moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee, in respect of Clauses 42 to 46, inclusive, and Clause 52. The borough had been extended so as to include, among other districts, one called Litchurch, which had sufficient voluntary school accommodation, and the object of the proposed re-committal of the Bill was to keep Litchurch separate from Derby for educational purposes, so as to avoid placing the district under the Derby School Board.

as one of the Committee, said, that in incorporating Lit-church with Derby for educational purposes, the Committee acted on the recommendation of the Education Department, believing that it was hardly within their province to discuss it. He hoped Parliament would lay down a rule to guide Committees, and would say either that a State Department should not make such a recommendation, or that a Committee ought to accept such a recommendation when made; or that it should have an opportunity of examining the officers of the Department on the subject, so that it might know the grounds on which the recommendation was made. In this case he hoped the Bill would be sent back to the Committee, because the recommendations of a Department ought not to be of such a character that a Committee should accept them without consideration.

said, that at the time the Bill was before the Committee there was a deficiency in the school accommodation of Litchurch. He opposed the further reference to the Committee, on the ground that the object of it was to create one of those anomalies in local administration which Parliament was so anxious to get rid of, and the creating of which in Stafford and Cardiff was working so disadvantageously in those places that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had introduced a Bill to get rid of the difficulties in those and similar cases. He contended that the definition of "borough" in the Education Act of 1870 would include the places to be incorporated with Derby by this Bill.

admitted the undesirability of perpetuating anomalies, but urged that uniform principles should be adopted in all similar cases, and that a district affected should have the opportunity of being heard on a proposal to which it was opposed, particularly as, in spite of the definition of "borough" in the Act of 1870, the 11th clause of the Act of 1873 secured for such district the privilege now claimed for Litchurch. In an unopposed Bill which came before him from Newport, Isle of Wight, and where he had extended the school district, he took care that the Preamble should recite the consent of the parties. The Walsall Act was also based on the consent of the parties. The Nottingham Bill had extended the school district of the borough; but he had been assured that in that case also the consent of all the adjoining districts had been obtained. He had hoped that the question had, indeed, been laid at rest as far as the Committees of that House were concerned, and that the line of action of Parliament where school districts had been enlarged had been in the direction he had indicated. The question was whether, by a private Act, they should deprive these districts of an immunity which they possessed by the law of the land. It was also a question of the administration of the Business of the House by its Committees. It would be unwise to regard this matter exclusively from the school-board point of view, because it involved the principle whether people should be taxed for purposes not their own, and against which Parliament by a general Act had insured their immunity.

said, the question before the House was of a technical character, and it was for the House to decide whether the Committee had acted within the proper bounds in the matter. He was always sorry to find himself acting in opposition to the opinion of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) in a matter of this kind; but it was the deliberate intention of Parliament that the Education Department should make known its views. The Standing Orders of this year had been altered, as he believed, for this very purpose; and if hon. Members would refer to them, they would find that any private Bill affecting educational matters was obliged to be deposited at the Education Department, and that if the Committee which sat upon it did not adopt the views of the Department, they were bound to report their reasons for dissenting. Without going into the merits of the case for making boroughs in all instances conterminous with a school district, in favour of which he considered the arguments overwhelming, he might state that the Education Department had given the subject, as a mere question of law, their most serious consideration, and they felt it to be their duty to protest against any addition being made to the boundaries of the borough, unless a corresponding addition were also made to the school-board area of the borough, By the Act of 1870 Parliament acknowledged only three school districts—the metropolis, the municipal boroughs, and the civil parish—provided it was not in- cluded in the boundaries of the municipal borough. Parliament had ruled that the municipal borough was to be the borough for the school district under all circumstances. The Department was therefore bound to assert the municipal borough, when it was formed, to be the school district of the place. It had no official knowledge whatever of the Resolutions, by these Standing Orders of the Chairmen of Private Bill Committees, and was bound to carry out the provisions of the Education Act. He would abstain from voting, as the question might be held to reflect somewhat upon his action in the matter; and it was therefore obviously more suitable that he should leave the House perfectly free to pass its own judgment upon it.

quite agreed with the noble Lord, and hoped the House would not decide the question from any feeling connected with the position of Private Bill Committees. The question at stake was whether, if they enlarged a borough, they should put the new district in an awkward and difficult position by making such a distinction? He could perfectly well understand that the dislike of a new district which was intended to be annexed to a borough to a school board ought to be heard by the Committee as a reason why it should not be annexed; but he hoped that the House would not acknowledge the principle that when once annexed there were to be two different administrations for education.

assured the House that the decision arrived at by the Chairmen of the Private Bill Committees at the conference to which reference was made had been come to after much consideration.

defended the course taken by the Select Committee to which the Bill had been referred.

said, the House had to consider a question of some difficulty relating to the action of Committees on Private Bills. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means said that in these cases a certain law existed; Bills were brought forward which might or might not alter the application of that law in the particular cases, and it was not desirable that the decision of a question which was one of considerable general importance should be left to the varying decisions of Private Bill Committees. The Education Act of 1870 had provided that a borough should be a school district, and there could be no doubt that the boroughs then existing were made school districts. But it was contended that the operation of the Act was prospective. A great many districts had been added since the Act was passed without being made portions of school districts. He did not wish them to enter on that point, but it was one that ought to be discussed and settled. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had in charge a Bill which would settle the question or, at any rate, raise a discussion upon it; and, under the circumstances, he should give his vote in favour of the suggestion which his hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) had made.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is a fact that in one warehouse alone (where the Inland Revenue Commissioners admitted the revenue was defrauded of not less than £13,000) from four hundred to five hundred casks of whiskey were racked daily, from each of which casks nearly two gallons of proof spirits have been obtained without payment of duty; and if this evasion of duty has not amounted to over £80,000 per annum in one warehouse alone?

