the Bill as mischievous. His (Mr. Murphy's) belief was that the measure was the most practical measure that could be brought in by any Government desiring, in all sincerity, to pass the measure which they introduced. He believed that the country would not have sanctioned perpetuity of tenure. Any Government who proposed such perpetuity would know that it would be impossible to carry it. He gave the First Minister of the Crown and the Cabinet great credit for their sagacity and their high courage in bringing forward this measure; and he tendered Ms warmest thanks to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, by virtue of his office, was largely engaged in the preparation and carrying of the measure. Every hon. Member who communicated with the Chief Secretary was treated with courtesy, but at the same time with firmness.

said, he wished to call attention to that portion of the measure in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to abolish hawkers' licences. He thought that any measure which tended to increase vagrancy or give facilities for its operation was highly objectionable. He lived on one of the great roads leading to the Southern Coast, and his house was situated between two workhouses, so that he saw a good deal of vagrancy. The higher classes, however, did not suffer so much from the presence of vagrants as their poorer neighbours, who in harvest and hopping times left their cottages unprotected to go to their work, and the vagrants often obtained access to the premises, and carried off trifling articles that might be hanging or standing about the dwelling. He feared the provision in the Bill would aggravate these evils, inasmuch as vagrants would be enabled to take themselves out of the jurisdiction of the magistrates by becoming the hawkers of lucifer matches or any other small wares. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would introduce some clause which would prevent this. Another point to which he would call attention was this—great difficulty was sustained by the surveyors of highways in obtaining horses to draw materials for the repair of roads. If the farmer should let his horses for the purpose he would become liable for the duty of 10s., and therefore he refused to let them. This was a difficulty which ought to be removed in this Bill, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be disposed to give relief in this direction, and thus remove one of the chief difficulties now experienced by the surveyors of highways in keeping those roads in repair.

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to make those alterations with regard to agricultural horses in Committee. He knew that the highway surveyors were put to a serious inconvenience by the strict interpretation of the law as it stood. One point he also wished to suggest as to the hawkers' licences. He took it for granted that they would have some registration or police supervision substituted for the provision of the law as it now stood. He quite understood the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that hawkers who travelled about the country in carts should pay the two guineas tax, as a substitute for the house duty and other taxes paid by resident traders; but there were hawkers of a lower grade who travelled with a pony or a barrow, and he thought that a guinea was as large a sum as they ought to be called on to pay. Hon. Members had learnt from the newspapers that the whole of the clauses relating to the proposed alteration in the railway passengers' duty were to be struck out; but it would have been more seemly if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice of his intention to omit those clauses when he moved the second reading of the Bill. It was impossible, however, to discuss the question unless it was known whether the statements in the newspapers, to which he had referred were correct. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: They are correct.] In that case the railway interest had great reason to complain. Justice required that, as the duty upon horses and carriages had been reduced, the 5 per cent, duty upon railways should also be reduced, and he trusted that next year some reduction would be effected.

said, he wished to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession which the 5th clause of this Bill contained in favour of a poor, but, he believed, industrious and honest class of the community—he referred to the families of the fishermen of the port of Brixham, in Devonshire, and other places similarly situated. Owing to the peculiarity of the fishing trade, and the uncertainty as to the exact time when the fishing vessels would return from their voyages, it was necessary to take steps for the sale of the fish immediately after its landing, in order that it might be despatched to London and other markets by the first departing train; and, in practice, it was found that this could only be done by selling it to the highest bidder, in other words, by auction; and it was held by the officers of Inland Revenue that this rendered the vendors liable to pay duty as auctioneers. The consequence was, that these poor women—for the sales were generally conducted by women who sold the fish which, probably, their own husbands or apprentices had caught—whose total income did not amount to more than £30 or, at the outside, £40 a year, were actually compelled to pay £10 a year as auction duty, being the same sum as that paid by the greatest auctioneers in the country, through whose hands property to the value of millions passed every year. When he (Mr. Bowring) found that there was no doubt that this duty was legally levied, which he hoped had not been the case, he also found that great practical difficulties existed in the way of giving the desired relief from duty, although the hardship of the case was readily admitted by the Government. He therefore rejoiced to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had at length, seen his way to overcome those difficulties; and, on behalf of those poor persons, into whose humble homes the provisions of this clause would carry comfort and happiness, he begged to tender to his right hon. Friend his warmest thanks.

said, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he had received any communication from the police authorities with respect to the probable effect of the repeal of the hawkers' licences upon crime in this country? The chief constable of the county with which he was connected expressed great alarm at the proposed abolition of hawkers' licences.

said, he would postpone his observations upon the question of the drawback upon sugar until the Motion came on for going into Committee upon the Bill. He wished, however, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why it was still necessary that the duty upon tea should remain an annual duty?

said, he thought it very hard that employers were now to be called on to return the amount they paid to those in their employ. Hitherto they had only been called on to furnish a list of persons receiving more than £100 a year; and then the recipients made their own returns. He was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to see his way to make a distinction between income derived from property and income derived from professional skill or industry. Physicians, clerks, and others, whose incomes ceased on death or illness, were placed in a more critical position than those incomes which were derivable from property. He trusted that the duty of 6d. a pound on tea would be permanent; for any further reduction would only stimulate the production of a spurious article, and put money in the pocket of the Chinaman.

said, he was pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had withdrawn the proposition for taxing the carriage of goods on railways. That was the first attempt to place a tax on goods carried by sea or land, and he hoped it would never be introduced again. With respect I to the tax on railways, he would like to see it swept away altogether. It was not, I however, a tax on railway proprietors, because the companies recouped themselves by making an addition to their maximum fares; and if the tax were taken off, the railways would have to reduce their fares by the extent of the tax. Licences on trades had been taken off, except with regard to the manufacture of soap and paper, and these the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to remit. He did not see why the same course should not be taken with regard to auctioneers. There was no reason why the licence duty on auctioneers should not be abolished. As to the proposed introduction into the Bill of further inquisitive regulations with respect to the income tax, he agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon). He was disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not sought to remedy some of the defects which prevailed in respect of the duties on inhabited houses; and he gave the right hon. Gentleman notice that in Committee he would move to introduce a clause to this effect—

"That houses let out in tenements or separate holdings, where the rent on each separate tenement or holding does not exceed 7s. 8d. per week, or £20 per annum, shall be exempt from house duty."

said, he wished to add a very strong remonstrance to those already addressed to the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) against the proposed abolition of hawkers' licences. It was a very painful task to cast reflections upon any trade, more especially one which was carried on by persons in a humble station of life; and, indeed, it was not his intention to do so on the present occasion. Still great apprehension was felt in the North of England and on the Borders in consequence of the intended repeal of the hawkers' licence, because it was anticipated that great encouragement would be thereby given to vagrants to go about the country and rob people, under the pretence that they were hawkers. He wished, in particular, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House some information as to any Reports he might have received from the chief constables of the Northern counties, to whom, he understood, inquiries had been addressed on this subject.

said, he desired to urge a plea on behalf of coffee, which was of more importance than tea in point of nutritive value, and in the property of being able to retain warmth in the bodies of persons exposed to cold and fatigue. The duty was at present 3d. per lb, which was a very large proportion of the actual cost, the real value of a pound being not more than 10d. or 1s. The quantity of coffee imported was 31,560,000lbs in 1867; 30,608,000lbs in 1868; and 29,109,000lbs in 1869. The duty was, therefore, becoming "small by degrees and beautifully less," a proof that the duty was too high.

said, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the desirability of reducing the Excise duty on home-made sugar. In France about 300,000,000 tons of sugar were manufactured in the year 1868; whereas Ireland consumed only about 30,000 tons annually. Beet root might be successfully cultivated in Ireland, and manufactured into sugar, if there were no Excise duty.

