asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the necessary arrangements have yet been made for the promised resumption of the publication of the Irish Manuscripts; and, if not, if he can state what the obstacles are, and when they are likely to be removed?

, in reply, said, that during last autumn he was in communication with several distinguished Irish scholars upon the question of resuming the publication of the Irish manuscripts, and he also, on the part of the Government, requested the Royal Irish Academy to undertake such of the work as might now properly be commenced. The result of this request had been a correspondence of considerable length between the Government and the Royal Irish Academy. Questions arose relating to the expense of the work, which had to be considered very carefully both by the Government and the Royal Irish Academy, and as the meetings of the Council were not very frequent, this correspondence occupied a considerable time. He hoped, however, within the course of two or three days he should be able to submit to the Treasury a final proposal with regard to the expenditure. He might add that the Government did not in any way desire to fetter the Council as to the mode of executing the work, beyond showing the caution which the Government were bound to exercise over a work to be published at the public expense.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If he is prepared to announce the terms of the Order in Council under which the arrangement for granting superannuation allowances to teachers appear?

Sir, I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend who has taken so warm and useful an in- terest in this matter what are the slight modifications which we have made in the Pension Minute which I propose to lay on the Table this afternoon. In the former Minute it was laid down that pensions should only be granted to teachers whose income during the last seven years had not exceeded £120 per annum (men), or £60 (women). We have now omitted the condition as to income, as we think it best to follow closely the conditions of the Minute of 1851, whereby the late Lord Lansdowne, as Lord President, interpreted his own former Pension Minute of 1846, and also as it is clear that both this House—judging from the debate on the Education Estimates—and the teachers themselves are very anxious that the Department should not hamper its own action by laying down a hard-and-fast line as to salaries. The cases, therefore, will be judged simply on their own merits, preference being of course given to those in greatest need of assistance. We have also removed all uncertainty as to the eligibility for these pensions of certified teachers of normal schools, and also of assistant teachers. I am glad to believe that this question, about which the teachers have naturally felt very strongly for many years, will now be settled to the satisfaction of the teachers and with the cordial approval of both sides of the House.

, in rising to move the following new clause—

(Repeal of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871.)

"The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, shall he and is hereby repealed,"

said, he would have great pleasure in acceding to the clause as it stood, to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred. He only wished to point out to him that it was almost a pity to retain these words, "shall use violence to any person or any property," because at present a person who did use violence could be punished by summons or indictment. It did seem unreasonable to have two offences, one for which a man could be imprisoned for two months, and another for which he could, under this Bill, be imprisoned for three. It was a pity also to make the proposed exception in the law of threats. The law was a very sensible law. If a man uttered a threat which the magistrate thought serious, he would have to find sureties, and, if he did not, to go to prison. Sureties were generally found, and nothing more was heard of the matter. It would be, therefore, a pity to have two sets of law. It was not wise to introduce unnecessarily such a wide distinction between Acts. He did not see that threats to compel a man to do or abstain from doing a thing were any worse than threats which came out of the malice of a man's heart, nor why the one should be so much more severely punished than the other. He thought it also a bad thing to have two sets of positions; one that a man did a thing with intent, the other that he did it with a view to compulsion. The matter would be placed on a much better footing if we were to get rid of this idea of compulsion. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman thought it wise to retain the words, he would not make any objection.

said, he was extremely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what had fallen from him. In a consultation with masters and men both sides seemed to desire to retain the words in question, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would adopt the clause as it stood. He therefore begged to move the following new clause:—

(Penalty for intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise.)

"Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, shall use violence to any person or any property, or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace, and every person who, with a view seriously to annoy or intimidate any other person, shall persistently follow such other person about or hide any property owned or used by such other person, or deprive him of or hinder him in the use thereof, or watch or beset the place where such other person resides or is or the approach to such place, or shall with one or more persons follow such person in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road shall be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months."

, while agreeing to the repeal of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, regretted the introduction of the words which the Home Secretary had put in this clause. They were, in fact, a repetition, though in a different form, of the 1st section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. He had no desire to oppose a clause which had been brought forward under such circumstances, and he heartily hoped that on both sides of the House they would unite to settle this question; but he must add that, in his opinion, the clause in its present shape was ambiguous, and would certainly require the introduction of verbal Amendments to make its meaning clear and distinct, or an interpretation clause.

concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in the opinion that the clause was so worded as to leave room for doubtful construction.

reminded the Committee that the Question was now that the clause be read a second time; the consideration of Amendments would properly arise on the Motion that the clause be added to the Bill. The substantial and operative part of the clause was the latter part of it, and it was with respect to that part that Notice had been given by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London. The only alteration made by the Home Secretary in that part of the clause was, that he had substituted imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding three months for imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding two months, as proposed by his right hon. Friend. Although the terms introduced by the Home Secretary were unnecessary in law, they were such slight modifications that it would not be worth while to differ about them.

said, that having been in constant communication with all the various bodies of workmen who were interested in this matter, he thought himself entitled in their name and on his own behalf to thank the Home Secretary for the very fair way in which he had met the representatives of both masters and working men since Monday night, and the very important changes of which he had given Notice in his own name. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had in his own clause incorporated the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and he hoped they were now about to arrive at something like a final settlement of this long-vexed question. Indeed, he believed the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman would tend to prevent a renewed agitation on the subject. All the working men had demanded was equality in dealing with matters of this kind, and as they had now obtained equality, they could have no ground for complaint. When the Judges were called upon to consider the Bill, he felt satisfied that they would place upon it a satisfactory interpretation, knowing, as they would, that it would apply to all classes of the community alike. At the same time he must observe that if Parliament were now legislating on the question for the first time, they would be undertaking a very dangerous task, for, as a lawyer had said to him, the clause, applying as it did to the whole community, left nothing to be complained of from the workmen's point of view—they demanded equality, and here they had got it—but if the unfortunate widow in the Scripture had happened to live when a clause of the kind was operative, the unjust Judge would probably have given her three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

, as one who had some interest in a very large portion of the working classes, concurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the patience, courtesy, and careful attention he had given to the representations of the working men, and felt it to be his duty to say on their behalf, that he believed from the first the Home Secretary had attempted to deal fairly with them; and he hoped the question would be settled once for all.

said, it appeared to him that the working classes were satisfied, not because the Bill was good in itself, but because it removed many of the grievances of which they had previously complained. He, for one, however, objected to making these special changes in the Criminal Law, because he believed there was sufficient power already existing to meet these cases. He also objected to the definition of intimidation, consisting in a magistrate's binding, or not binding, a man over to keep the peace. There was nothing in which magistrates exercised a wider discretion than they did in reference to matters of that kind. He did not think the proposed change was necessary, and at the proper time he should take the sense of the Committee upon that point.