The hon. Member is not correct in his calculation as to the amount of loss that has been sustained by the Inland Revenue from the cause to which he refers. The fact is, that in the warehouse in question the number of casks racked did not exceed 420 a-week—not 400 or 500 a-day, as he represents in the Question, but 400 a-week—and the average quantity of proof spirit that could be extracted from each would be 1¼ gallons, instead of 2 gallons. Consequently, the loss of duty would amount to the sum mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners — namely, £13,000, and not, as the hon. Member says, to £80,000. I may add that the moment the attention of the Inland Revenue Department was called to the subject they issued instructions with a view to preventing anything of the kind, and the same course has been taken since then with regard to the Customs.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he is in possession of full information as to the numbers, strength, and movements of the Russian Naval Forces in the neighbourhood of San Francisco and New York; and, whether he will state to the House any intelligence he may have on the subject?

In the absence of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am bound to say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is a question which Her Majesty's Government think ought not to be answered.

asked the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, Why the conditions of the Act 31 and 32 Vic. c. 64, s. 25, regarding the reduction of fees in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, providing—

"That it shall be in view that the fees to be drawn from the said department shall not be greater than may reasonably be held sufficient for defraying the expenses of the said department, or the improvement of the system of registration,"

have not been carried out, it appearing from the Estimates that for many years the surplus fees amounted to upwards of £10,000 per annum?

In accordance with the Act 31 & 32 Vic. c. 64, the fees taken in the Sasines and Searching departments of the General Register House were revised in 1873 and a reduced scale was sanctioned, to take effect from the 1st of April of that year, the loss to the Exchequer amounting to £16,850. The new scale was calculated to produce only such a sum in each year as would be sufficient to cover the expenses of the Department, including in those expenses not merely salaries, as shown in Vote 20 of Class III. of the Civil Service Estimates, but also pensions of retired officers, office rent, rates and taxes, and cost of books and stationery. The extra receipts mentioned on page 227 of the Estimates include the fees of all the departments of the Register House, many of which are not within the operation of Section 25 of the Act of 1868. It should be added that there are now proposals before the Treasury for an increase of the staff of the Searching department, which if sanctioned would materially increase the existing cost.

asked, If Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider the propriety of granting an allowance to Naval officers on half pay whilst voluntarily attending the torpedo lectures and practice at Portsmouth?

in reply, said, that the officers in question had at present certain allowances made to them, and it was not the intention of the Admiralty to extend them.

rose to call the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the Island of Ceylon in relation to Ecclesiastical Endowments; and to move—

"That, as the members of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches in Ceylon constitute a small part of the population and the great majority of the inhabitants are Budhists, Hindoos, or Mahomedans, this House is of opinion that the payment out of the Revenues of the Colony of annual subsidies to the ministers of those Churches inflicts great injustice and occasions serious discontent, and ought, therefore, to be discontinued."