said, he deeply regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been unable to remove the differential duties upon sugar, as they entailed a large amount of unnecessary labour in our Custom Houses, and led to a lower description of sugar being imported than would otherwise be the case. While admitting that the country would gratefully accept the proposed large reduction of the sugar duties, he must take exception to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no reason why there should be further agitation for the further reduction of the duties; but he must enter his humble protest against such a doctrine. We ought not to refuse to contemplate the possibility of doing away at an early period with all import duties on this important article of consumption. The right hon. Gentleman thought we should retain our hold on this means of taxation, in order that we might raise additional revenue in the event of a war; and, he added, that by some drunken freak, a few extra glasses of wine, or some other accident, this country might be involved in war. In the first place, no drunken freak on the part of a diplomatist could get this country into war as long as prudence reigned in our councils at home; and, instead of rendering it easy to raise money in the event of a war, we ought to make it difficult to raise money, and thus endeavour to prevent the Government from going to war.

said, he was sorry to find such a demonstration against the poor hawkers. The people of his own country seemed to have taken alarm lest multitudes of hawkers should be let loose upon them. He believed there never was a more complete delusion, and that there never was a more cruel and unjust tax than the licence tax now chargeable upon hawkers. There were thousands of honest industrious people who earned a very small living in that way, and who should not be confounded with vagrants or any criminal class. When they considered that the person who went about hawking books, pamphlets, or any articles of that kind, had to pay £2 perhaps out of an income of £30 a year, it would be seen that this tax was most cruel in its operation. A large trade had sprung up latterly in connection with religious tract societies and book societies all over the country. He knew a society which employed about 50 of these licensed hawkers to sell Bibles and religious tracts, and all kinds of books having a good moral tendency; and for each of these they had to pay £2 of licence duty. He agreed that it would be very advantageous that there should be a register of these persons, by way of check; but he repeated it was a very hard and unjust thing to tax in this way industrious but very poor people. Therefore, he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his whole heart for the relief he had given these poor persons.

said, he took a view diametrically opposite to the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) in re- gard to a uniform duty on sugar. The town he had the honour to represent (Greenock) imported and refined one-fourth of the whole imports of the United Kingdom; and he was bound to say importers, merchants, and refiners were satisfied with the scale now in operation, and to impose a uniform duty would be a gross injustice, for it was well known some qualities of sugar were not more than about one-third of others in value. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would preserve the scale. He took the opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his declaration in I introducing his Resolutions, that he did not wish to hold out that he proposed to go on dealing with the sugar duties from year to year. That was important, as it was well known the dread of such interference had the effect of unsettling business in that article for months.