would have preferred if the clause had simply repealed the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1871. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had very good reasons for the course he had taken, but he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that great mischief might arise from the ambiguity of the clause. So far as it went beyond the existing law, it was altogether unnecessary.

said, the clause was necessary to meet the case of a man saying to another—"I will not strike you on the head, but somebody else may."

submitted that this was a superfluous enactment. It created, moreover, a new offence, the definition of which it left to the discretion of the magistrate. Such a mode of criminal legislation was dangerous and wholly without precedent. He thought the Statute Book ought not to be encumbered by such a clause.

remarked that before that enactment passed care should be taken that it was not hurtful to the community. It was matter for remark that what had long been considered fitting legislation for a particular class was found inconvenient when applied to the entire community. The Home Secretary had himself not long since remarked that the multiplication of offences of misdemeanour was a crying evil, and yet this Bill proposed to enact four or five new offences altogether.

pointed out that the existing law was inadequate to meet the cases of threats to injure property.

proposed an Amendment of the clause, in line 3, by omitting the third "any," and substituting for it "such," with the purpose of restricting the violence against which the clause was directed to violence offered to the person to be coerced or his property, instead of "any person or any property."

hoped it was a mistake, but undoubtedly the language of the clause went further than the Criminal Law Amendment Act which they were repealing. The words were—

"Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing, or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, shall use violence to any person."

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, because the violence, by which it was sought to intimidate a man, might be directed towards his wife, children, or servants, and the clause was necessary to meet such a case as that.

said, at all events, admitting that might be so, yet it was clear the clause went further than the old law, and created a new offence.

observed that the real question was, whether this violence, if used to a man's wife, children, or servants, for the purpose of forcing him to do something which he ought not to do, ought not to be an offence.

thought the Amendment would meet every case, and would not go so far as the words in the clause.

trusted that the Government would accede to the Amendment. It was agreed that there was to be no exceptional legislation, and although the clause did not come under that description, yet it was probable it would be more used upon the labour question than any other. The draftsman could not be aware that he was by the present clause altering the present law, and it was only reasonable to ask that the new clause might leave the law as in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, where it was provided that the violence should be used to such person.

could not agree that the clause either created a new offence, or that it was unnecessary. The object of the clause was to prevent intimidation. One of the original causes of the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was to prevent interference by what he might call extraneous means, such as interfering with children or property.

was certain that everyone would wish to meet the case of violence to a man's wife or children, but such an offence was punishable under the present law, and therefore the words objected to were not wanted. What his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) had said was perfectly true—namely, that the clause went further than the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which enacted that the violence should be used to the particular person whom it was sought to coerce, and to nobody else.

asked whether it would be necessary to specify and name the persons intimidated?

, in supporting the Amendment, said, there was a case not long ago in Oxfordshire of a farmer who, because one of his men joined a Union, thrashed him within an inch of his life.

hoped the Home Secretary would not be disinclined to re-consider this matter, and accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. Cases of violence were substantially met by the existing law, which it was therefore unnecessary to enlarge.

said, he believed that cases of cutting bands and injuring machinery were already provided for. He asked the Committee to observe that it was now proposed for the first time, that an offence against an individual might be a ground for proceedings against the offender on the part not of the subject of the offence, but of a third person.

would again put it to the Committee as a matter of broad common sense. Did the Committee mean to say that it should be wrong to use violence to A, to compel him to do something, and that it should not also be an offence to do the same violence to A's wife or children or anybody in his house for precisely the same purpose?

would support the Amendment if it was pressed to a division, because he considered that the clause extended the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, instead of mitigating them as it professed to do.

said, that if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport went into the Lobby he felt bound to go with him, because the clause would make the law more stringent than it was at present, and he did not think it would work well.

supported the Amendment.

moved to omit the words

"or shall threaten or intimidate any person in such manner as would justify a justice of the peace in binding over the person so threatening or intimidating to keep the peace."

did not agree with the clause as it stood, and thought the words proposed to be omitted by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick were particularly objectionable, and that the object desired could be attained by words of a different character. The offence should be defined with greater certainty, and less discretion given to the magistrates.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, though he was willing to insert the words, "on complaint made."

said, the proposal in the clause was new legislation and stringent legislation, and it went far beyond what was now in the Criminal Law Amendment Act. An employer would have the right to proceed against a workman who sent a threatening letter to another workman. Surely the prosecution should be left to the man who was threatened; a third party ought not to be brought in.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 6, to leave out "seriously to annoy or," and insert "to." He objected to those words as vague, difficult to interpret, and likely to place those for whose benefit this Bill was intended in a worse position than before. He preferred that the description of the offence should simply be "every person, who, with a view to intimidate," &c.

said, that some time ago the Home Secretary had said he was anxious to bring this question of the relationship between masters and workmen to a settlement, and he had given clear evidence that he was perfectly honest in that desire. It was equally clear that all the Members of the House were as desirous of accomplishing that end as were the Government. That being so, it behoved them to see that when it was settled it was settled satisfactorily. That could not be done without the total repeal or considerable modification of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The clause under discussion undoubtedly possessed the great merit of placing all classes of the community on terms of equality. That was certainly a step in the right direction. But it was worth the while of the House to consider what sort of equality it was which the clause would produce; whether the equality, in fact, partook of the character of steady progress along the solid highway, or was not rather a case of the blind leading the blind into the ditch. The question which the workman would most likely ask himself was, whether men who were in no sense of the term criminals ought to be sent to prison? He did not think workmen would be satisfied as long as such a thing was possible. The real question for consideration was, what effect the proposal under discussion would have when it came to be definitely applied to strikes and locks-out? During such disputes there was always a large amount of ill-feeling manifested. The object of the employer was to prevent his old hands getting work elsewhere and to obtain fresh hands if he could. The object of the workmen was to prevent fresh workmen taking their place while they were on strike. Neither party was at such a time over scrupulous in the means they employed. He himself knew of a case where on the occurrence of a strike the masters sent into another district, and enticed away men by gross misrepresentations. When the new men arrived the men on strike very naturally induced them to remain out of work till they had exposed what the masters had done, whereupon the former returned to the district whence they had come. Well, he wanted to know whether the men had been more guilty of violence in that case than the masters? He feared the clause, as it stood, would be open to very great abuse, and he was therefore in favour of its being altered.

said, he was not disposed to retract a single word of what he stated some time ago with reference to this subject. The law was clearly laid down by the Royal Commission, by the Recorder, and in part also by the learned Judge who tried a recent case. What they wanted was to prevent one man worrying another man's life out. That was what was wanted, if it could only be put into an Act of Parliament. The effect of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London was really to express the serious character of the annoyance to be such as practically to destroy the man's free will. His object was to secure perfect freedom of individual action on the part of the workmen against all-comers whether masters or fellow-workmen. That was his sole and sincere object. He believed the words of the right hon. Gentleman carried out that object, and he would adhere to them till better words were suggested.

, on the other hand, viewed the words with very considerable apprehension. It was all very well to talk of serious molestation. Suppose a man owed another a sum of money and the other followed him about. That would certainly be a serious annoyance. But ought it to come within the law?

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had intimated to him his readiness to accept the Amendment of which he (Mr. Mundella) had given Notice, provided he substituted £20 for £5. He was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and he had great pleasure in adopting his suggestion. His Amendment would now therefore run thus—in line 12, after "liable to," insert "a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to."

said, he had an Amendment to propose which he trusted would meet with the acceptance of the House. When he originally came to consider how an order upon the defendant to perform his contract should be enforced, it occurred to him that if the master or servant waived his right to obtain damages at once, an order should be made for the performance of the contract, and that the plaintiff should be able to ask for a summary mode of obtaining the money which he had a right to demand. The clause he had inserted with regard to the order upon the defendant to perform his contract was proposed in the interest of the men themselves, and he had no intention of reviving the punishment of imprisonment for breach of civil contract. He repudiated any intention of reviving imprisonment by these words, and he trusted that the House would acquit him of any such intention. But finding that an impression had gone abroad that such might be the practical effect of the clause, he had now to propose another plan, which would, he believed, induce persons to become sureties for a person against whom damages were given without imprisoning the man himself. Instead of awarding damages, resulting in the case of non-performance in imprisonment, the Court might order that the man should perform his contract and require sureties that he would do so. If the surety were called upon to pay the money for the person against whom damages had been awarded, he would have the same right to recover the money against the defendant which the master originally had. Without further explanation, therefore, he would move in page 2, line 14, after "defendant," leave out "to" and insert "and one or more surety or sureties that the defendant will."

heartily assented to the proposal, which was practically the one he had himself made on Monday, and which the House had then divided upon.

then moved, in page 2, line 17, leave out from "and may be," inclusive, to end of Clause, and insert as a separate paragraph—

"Any sum paid by a surety on behalf of a defendant in respect of a security under this Act, together with all costs incurred by such surety in respect of such security, shall be deemed to be a debt due to him from the defendant; and where such security has been given in or under the direction of a court of summary jurisdiction, that court may order payment to the surety of the sum which has so become due to him from the defendant."

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken in adopting an alteration which was precisely that for which during a considerable debate the Opposition had contended. The Bill, as amended, would meet with the unanimous consent of the House, now that it contained no provision for imprisonment for the breach of a civil contract. They were ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill in what he conceived to be the interest of the working men; but it contained a most objectionable provision, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the Opposition were justified in the somewhat pertinacious objections which they offered to the clause.

said, he did not wish to make the Amendment the subject of controversy, and he was grateful to the House for the manner in which they had received it. He had not seen his way on a former occasion to give the surety that right which he thought he ought to have against the defendant, and the Amendment supplied that which was not suggested the other night.

then moved, in page 5, line 4, after "summary jurisdiction," insert—

"And in particular for the purpose of regulating the costs of any proceedings in a court of summary jnrisdiction, with power to provide that the same shall not exceed the costs which would in a similar case be incurred in a county court."

, who had given Notice of a Motion that the House go into Committee that day three months, said, he had placed the Amendment on the Paper, because he regretted the course which the Government had taken, no doubt, reluctantly, under pressure of Motions from both sides of the House. It might perhaps be necessary for him to seek the protection of the two Bills which had just been dealt with against serious annoyance, because for protesting against an indefinite multiplication of the number of Judges he might be regarded as a "black sheep" by the great profession to which he had the honour to belong. But the hon. and learned Attorney General had given Notice of an Amendment, to be moved on the Report of the Judicature Act Amendment Bill, which in a great degree obviated the objections which had led him (Sir William Harcourt) to give Notice of opposition to the Bill. The number of Judges of the First Instance were by the Bill of 1873 reduced by three, it being understood and expected that the amelioration of the law and the economy of judicial time under the new procedure would enable a smaller number of Judges to do a greater amount of work. It was also proposed that three additional Judges should be made Members of the single Appellate Court which it was the intention to constitute under the Act of 1873. That intention was continued in 1874, and in 1875 the Bill as it came down from the other House maintained that reduction of three in the number of the Judges of First Instance. It was, however, still more beneficial than the Act of 1873, because, instead of adding three new Judges to the Appellate Court, it only created one new Judge and took two Judges from the Judicial Committee for the new Intermediate Court of Appeal. The Government therefore proposed to economize five Judges as compared with the original proposal. But what occurred 10 days ago? The first thing done was to abolish the three Judges of First Instance, as provided in 1873 and subsequently affirmed and re-affirmed. The next, and of this he approved, was to give up the proposal to take two Judges from the Privy Council; and the next was, instead of creating one new Judge, to create three new Judges of the Appellate Court, thus practically adding to the original scheme no fewer than five new Judges. A more inconsiderate proposal, one less capable of being supported by any consideration of public expediency or economy, he could not conceive. He was happy to think that the Government thought so too, as that morning a proposal appeared on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Attorney General which, if adopted, would strike off two of the five new Judges. Instead of creating two Judges for the Court of Appeal, two of the Common Law Judges were to be borrowed when their services were required. With respect to the continuance of the present number of Judges, he knew it was hopeless to resist the proposal, but he was no less sorry it had been determined on. It was said that the Judges were overworked. He was not at all certain about that; but if they were, how did it happen that a case of which they had all heard so much—the Tichborne Case—had been sent to be tried before three of the Common Law Judges at Bar, instead of, as it ought to have been, to the Central Criminal Court, where it would have been tried by one Judge? Three Judges were thus occupied for months, and one or two others went abroad—at least four being absent from the ordinary judicial work. The object of the Judicature Act was to economize the time of the Judges, so that a fewer number might get through more work. It was not the smallness of the number of Judges, but the absurd disorder, the ludicrous want of organization which prevailed, which prevented the legal business of the country from being readily got through. It was impossible to tell where the Judges were to be—now they were at Westminster, now at Guildhall, now on Circuit; and that was the state of things the Act ought to remedy. It ought to abolish the Long Vacation, deal with the Circuits, do away with the distinctions between Queen's Bench, Exchequer, Common Pleas, Admiralty, and Equity Courts, so that there might be that interchangeability which would enable the judicial strength to be fully utilized and the time of the Judges economized, and which was essential to anything like effective organization. The assertion that more Judges were required was a most bitter censure upon the Judicature Act. It was an admission that it provided no real legal reform at all—that what it did was to create more Judges. He was himself an advocate of Law Re-form, but he would never advocate Law Reform which resulted in the mere creation of new places for Law Reformers. What was the present position? Under the Act of 1873 there were three Judges of Appeal to be created, but the Government having abandoned the creation of the great Final Court of Appeal—at least, for the present Session—proposed to constitute an Intermediate Court of Appeal. He had always objected to an Intermediate Court of Appeal, because in the legal profession there was not sufficient material out of which two good Appellate Courts could be constituted. If the House, instead of making one strong Appellate Court, established two indifferent and moderate Courts of Appeal it would be doing that which would not strengthen the law, while it would enormously increase the expenses of litigation. The proposal carried two days ago to create two new Judges for the Intermediate Court of Appeal was one of the most unreasonable proposals ever made, because the Court was to be temporary and provisional, and to last no longer than one year. But the Government now made a reasonable proposal, as far as circumstances would admit, for they were going to borrow pro hac vice two Judges from the Courts of First Instance in order to transfer them to the Appellate Court when their services were required there. Under all the circumstances, he would not move the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, in the hope that the Government would not create additional Judges, and that they would so amend the Bill as to render it a good measure.