said, he hoped the House would excuse him if, taking into account the amount of business which was to be got through that evening, he replied very briefly to the various observations which had been made in the course of the discussion. He would remind the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) that in proportion as we made it difficult for ourselves to go to war we made it easy for others to go to war with us, and that, therefore, the best way to avoid war was to be prepared for it. With respect to what had been said on the subject of sugar, he must protest against the use of the term "differential" duties as applied to the present duties on that commodity. What he understood by a differential duty was a duty, differing in amount, imposed on goods of the same quality, according to the place from which they came or were manufactured. Now, the duty on sugar was a duty of varying amount imposed upon goods of different quality—that was to say, according to the saccharine principle which they contained, and had nothing in common with differential duties properly so-called. He adhered to the opinion that it was not desirable to propose—nor did he contemplate proposing at an early date—the further reduction of the sugar duties. He, at least, should not recommend the adoption of such a course, and he might say the same thing with regard to tea. As to what had been said about horses, he would merely observe that, as notice of an Amendment had been given on the subject, he would reserve the observations which he had to make upon it until the Amendment came on for discussion. At present he would merely say that, according to his view, it was not in his power to remit the duty in those cases in which persons received money for the use of their horses. As to railways, as the portion of the Bill which related to them was to be omitted, it was not necessary that he should say anything with respect to them, beyond remarking that he did not think he was open to any grave censure for not having made an announcement to the House on the subject before, inasmuch as he had no opportunity of doing so, unless some hon. Member had thought fit to put a Question to him, when, of course, he should have been glad to have given him an answer. He was asked, he might add, whether he would not take into consideration the case of Schedule D with reference to the income tax, and his reply was that he had considered it, as might be found by reference to the Report of Mr. Hubbard's Committee in 1860, in connection with which there was a draft Report, in which he had given at great length the reasons why he thought there should be no difference in the rate of charge under Schedule D and other Schedules of the income tax. As to calling upon employers to give an account of the incomes which they gave those in their employment, the reason for doing so was obvious; for there were a great many persons who received over £100 a year in the shape of salary who escaped the income tax altogether. It was but just to those in a similar position who did pay that such persons should not escape; and it was thought that the readiest way of reaching them, following the analogy of Schedule B, was to request employers to advance the tax, and afterwards to recoup themselves out of the salaries which they paid. That was, in the case of large establishments, obviously an easy and simple method of collecting the tax; and he thought hon. Gentlemen should not grudge the Revenue Department the relief they would derive from that arrangement. With regard to beet-root, he could not assent to a proposal which would be to establish in its favour a protective duty on foreign sugar. He came now to the last topic to which he need advert, that of the hawkers. A noble Lord had written a letter to the newspapers, in which he stated that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not competent to give an opinion as to the morals of that class of men. Now, they might be guilty of many offences and irregularities—upon that point he left it to those who were better informed on the subject than himself to decide—but even if that were proved to be the case, all that would have been done would be to make out a case for strong police regulations and not for taxation. Hawkers were the poorest class of tradesmen in the country; they dealt with the very poorest customers; and they, therefore, in his opinion, formed bad subjects for the imposition of a tax, because the effect of taxing them must be to limit competition, and raise the price of the commodities in which they dealt to the poor, who were their customers. Considering how many large branches of industry escaped taxation altogether, it would be a great anomaly and injustice, he thought, to pick out the poorest for its imposition. He was, at the same time, prepared to admit that he had seen several letters from chief constables of counties expressing great dislike of the proposal with respect to hawkers, and speaking of them in terms of strong disapprobation. Now, he attached great weight to the opinions of chief constables as far as the character of those persons was concerned, but they were not authorities on which he was disposed to place equal reliance as to the question of taxation. He had, he might add, been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, at his request, had been good enough to look into the subject, and who had undertaken to submit to the House a measure which would put, he thought, a far more efficient check on the abuses complained of than any tax which he could impose. What his right hon. Friend proposed to do was, in general terms, that every hawker should be required to have a licence, which should be given by the chief constable of the county, and. not at all, as a matter of course, and for which a small nominal sum should be paid. The licence, he might add, would be given only in those cases in which the person asking for it was known to be of good character. It was also pro- posed that it should be annual, and revocable on conviction for a certain class of offences. A register of hawkers would also be kept. That, he thought, would be a more effectual method of dealing with those men than screwing out of their small gains an unjust tax. He was happy to find that no more serious objection had been raised to the Bill. The question of coffee was under consideration.

said, that as an employer, he should be very unwilling to collect the income tax from those in his service. He wished for some explanation on the subject.

said, he was glad to hear the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with respect to the registration of hawkers. He regretted that he was not prepared to exempt owners of agricultural horses who received remuneration for the services of those horses from duty. Now he (Mr. Dodson) would suggest whether the right hon. Gentleman might not abolish the duty on horses kept for agriculture or trade, and levy a duty only on horses kept for enjoyment or luxury. It might be well to go further and abolish the duty on all horses, and, if necessary, increase the duty on carriages. Neither steam power, air power, or water power were taxed, and he had never heard any justification for taxing animal motive power.

said, he believed that, as a whole, the Budget was a good one.

said, he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the great inconvenience that was felt in Scotland, in consequence of farmers not being allowed to give the use of their carts for carrying materials for repairing roads without being charged duty on their horses. This inconvenience was the more felt since the tolls were taken off and the assessment for maintaining the roads was thrown entirely on the land.

said, in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac), he had to explain that the income tax on the salaries of employés would be paid only by public companies; private employers would furnish a list of the persons employed by them and the amount of the salary paid to each.

said, that this was a Consolidation Bill; but he understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former occasion that certain changes were to be made. Would it not be well, then, that some Paper should be laid on the Table which would point out which of the provisions were new?