said, that as he was to some extent responsible for what had taken place in reference to this matter, he considered he was called on to vindicate the course adopted, and the opinion he still entertained concerning it. The state of things at present in reference to the despatch of legal business was not satisfactory, and it was only necessary to refer to the large number of remanets standing over for trial to show the inability of the Judges, under the existing system, to get through the business of their Courts. He hoped the new system would remedy that unsatisfactory state of things—a state which was attended with heavily increased law expenses and vexatious delay in the administration of justice. There was a further improvement also to which he looked forward. Under the existing system most trivial points were referred to the opinion of the Court above; and he hoped a great part of the judicial strength, now wasted to a certain extent by the sittings of the Judges in Banco, would be more judiciously applied under the Act of 1873 as supplemented by the present Bill. He trusted that there would be continuous sittings in London and Middlesex, and that more time would also be given for the proper trial of civil causes on Circuit. But in his opinion the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal was one of the most importance requisites in reference to the working of the Act of 1873. The presence of the Chiefs of the respective Courts could not be relied on in the Court of Appeal. You could, therefore, only rely on the two Lords Justices and the new Judge to constitute the Court. But the Appeal Court would have to dispose of appeals from the Lords Justices, the Courts of Admiralty, Probate and Divorce, and Exchequer Chamber, probably with many cases which now went to the Courts in Banco. Now, three Judges were quite inadequate to dispose of this business. The Lords Justices at present heard about 200 cases a-year, and their business alone was quite as much as any Court could dispose of properly. For the other appeal business there must be another Court which would find full occupation. It was proposed that this Court should be made up of Judges taken hap-hazard pro hac vice, or the request to the Chiefs of the Courts of First Instance. Now, with great respect for the Bench, it was well known that some Judges were men of greater capacity than others. Well, then, if for the constitution of the Court of Appeal two strong Judges were chosen, the Court of First Instance would be weak; and if two weak Judges were chosen the Appeal Court would be of the same character. He regretted the change which the Government proposed to make, because it was of the greatest importance in bringing a new system into practice that it should be regulated, to a considerable extent, by a Court of Appeal, and it must be anticipated that a greater number of cases would come up on appeal than was the case now. It was derogatory to a Court of Appeal that its Judges should be taken from another Court as it were by the job, and the same respect would not be paid to its decisions. It was of great importance that the Appeal Court should be well constituted at starting, for a weak tribunal might crystallize faulty decisions which it would be very difficult afterwards to get rid of. The money required for the purpose of properly constituting the Court might be saved by a better regulation of offices and a better distribution of the work. The general opinion of both branches of the legal profession was, that the Common Law staff of officers was in excess of what was required. If the Masters were brought together and worked together, instead of having four of them in each Court, one-third of their number might be dispensed with, and the Associates and Clerks of Assize might be utilized and appointed to vacancies as the Masters fell off. Again, many of the clerks attached to the offices might also be saved; and by these economies three Judges might be provided with little additional cost to the country.