said, that one way in which the changes would be introduced would be through the definitions of the Bill.

said, that some of the proposed alterations deserved discussion. There was no branch of our law that needed alteration more than that which related to stamps. There was one clause in the Bill by which anybody who had got a paper or document in his custody, which he declined to allow a person appointed by the Commissioners to inspect, would be liable to a fine of £50. That was one of the alterations, and would need consideration. He regretted that this Bill contained no repeal of the old Acts; and the result would be that if this Bill became law, all the old Acts would still remain on the Statute Book, which would produce a great deal of litigation.

said, that the definition of a bill of exchange had been largely extended in the clauses of the Bill; this was probably intended to check evasion of the duty, but it might be a question whether the matter had not been overdone.

said, he hoped that ample time would be allowed for the consideration of a measure which affected so many persons.

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in bringing forward this consolidation Bill, should have altogether ignored the strong desire of the commercial classes to have adhesive stamps made permissive on bills of exchange. Extreme inconvenience was felt from the present state of the law, from the North to the South of the island. When he brought the subject forward last year the objection was, that if adhesive stamps were used, the cancelling might be removed by chemical agents. But he maintained that it would be ex- tremely difficult to do so without obliterating the bill itself; and it was not likely that a man would risk the value of his vouchers for the sake of the small sum to be gained by the practice. Adhesive stamps were in use in France, Belgium, the North German Confederation, and various other parts of the commercial world, and he did not see why we should be denied the use of them in England.

said, he could confirm the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Few persons received more bills of exchange than he did, and he could not see why an adhesive stamp was so dangerous on an English bill of exchange, while it was so useful where foreign bills of exchange were concerned.

said, he wished to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the inconvenience resulting from the law in dealings with regard to cheques. It appeared rather hard that a banker should be required to put an ad valorem stamp on a cheque which he might not have known would go abroad.

said, that it was a mistake altogether to impose a penny stamp on cheques; and the burden fell very heavily on London, while in Liverpool, Glasgow and other great commercial towns they did not employ half so much as they did in the South. Again, for every delivery order they gave, however small, they had to use a penny stamp. That was not just towards those who lived by buying and selling; and he thought that fair play should be given to traders as well as to those engaged in other occupations.

said, he would be happy to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), and endeavour to point out the principle of the proposed arrangement; but he was afraid it would be impossible in a matter of that kind to give in any Paper a complete enumeration of the changes to be made in the effort to consolidate the law. Of course, there would have to be brought in another Bill, which was already drawn, that would repeal the present statutes as soon as this Bill was passed. If this Bill was to become law this Session, or in any Session, they would have to draw largely on the con- fidence and the indulgence of the House, because the task was most Herculean. The immense quantity of matter to be fused together in order to bring it within the compass of an Act of Parliament had necessitated the re-writing of a great deal; and it was almost impossible to rewrite such a number of clauses without making more or less variation in them. He looked on this Bill not as a settlement but only as a beginning—as only laying the foundation of future labours in that field; and once they had got the old Stamp Law within the compass of a single Act, they would then be able to direct their attention to the great amount of amendment and of simplification of which the subject was capable. If the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) was to be taken as a sample of the manner in which the Bill was to be discussed, it would be absolutely impossible to pass the measure, which ranged over so wide a field. The only way in which the Bill could be carried would be if hon. Gentlemen would refrain from asserting and arguing their individual views as to particular taxes, and would accept the measure as in the main what it was intended to be—namely, a Consolidation Bill, and would remember that, when it had passed, they would have the best opportunity of working out the reforms that were desirable in the Stamp Law—a task with which it was almost hopeless to deal while that law remained the maze it was. He would promise that the House should have ample time to consider the Bill before it was asked to go into Committee upon it. He would respectfully suggest that those hon. Gentlemen who might feel it their duty to move Amendments in the Bill should, as much as possible, limit their Amendments to making the measure that which it professed to be—namely, a faithful reflex of the law as it stood at present, and not attempt on this occasion to raise questions of the substantive amendment of that law. Any Amendments or suggestions which hon. Gentlemen could make tending in the limited direction he had described would be most valuable; and he hoped that those who might wish to propose them would be kind enough to put them on the Notice Paper in good time. They would be most carefully considered, and he should be happy to confer in private with hon. Gentlemen on the subject with a view to save the valuable time of the House, and also, if possible, to settle questions that were inherently very nice and abstruse.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had come to the conclusion not to press it in its original shape. In deference to what he understood to be the general wish of the House, he proposed to retain the game licences, but to give holders of them a licence to carry fire-arms. It would rest with the House to say whether the amount of the licence should be reduced.

said, he regretted the decision come to, because by it the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the boon he had promised. It had been said that the original proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would relieve the rich; but his (Mr. Hunt's) object in wishing to see the licence reduced was to enable poorer persons to enjoy the pleasure of sport at a moderate cost. To prevent poaching, he would make a provision to withhold a licence from any person found trespassing in pursuit of game or committing any offence with fire-arms.

said, he differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House, and must express his satisfaction at the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If only a £1 licence on guns were imposed there would be a vast increase in the number of poachers. It appeared from the Bill that nobody but an officer of the Inland Revenue or a constable would be entitled to ask for the production of a licence; and he wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an owner or occupier of land, or a keeper deputed to look over a property, would not also be authorized to demand the production of a licence from a person trespassing on the property? He also wished to know whether persons employed in scaring birds would be exempted from the operation of Clause 7?

said, he was very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had granted. He should, however, prefer to see the licence applicable to the barrels or chambers rather than to the actual gun, in order to check the dangerous practice of carrying revolvers, which was growing very common in the North of England.

explained that the licence was not imposed on the guns themselves, but on the carrying of guns.

said, he should like to have the tax increased in proportion to the number of chambers each gun might contain.

said, he thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to adhere to his original proposition; but he congratulated him on the support he was receiving from the game preservers. As this tax, he believed, amounted to £150,000, it was high time for another Financial Statement to be made.

said, that as the proposed alteration was en- tirely in accordance with the Amendment he had himself given Notice of, he begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. The retention of the game licence was, in his judgment, the greatest check on poaching which could be devised. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would fix the cost of the gun licence at 10s.

said, he was also glad that the game licence was to be retained. It would, however, be a great boon to clerks and others who had an opportunity to go shooting for a week or two if licences available for a week, a fortnight, or a month could be obtained at the Post Offices for 5s. or 10s.

said, that gentlemen who only went shooting for two or three days in the year never thought of taking out a licence. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for retaining the old game licence, as the Bill in its original form would have given the greatest encouragement to poaching. He concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that the tax should be imposed on the barrels, in order to check the use of revolvers.

said, he would point out that the Bill had entirely changed its appearance, and would consequently require careful revision in Committee. If the old game licence were to be retained, no tax ought to be imposed on guns; and when the Bill went into Committee he intended to propose a clause to that effect.

said, that he had had the honour of presenting a Petition signed by 36 working men, who stated they should experience great pleasure at being allowed a month's shooting in the spring free of gun tax.

said, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adhere to the £1 gun tax, which was necessary for the purpose of putting a stop to the shooting of small birds in the neighbourhood of towns.

said, he thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little precipitate in announcing his intention of maintaining the game licence in addition to the gun tax, as the Inland Revenue Department were intensely re- luctant to be made the means of prosecuting poachers in consequence of a tax being levied on guns.

said, he would make the common-sense suggestion that game preservers who sold their game should be made to take out the dealer's licence.

said, he wished to know whether it was meant to include, as subject to the tax on guns, the large number of guns in the armouries connected with the shipping of the country?

The tax is to be, not on guns, but on the carrying of them.

said, there was a large number of guns carried annually between the armourer's shop and the ships.

moved the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

moved that the Debate be now adjourned. He was assured by competent legal authority that if this Amendment were carried into effect an action would lie against any person appointed under it for his very first official act, and he, as a trustee of Rugby School, should certainly bring an action.