said, it did not seem likely that the House would go to a division, or in that ease he should have been content to give his vote without occupying the time of the House. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) insisted upon a large increase of the public charge in the appointment of Judges whose offices had been prospectively abolished, while at the same time he pointed out countervailing economies by the reduction of certain officers of the Courts. That was an exceedingly pleasant and satisfactory prospect, the only drawback being that the increase of charge was about to take effect while the economies were in the air and dwelt in the region of possibilities. The public would have to endure a certain outlay, while the compensations were purely visionary, and he, therefore, wished those who had shown such zeal in recommending an augmentation in the number of Judges would equally apply their abilities and experience in the work described, and introduce a clause in the Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the economies held out as compensation for the additional charge. He (Mr. Gladstone) was almost a solitary representative of opinions respecting public economy which, 30 years ago, were the opinions of all men of any note in both political Parties alike. Since that time a great fundamental change had occurred; and although, of course, any objection taken by him must, in the first instance, be taken to the conduct of the Government, who were immediately and primarily responsible, yet he must frankly admit that the course they took was one which appeared to be urged upon them by the profession, which did not seem to be disapproved by the House, and as to which he could see no decided symptoms of disapproval by the country. It now seemed to be the desire of the country, in entire reversal of the principles and ideas which prevailed 20, 30, or 40 years ago, that our establish- ments should be enlarged and the expenses of the Government increased from year to year; and, as long as public opinion had this tendency the country would never find any difficulty in discovering political Parties—he knew not whether on both sides of the House, but, at all events, on one side—who would readily undertake to conduct the work of the Government upon these principles. As to the work of the Judges, it was impossible for outsiders to contend with the Members of the profession who had led on the assault upon the public purse in this matter with respect to the details of the work of the Judges. He could only point to the solemn and deliberate judgment of Parliament in 1873, and consider that which they were now doing in comparison or contrast with that judgment. He was never very proud of the achievements of the late Government in the matter of public economy. They had to contend with difficulties which were no doubt felt by the present Government who, perhaps, might otherwise be inclined to respect the lingering traditions of other times, when it was thought one of the great duties of Parliament to restrict and restrain the public expenditure. At the same time something was done in the Act of 1873. He gave the utmost credit to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for the stand he had made on this occasion, because, as a distinguished member of a great, learned, and distinguished profession, invaluable to the country in their sphere, it could not be agreeable to him to oppose himself to the general sentiment of his profession. In one respect his statement admitted of being enlarged. It was perfectly true that, in the Act of 1873, while Parliament provided for the extinction of three Judges of First Instance, it provided for the creation of three new Judgeships with a view to man the Court of Appeal as then contemplated. But that was not the whole case. The three new Judgeships were not to be created for the purpose of trying English cases. All these Judgeships were expressly created with a view to fill them by persons who might represent the profession of Scotland and the profession of Ireland in the Court of Appeal. Consequently, as far as England was concerned, these were reductions of Judgeships; and, on the other hand, one new Judge was appointed who was to form part of the Appellate Tribunal. The Bill embodying this proposal was always recommended to the public upon the ground that our judicial establishments were enormously wasteful, and that the loss of judicial time and power was such that establishments were created for which there was no necessity; because, by better arrangement of these establishments, the same work could be done with a much smaller expenditure of power. It was on that basis that Parliament was induced to address itself to the formidable and serious task of interfering so much with the ancient traditions of British Judicature, and of re-casting the Court in which the higher causes of the country were to be tried. What was the result? That the flowery promises of great economy and the prevention of the waste of judicial power had vanished into thin air, and an absolute addition was to be made to the number of Judges for the purpose of carrying on the judicial business of the country. He hoped he had not done injustice to the Government in the matter. Those who were in his position—those who drew their recollections and traditions from other days, must be thankful for the smallest mercies, and therefore he made his bow to the hon. and learned Attorney General for the merciful manner in which he had dealt with the country, for he frankly admitted that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had adhered to the whole of the propositions which had been put before him on a former occasion, or even had he wished to go beyond them, he (Mr. Gladstone) was afraid there would be in the House no power of offering any effectual resistance. The limited concessions they had were due to the merciful and generous feelings of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he (Mr. Gladstone) was truly thankful to him. Viewing the question by the light of a long experience, he was very sorry to be compelled to say that these Law reforms turned upon establishments, and turning upon establishments, he would not say what they generally contemplated; but what they generally involved was the creation of new establishments, the continued existence of the old establishments, the pensioning and providing for the old class of officers, and the appointment of a new class of officers in their place, who would probably be pensioned, too, by some fresh Law reform after a reasonable lapse of years. The name of reform as regarded administrative changes in this country was a name justly claiming regard and awakening grateful recollections; but with respect to Law reform the recollections were not so sacred nor so satisfactory as under the circumstances could have been wished. It was certainly a very melancholy reflection to himself and to such Members of the House of Commons as might share in his sentiments, that here once more there was an entire breakdown of the promises which had been held out to the country with respect to the great economy of judicial time and power and the consequent contraction of establishments which those important changes were to produce, for the old friends had come before them with a new face, and extension of establishments and increase of charge were to be the immediate result of the reforms in which they were now engaged. He declined the controversy with professional gentlemen who told him how many cases had been brought forward and how many decided in the course of a year, how rich this country was growing, and that we should not take niggardly notice of the proportion between establishments and the cost at which they were maintained. In this matter he took his stand upon the judgment of Parliament in 1873, and, without claiming any particular credit for the part he had in bringing about that judgment, he wished to point out, with sorrow, the contrast between the state of things then and the present state of things. He did not attempt to lay any undue share of blame upon the Government, though they were undoubtedly responsible; but it was with the Parliament and above all with the public of this country, to determine upon what principle, whether on that of economy or on that of waste, the public service should be conducted. He could not honestly say that he thought public opinion on this subject went in the same direction as his own. Therefore he bowed to the judgment of those who ought to know better than he did how all these matters were conducted, and would content himself with a silent protest against the course of things which the Government intended to pursue.

said, he was sorry to differ from his right hon. Friend who had just spoken, and from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), but he should be wanting in moral courage if he did not take upon himself the responsibility of the course which he had urged upon Her Majesty's Government. Of course, they would all agree with a great deal which his right hon. Friend had said as to the objection to the creation of new offices without disbanding the old and to the giving of pensions. But with great submission to his right hon. Friend that was not the question they were discussing that evening. They were dealing with two matters which he thought should be dealt with separately. They were, first of all, dealing with the question whether it was advisable to diminish the number of our Common Law Judges as effected by the Judicature Act of 1873; and, secondly, they were discussing the form of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. On the latter point, he agreed with much that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. He did think that the creation of three new Judges for a temporary Court was a thing to be avoided, and he had endeavoured to move an Amendment embodying that view, but the Chairman ruled that the Question could not be put at that time. But with respect to whether our judicial staff should be diminished or not, he adhered firmly to the views he had before expressed on the subject. It had been placed before the House by his right hen. Friend that if they wished to see the present number of Judges maintained they would be adding to the charges of the country. They would be doing no such thing; they would be simply maintaining the charges as they existed at present and had for years existed, and the question was whether they were to effect an economy of £15,000 a-year at the risk of the administration of justice? He admitted there were grounds on which he should wish to see the number of Judges diminished if it could be safely done. It added to the dignity of the office to have few Judges instead of many, and to the probability of obtaining men highly capable of performing the duties. But when he was asked to diminish the number of Judges because on an expenditure of £73,000,000 or £74,000,000 we might save £15,000 a-year, the reason seemed insufficient. He would not deal a blow at the proper administration of justice in order to effect that economy. In 1830 we had 16 Judges. In the 45 years which had since elapsed there had been a great increase in the demand made upon the performance of judicial duties. The number of causes had increased. In the Court of Chancery it had been found absolutely necessary to add two Vice Chancellors since 1830. In our Common Law Courts the necessity was made apparent; and, notwithstanding the addition to the number of the Judges, many of the suitors could not obtain justice. When, in 1873, it was proposed that the number should be diminished, he protested against it until it could be proved by the alteration in the law that it could be safely done. It had been said that the Judicature Act would be no reform at all unless we obtained a better administration of justice with greater economy. But that was not the object of Legal Reform. The object was to correct certain evils which existed in our Courts—evils which drove suitors away, and obliged them to make a sacrifice of their rights because they could not obtain the determination of them. The scandal involved in the denial of justice by the postponement of trials was greater than any scandal which could arise from keeping a charge of £15,000 on the Estimates. His right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich declined to discuss the number of causes that were awaiting trial or of suitors who were failing to obtain justice; he declined to look at what was going on within the Courts of Law, and he would consider nothing but the charge on the Estimates. But the whole question turned upon what was going on in our Courts of Law, and not upon broad and theoretic views such as might be expounded in a paper read at the Social Science Congress at Leeds; it depended entirely on the result of experience as to whether there were or were not sufficient Judges to perform properly the judicial work of the country, as to whether gaols could be delivered and causes tried. The hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford said there ought to be continuous sittings and nobody ought to have a holiday, and he recollected the thrill of horror with which he heard his hon. and learned Friend make the suggestion, and, like a willing martyr, offer to give up the Long Vacation in order to secure the administration of justice in our Courts. How would his hon. and learned Friend secure continuous sittings and save £15,000 a-year? He would not have Circuits; but we must accept the fact that at present we had Circuits, and that if there were a further division of the Northern Circuit we should require 14 Judges to travel, one must remain to dispose of business in Chambers, and in that way the whole number of 15 Judges would be disposed of. In the absence of any legislation dealing with the Circuits their existence and requirements must be recognized. It was of no use talking about promises made on Law Reforms being effected; we must consider with what safety we could proceed to diminish the judicial strength. Therefore, while he accepted in good humour the pleasant references that had been made to the legal profession, he maintained that the interests of the public as well as of the Judges required that the present number of Judges should be maintained. It might be that actual experience of the working of the Judicature Act would show that the number of Judges could be safely reduced; but the number ought not to be diminished on speculation, and certainly not until the arrears of the present system had been worked off, and until we had framed, tried, and tested the forms of procedure under the new system, the introduction of which was in itself a special reason for maintaining such a judicial strength as would secure the new system a fair trial. Reference had been made to the recently-closed sittings in London of the only Courts available for the trial of causes in which foreigners were concerned. They sat three times a-year, and 12 days at each sitting. The last sittings began with 94 cases for trial, of which 86 were remanets; of these 20 had been tried, 2 had been partly heard, and 50 withdrawn, because suitors would not wait for trial any longer; and the remaining cases were put off to be tried under the new system. It would, perhaps, be two years hence before some of them were reached. One action was a claim by a merchant resident in Russia against an insurance company, and, after the case had occupied four days, it was found impossible to finish it, and the merchant and the captain of a trading vessel who was a witness were told that it would probably come on again in December. That was a sample of what was going on because there were not Judges enough to do the work. Under these circumstances, it was false economy to diminish the number of Judges, and there was very good reason for the conclusion which was come to last Monday week, with the unanimous concurrence of both commercial and legal Members, that the number of Judges could not be safely reduced.