Sir, I rose at the same moment as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in order to second the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Southampton, and I hope the hon. Member will allow that Amendment to pass, for I can assure him that the delay is highly prejudicial to the interests of the public schools. In seconding the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southampton, I beg to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Frome that I am actuated by no spirit of hostility to his Motion. On the contrary, as one of the Public School Commissioners, I have, from the commencement, been strongly opposed to the clause which he wishes to cancel. Indeed, Sir, it must be obvious to every hon. Member who considers the constitution of the Commission, that it would be our wish to regard the whole question from a liberal point of view. In the opinion, however, of the highest authorities, as, for instance, of the Solicitor General, the Commission really had no option in the matter. I confess I should not myself have taken this view; but I cannot, of course, set up my opinion against that of so eminent an authority. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Commissioners are making most extensive changes, and are naturally watched from many quarters with much jealousy; and, under these circumstances I am sure the House will sympathize with the anxiety of the Commission to keep well within their powers, and not unduly to stretch the authority vested in them. Sir, as far as the interests of the Church of England are concerned, this clause in the proposed statutes seems to me to possess very little importance. Take, for instance, the case of Winchester. The Governing Body of that school will be composed as follows:—The Wardens of New College, Oxford, and Winchester, one member each elected by the Wardens and Fellows of New College, the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the Royal Society, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Head and Assistant Masters; and two or four by the Governing Body for the time being, a provision which will materially strengthen the Conservative element in the Governing Body. Sir, I hope the time may come when all these bodies will elect the best man, independent of his religious opinions; but, as matters now stand, out of the 13 members of whom the Governing Body will consist, there is obviously no chance that more than one or two will be Nonconformists. Even that is doubtful, for though the Royal Society of the University of London will certainly elect those whom they consider most fit, irrespective of their religious opinions, they will certainly not elect anyone because he is a Nonconformist. I submit, therefore, that in the interests of the Church of England it is undesirable to fight this question. No doubt there are some privileges necessary to the existence of an Established Church; but this is not one of them, and it does seem to me very unwise on the part of friends of the Church to grasp at the mere shadow of a privilege, thus jeopardizing the substantial advantage of popular sympathy and support. Moreover, Sir, this privilege seems to me to be one of a very dangerous character, since it excites hostility without, on the other hand, conferring any strength. As regards the schools themselves, however, the limitation seems to me of considerable importance, since it will exclude some whose presence all would regard as most desirable. I regret, therefore, that all the public schools cannot be thrown open, and for the same reason I should, of course, like to see the 19th clause of the Endowed Schools Act reconsidered, as it seems to me contrary to public policy that anyone should be able to tie up his property, and thus offer a premium to the teaching of certain opinions—a premium, which if they are right they do not require, and if they are wrong they ought not to have. Sir, the Amendment seems to me preferable to the original Motion, because it would effect the same object in a simpler and more expeditious manner. Neither, indeed, will it effect all that I myself should wish; but the Amendment will at least strengthen the hands of the Commissioners, and enable them to throw open some of the Governing Bodies. Under these circumstances, I trust that it will be accepted by the hon. Member for Frome, and by the House.

said, he did not see the use of prolonging this discussion night after night; but would, after making his protest, yield to the overwhelming numbers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and consent to the adoption of the Motion, for it was useless to oppose a Government that argued with legions at its back.

said, he was willing to accept the Amendment in preference to the Motion of which he had himself given Notice.

said, the House was called upon to ask Her Majesty to act under a statute from the operation of which the public schools were expressly excluded, and therefore this matter could not be carried further without special legislation. There should be legislation before Her Majesty was asked to do anything.

said, he believed the Commissioners were perfectly right in the course they had pursued. There was nothing to prevent the Commissioners from acting without special legislation.

said, he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would not be pressed.

said, he must submit that the House could only direct existing legislation to be carried out, and there was nothing in it affecting the schools mentioned. He must oppose the Address, considering it a step towards the disestablishment of the English Church, at which the artillery of destruction was now pointed on that (the Opposition) side of the House.

moved that this House do now adjourn.