said, he desired to recall the attention of the House to the question on which it had to express an opinion, and it was a very simple one; he had moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, in order that, when the House was in Committee, he might move a Resolution sanctioning the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any additional expense that might be occasioned by continuing the number of Common Law Judges at 18 instead of reducing them 15, as had been provided by the Judicature Act of 1873. As the House was aware, the necessary Amendment in Clause 3 of the Bill could not be made, nor indeed, in strict propriety, discussed, until such a Resolution had been passed. His hen. and learned Friend, the Member for the City of Oxford, had complained that he did not know what Resolution it was proposed to pass when the House got into Committee; but he must remind his hon. and learned Friend that the terms of the Resolution, which he (the Attorney General) was about to move, had been placed on the Notice Paper and delivered to hen. Members with the other Parliamentary Papers, four or five days ago, and they simply authorized the expenditure which might follow from the repeal of that part of the Act of 1873, which limited the number of Puisne Judges to 12. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich and the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford were not present on a recent occasion when the subject of such repeal was fully discussed, and when, in deference to the unanimous opinion of commercial and legal Members on both sides, it was agreed that the present number of Judges should be maintained. I would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that, when the Bill of 1873 was in Committee, he (the Attorney General) with others, resisted the proposal to reduce the number of Pusine Judges from 15 to 12; and last year, when the question was raised, the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) spoke to the same effect as he spoke last week and on this occasion, and the clause was passed over in Committee that another might be brought up on the Report. Therefore, it was incorrect to say that the proceedings of Parliament last year confirmed the legislation of 1873; what was done last year was in the direction of what was now proposed. Not a single fact had been mentioned, in the course of the present discussion, which contravened the facts on which the House founded its decision last week, and it was therefore unnecessary to re-enter upon the consideration of those facts; but he could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich could affect to ignore the facts and to look upon the question as one of expenditure only; it appeared to him (the Attorney General) that the facts, which were so slightingly treated by the right hon. Gentleman, were deserving of the most careful consideration, for that, which it was, above all things, important to secure, was the efficient conduct of the judicial business of the country, and any saving, which would endanger such efficiency, would be a false economy. In the course of the present year he had received communications from all parts of the country—from Judges, barristers, legal societies in London and the Provinces, large commercial constituencies, and Chambers of Commerce, all urging upon him to maintain the full number of Judges, on the ground that the judicial business of the country required their services. Under these circumstances, he appealed, with some confidence, to hon. Members to allow the House to go into Committee, that it might pass the necessary Resolution for authorizing the expenditure that would be incurred by maintaining the full number of Judges.

said, he would not have interposed had it not been for some remarks of the right hen. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich objecting to the maintenance of the present number of Common Law Judges. He should be failing in his duty if he did not, on behalf of the commercial community, express his approval of the decision of the Government, and vindicate the course pursued in this matter by those Members of the Bar who, he believed, were actuated solely by public considerations. The right hon. Member for Greenwich did not make sufficient allowance for the increase of the population and commerce of the country, which necessitated an increase of judicial power, just as the expansion of the London and North Western Railway system involved the increase of its staff. The mercantile community were dissatisfied with the injustice to which they were exposed from causes being frequently postponed or referred on account of the impossibility of getting them tried. The present condition of things was a perfect disgrace. It would be true economy to afford the means of obtaining justice promptly, instead of exposing the community to the annoyance and loss now suffered, and he was quite prepared to accept his share of the responsibility if the number of Judges were increased as proposed in order to ensure continuous sittings for the trial of the important mercantile causes constantly arising in the metropolis.

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the evidence given before the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, at the recent inquiries held under the provisions of the Shannon Navigation Act, 1874, said, he did not wish to weary the House by going into details upon the past history of this subject; but, at the same time, it was necessary that he should state a few facts as to the efforts which had been made for a series of years by successive Governments for the improvement of the navigation and the drainage o£ the lands watered by the Shannon. The question was one which interested not only the private proprietors along the river, but the public, and it had, some 40 years ago, attracted the attention of Parliament and the Government. In consequence, a sum of nearly £600,000 had been expended upon improvements, chiefly directed towards the better navigation of the river, and more than one-half of the amount expended had been repaid by the counties adjacent to the river. That money was expended by the Commissioners without the proprietors of the lands affected having the slightest voice in the matter, and the result was that, although the navigation of the river was undoubtedly greatly improved, the lands were not freed from liability to disastrous floods. Several of the chief proprietors of the riparian lands met after the disastrous floods of 1861, and agreed to present a Memorial to Parliament, praying that they might be permitted to make the necessary improvements at their own expense, for the river was not private but public property, and could not be touched by any private individual without the permission of the Legislature. That was the first step in the more modern agitation with respect to the River Shannon. The prayer of the Memorial was not granted; the Government refusing to allow the memorialists to make these improvements at their own expense. But those periodical overflows, and the loss of crops and other damage thereby done to the proprietors and tenants, induced the Government to institute an inquiry, and they appointed a most eminent engineer, Mr. Bateman, to carry on the investigation, whilst the proprietors, on their side, appointed another engineer, Mr. Lynam, and each of those gentlemen had made Reports on the subject. The result was, that after considering these Reports, the Treasury agreed to adopt the plan submitted to them by Mr. Bateman, and to carry it out at an estimated cost of £200,000, one-half of which was to be borne by the proprietors and the other to be a free gift from the Treasury. The Bill in which this proposal was embodied, for reasons to which he need not allude, failed to pass the House, and so the matter stood when the present Government came into office. He wished to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had, on his accession to office, visited the whole of the district, made himself acquainted with all the facts, and had shown an earnest anxiety to promote the object in view. After the investigation made by the right hon. Baronet, a Bill was introduced last Session in reference to the improvement of the Shannon, and he believed that it was brought in and passed into law with a sincere desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government that it might be the means of effecting a great public good; but it was, in fact, one of the very worst that had ever been proposed in connection with the River Shannon, because it was utterly impracticable. Under its provisions a free grant was to be made from the Exchequer of £150,000 for the carrying out of the necessary works, on the condition that the proprietors of the lands to be benefited would charge their estates to a like extent. This, at first sight, might seem a very generous offer, and one that the proprietors should gladly accept. The late Government had proposed to give a public grant towards the improvement of the river of only £100,000, and when the present Government offered £150,000, it might seem very unreasonable on the part of the proprietors to object; but it must be recollected that the increased public grant was to be dependent on an increased charge on the lands, and that whereas under the Bill of the late Government the lands were to be charged with £100,000, under the present Act they were to be charged with £150,000.

resumed: The question, therefore, with the proprietors, was whether the benefit to be conferred upon their estates would be equal to the charge to be imposed upon them, and they were unanimously of opinion that it would not. They, therefore, objected to the carrying out of the plans. They would be charged at the rate of £7,500 a-year, while the utmost estimated improved value was not put higher than £5,000 a-year. The evidence given before the Public Works Commissioners on the subject by both owners and occupiers bore out this fact, and the Commissioners themselves showed in their remarks that they did not dispute it. [The hon. Member then quoted from the statements of the Commissioners showing that they did not dispute the contention of the proprietors that the proposed annual charge was excessive.] The evidence also clearly showed that it was not the entire removal, but the regulation of the waters that was sought after. The proprietors did not desire that the ordinary winter floods should be altogether removed, except where they were injurious; but, of course, they wished that the summer and autumn floods should be entirely done away with. He freely admitted that the opinion as to the retention of the ordinary and non-injurious floods was more strongly expressed in this inquiry, both by landlords and tenants, than it had ever been before; but this was not a new idea as the Commissioners seemed to think. So long ago as 1838, Mr. Nicholson, an engineer appointed by the Government, reported that the retention of the winter floods would add considerably to the value of the lands, and in the late engineering investigation, Mr. Lynam, according to his statements before the Commissioners, calculated upon retain- ing these floods, and no scheme would ever be accepted or approved by the proprietors which did not provide for their retention. Before the introduction of the Bill of the late Government a valuation of the lands was made by joint valuators, one appointed by the Government and the other by the proprietors, and the charges which they thought could safely be placed on the lands, in consequence of the proposed improvement, were increased 50 per cent in the present Act. If, then, it were proved and tacitly admitted by the Commissioners themselves that the lands would not be benefited to the extent of the annual charge, could the landlords be expected to approve of this unless they were devoid of common sense? He might be told that he was premature in bringing forward the subject now, because until November the assents and dissents would not have been all sent in under the Act. It was, however, well known that the population had dissented, and he therefore saw no reason why the matter should be allowed to rest for another six months. The proprietors had refused to accept the scheme of 1874, chiefly on the ground that the charge upon their land was excessive; but they had expressed their readiness to approve of a scheme which would charge their land up to the full extent of any value derived from the execution of the works. As this point had been disputed, he wished particularly to refer to the evidence regarding it. In page 58 of the Blue Book, Mr. O'Ferrall, on the part of the Marquess of Clanricarde, Lord Dunsandle, and other chief proprietors of the county of Galway, said—

"I beg to say that they are quite willing to pay to the extent of the improvements done to the lands, but they object to pay any more."

also impressed upon the Government the necessity of amending the Act of 1874, and contended that the evidence given before the Public Works Commissioners in Ireland went to show that on utilitarian grounds the scheme would be ineffective. In the evidence taken before the Commission a scheme was disclosed, which, at one-half the cost to the ratepayers, was likely to effect all that was desired.

, as representing the county which would be the most largely taxed under the Act, pointed out that the Government had taken the whole responsibility upon themselves, because they had refused to listen to the Amendments which the Irish Members at the time desired to propose, and had incited them to dissension among themselves. Clever as was the manœuvre of the Chief Secretary, however, it had completely failed. A dam was built without any sluices, and the engineer- ing evidence went to show that when there was a heavy rainfall, the water overflowed the dams and flooded the surrounding country. The Government had made a huge engineering blunder, by building dams across the river without sluices, and he thought that the Government might therefore be fairly asked to solve the problem out of the Imperial Exchequer solely. The probable cost would not be more than £30,000. There was, he might add, a second plan which might be adopted, and that was that they would undertake to carry out the necessary works and not charge any of the proprietors, of whose acceptance of the present scheme there was not the slightest chance, for a larger annual value than that in which he was benefited by those works.

expressed his surprise at the absence of the Irish Members who sat on the Ministerial Benches from a discussion to which they certainly could not object as having no practical bearing on the interests of Ireland.

said, the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Fay) had brought an indictment against hon. Members representing constituencies in the North of Ireland for not being present on the discussion of a question which did not greatly affect them; but he thought it right to remind the hon. Member that he had heard com-plaints of the too frequent absence of hon. Members who professed the same opinions as his own when subjects of great national importance were discussed. As to the question now under consideration, he must say he was somewhat surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan), while he had spoken of many Governments as having been in error with respect to it, should have charged the present Government with the final iniquity of having proposed to Parliament a scheme fair-seeming, but inadequate to carry out the purpose which they professed to have in view, and having endeavoured to carry that scheme by exciting divisions among hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member was, he could not help thinking, a little too suspicious, for the whole basis of the Act of last Session, which contained within itself very large concessions from the Imperial Exchequer on behalf of Irish interests was, that those locally interested should first consent to tax themselves to a certain extent in order to carry out a work by which they would be principally benefited. He did not complain that the subject had been introduced to the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). Although it could hardly yet be said that the Act of last Session had proved a failure, he fully admitted, from the number of objections raised to it, that hon. Members were quite justified in bringing the matter before Parliament. With regard to the drainage of the Shannon Valley, the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was scarcely accurate. Unquestionably it was originally contemplated that the drainage of the Shannon Valley, as well as the navigation of the river, should be improved; but that was quite a secondary object, and it was, to a great extent, effected. It was because the Government felt that the question was of national importance, and that the works were of such magnitude that they could not be entirely executed by local resources, that they proposed the Act of last Session by which they undertook to meet one half of the cost. Prom the time the subject was first brought before Parliament, in 1861, it was understood that not only the summer, but also the winter floods were to be guarded against; but no sooner was the assessment made for the works than the landowners suddenly discovered that, so far from the winter floods being disastrous, they were really beneficial, and that, instead of paying anything to the Treasury, they themselves ought rather to be compensated for the injury done them by good drainage. In fact, some of the proprietors protested against the Act altogether irrespective of the amount to be charged upon their lands. He found it stated generally that the proprietors at the upper end preferred to remain as they were, as the proposed works would do them harm. Others complained that the assessment was far beyond the value of any improvement that their lands could possibly derive from the undertaking. They had in the evidence the statement of one landowner that land which now brought him from £7 to £8 per acre would be reduced to 30s. or 35s. per acre if the winter floods were drained off; and one proprietor of the same name as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway told them point blank that he ought to be paid compensation for the drainage works. Of course, if the winter floods were really a benefit and not an injury to the Shannon Valley, it was easy to understand those statements; but it was very unfortunate that this distinction between summer and winter floods had hardly been ever mentioned until an Act had been passed to remedy the grievance which had been complained of for many years. As it was, the position was somewhat discouraging. No doubt, it was asserted by the proprietors' agents that the Shannon waters could be regulated so as to improve the neighbouring lands at a cost of £150,000, instead of £300,000. On the other hand, the opinions of the experienced engineers of the Board of Works and also of Mr. Bateman pointed in an entirely opposite direction. All those gentlemen said that the mere regulation of the floods, which had been suggested by one or more speakers that night, would be wholly insufficient to remedy the evil. That question was referred years ago to Mr. Bateman, one of the foremost engineers who had devoted themselves to that class of works; and he did not think, looking to the largo amount of public money that was involved, that the Government would be justified in preferring Mr. Lynam's opinion to that of Mr. Bateman. It might be that what was necessary to regulate the summer and autumn floods might be obtained without incurring the entire expense proposed by the existing Act of Parliament. That was a question which might be inquired into, and certainly the existing Act would give the Government ample power to effect that object, because the Act did not compel them to expend £300,000, but only fixed that limit to the expenditure, and provided that half of the sum spent should be paid by the owners of the land that was benefited. If it could be satisfactorily proved that by the adoption of a modified scheme all the benefit that was really required by the landowners and tenants of that valley could be effected for less than the £300,000 which Mr. Bateman last year calculated would be the probable cost of the plan, then all that was necessary might be secured without any alteration of the law; and he hoped, judging from what they had heard that evening, that such a solution might be feasible. But what he would suggest to those who took an interest in that matter was that he hoped neither they nor the landowners in the Shannon Valley would be carried away by the idea that it would be right and proper that the Government should bear the whole cost of that work. If no local benefit was to be derived from the scheme, there was no reason for the expenditure of the public money. If local benefit was to be derived, it was right that the landowners and others interested should bear their share of the expense, and he could hold out no hope of a larger proportion being advanced by Parliament to carry out that work than was proposed by the Act of last Session.

said, the condition of things arising from the floods had existed for many years, and the question was what could be done to remedy it? From a letter written by Major Trench, the Predecessor of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway it appeared that when the river overflowed its banks the villages were in a miserable condition, nearly all the houses were surrounded with water, boats being anchored at the doors, and in many instances, where the doors would admit them, the boats remained stationary under the beds, ready to be used by the inmates for their escape. A repetition of that state of things might be expected at the present season, and it must periodically recur in a district of from 120 to 130 miles in extent, unless some remedy for the evil was provided. The present Government were entitled to credit for the promptitude with which, on taking office, they had taken action in the matter, and for their honest endeavours to set it right; but they laboured under the same difficulty that many previous Governments had experienced through receiving their advice from a Department which was in favour of an enormous outlay of public money. The engineers, on whom the Government relied, had never, until 1872, gone abroad to inspect the barrage works and sluice system of foreign countries, from which they might have gathered valuable lessons. The Board of Works in Ireland was greatly over-weighted, and, therefore, when they wished to know how the Shannon could be improved, they employed Mr. Bateman, an English engineer—no doubt, of the greatest eminence—but one whose works were remarkable, not only for their completeness, but also for their cost. What they required was not great and expensive works of the kind planned by Mr. Bateman, but that the Government should put their own engineering works in reasonable condition. It was a mistake to suppose that the landowners on the Shannon were unwilling to bear their share of the expense of improving the navigation of the river. What they were naturally unwilling to pay for was for works which they believed to be unnecessary. He believed, if the Government would instruct some engineer who was well acquainted with the system adopted in foreign countries to make a tour of the Shannon, and confer with those interested in the question, that some easy solution of the difficulty might be found in the direction of

ascribed the failure of the Act of last year to the usual faults in Irish legislation and Irish administration. When the measure was before the House he wished to propose an Amendment, but was told that if he insisted upon any change the scheme would be withdrawn, and Ireland would be left without the boon intended for her, and the same thing occurred to other hon. Members. Was it likely such a thing would have happened, if the river had been the Severn instead of the Shannon? The work contemplated by the Act was in trusted to a body of Commissioners, and this was the fatal defect which he had desired by his Amendment to remedy. He had heard the opinion frequently expressed that the Irish Board of Works should be described as a Board to obstruct improvements in Ireland. Such was the nature of the relations between the Board and the authorities at Dublin Castle that it was impossible to fix the responsibility for any mismanagement, and this was the fault in Irish administration to which he ascribed, in part, the failure of the Shannon Navigation Act. There ought to be an Irish Minister, with a seat in that House, responsible for matters of this kind and amenable to the opinion of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland could exercise no real control whatever over the Board of Works. It was admitted that there was an evil connected with the Shannon which called for remedy. Government had brought in a Bill to remedy the defect, but the measure had failed. These were patent facts. It was not enough to say that it was the fault of the landed proprietors, for surely it was the business of statesmen and legislators to adapt measures to the men with whom they had to deal.

, in rising to call attention to the case of Captain J. Balair Chatterton, and to move for an inquiry, said that gallant officer, having been engaged in the Indian Mutiny, had been rendered incapable of service by rheumatism, and not being able, in consequence, to perform his duties, had been charged with "malingering."