In bringing the question forward the hon. Member pointed out that it was not a movement for the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church properly so called, for the Church of England could not be said to be "established" in the Colonies according to the sense in which we understood the term in this country. In Australia and the Cape of Good Hope, Jamaica, and a number of other Colonies the grant made to the Church and to other religious Bodies had been revoked, and all denominations placed on the same level as regarded endowments for ecclesiastical purposes. In the present case the issue was a very narrow one. In Ceylon they were simply dealing with an ecclesiastical department of the Civil Service; and the question was, whether it was just to the people of that Colony, or necessary to their good government, that this department should be maintained out of the public revenue, and what was the general feeling of the population with regard to it? The facts of the case were these:—The total population of the Island, at the last Census, was 2,405,287. Of these, 1,520,574 were Budhists, 465,944 Hindoos, 171,542 Mahomedans, and 534 Veddahs—making together 2,158,594. Of the remaining 250,000 about 190,000 were Roman Catholics, while the Protestants of all denominations numbered between 55,000 and 66,000. The Census of 1871 gave 10,379 of these as belonging to the Church of England, 6,071 as Wesleyans, and 3,101 as Presbyterians. The members of the Church of England, however, were divided into three Bodies—namely, those attending services held by clergymen of the Church of England paid by Government, those belonging to the Church Missionary Society, and those connected with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. According to Mr. Ferguson's epitome of the Blue Book, the average attendance at the services of clergymen paid by Government was 2,197; at the Church Missionary Society, 4,284; and at the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 2,464. The average attendance at the Presbyterian churches was given at 803. Now, it was for those 2,197 Protestants, the most respectable and well-to-do of the community, that a sum of about £14,000 was raised from 2,500,000 Budhists, Hindoos, and Roman Catholics. It was true that the money was not all spent upon Anglicans and Presbyterians, for £100 was given to the 190,000 Roman Catholics, the remainder being divided as follows:—Three Bishops (two on pension and one on sick leave), an archdeacon, 11 chaplains of the Church of England, four of the Church of Scotland, six other chaplains in the central province to whom grants in aid were made, 14 catechists, a registrar, and 12 retired chaplains on pension. Allowances were also made for extras, such as repairs of buildings. Since the Report containing those facts was published two Bishops had been taken off the list, so that there remained one Bishop in charge—namely, Bishop Copleston, and one on pension. In 1849 a Commission on the fixed establishments of the Island, presided over by Sir Emerson Tennent, reported in favour of a return of the old system of placing the See of Colombo under the Bishop of Madras, and so saving Ceylon the unnecessary cost of a separate Bishop. The Duke of Newcastle, as Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1854, wrote a despatch to the Governor of Ceylon, in which he reminded him that the proper object of the ecclesiastical establishments was to provide for the religious wants of the European members of the civil and military services, not to furnish ministers to congregations of ordinary inhabitants. Sir Charles M'Carthy, Colonel Secretary, and afterwards Governor of Ceylon, supported the same view. Lord Northbrook, who must be acknowledged as a high authority, said, in a speech delivered since his return from India, he believed the day would come when we should give to India the inestimable blessing of a true religion; but he did not think it would be right for Government to use the taxation of a country for the teaching of a certain form of religion. In order to show the feeling which existed in the Colony, the hon. Member next referred to a Paper, laid on the Table of the House last year, containing two documents bearing upon the question. The first was a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Executive Council after Bishop Claughton had resigned his office, his Excellency Sir Hercules Robinson being present. The resolution was to the effect that the Secretary of State be requested not to fill up the vacancy; that the ecclesiastical establishment was too small to require the services of a resident Bishop; that the Island was formerly under the diocese of Madras, and the Bishop of that See paid periodical visits, receiving State allowance, and exercising episcopal jurisdiction over it; and that with the present increased facilities of communication that arrangement could again be advantageously resorted to. The second document was a communication addressed to Lord Carnarvon by Sir William Gregory, the present Governor, in which he expressed his opinion that the salaries of colonial chaplaincies, as vacancies occurred, should be struck off the annual estimates, and he had not a doubt that local subscriptions, aided by the great religious Societies at home, would provide for an adequate Church of England ministration hereafter. It was to be regretted, observed the hon. Member, that Lord Carnarvon did not act on the recommendation of Sir William Gregory. His Lordship, with great ability and success had hitherto administered the affairs of the Colonies; but in this case it was to be feared that his ecclesiastical proclivities had interfered with his usual good judgment. The noble Lord had, besides, introduced a new element directly opposed to the expressed sentiments of his Predecessors and to the policy which had always guided the Government in relation to the Colonies, in the appointment of Bishop Copleston. Lord Carnarvon said—

"I have submitted to Her Majesty the name of a clergyman who is, I trust, very highly qualified—alike by his opinions, his age, and physical constitution, as by his special disposition for missionary work among Indian races—for the continuance of that great work in which his predecessor has been cut short."

Now, he was not aware that the Colonial Office had formed itself into a missionary society, for "missionary work among Indian races," and had sent out a Bishop for that purpose. In the Duke of Newcastle's despatch it was stated distinctly that the sole—

"object of an ecclesiastical establishment in Ceylon was to provide for the wants of the European members of the civil and military services."

Sir Hercules Robinson had well ob- served, in a despatch to the Earl of Kimberley—

"It is felt that the post (of Bishop) is not absolutely necessary, and that if the selection for it were by any chance to fall upon a person less tolerant than Bishop Claughton, such an appointment might possibly be productive of sectarian strife and jealousy, and lead to much local unpleasantness."

The apprehension thus felt by Sir Hercules Robinson had, unfortunately, been fully realized. The appointment was a most unfortunate one. Of the "Boy Bishop," as he had been called, it might be well said—

"Man, proud man,

Dressed in a little brief authority,

Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven

As make the angels weep."

If anyone could have reconciled the several parties in Ceylon to the present state of things it was Bishop Claughton. He was deservedly popular with all classes. But Bishop Copleston had pursued a different course. Within a few months he insulted and stopped the mouths of the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society, some of whom had been toiling in the Island before the Bishop was born. Thus a blameless, exemplary body of Christian ministers found themselves suddenly overriden by arrogant pretensions, which no previous Bishop bad dared to enforce. Other denominations with whom Bishop Claughton had been on the most favourable terms were treated with discourtesy and disrespect; the scandalous spectacle was presented to the heathen of the Christian Church divided into two hostile camps, and during the short time the Bishop had been in the Island, as had been well observed, "he had clone more to degrade the English creed in the eyes of the Natives than the life-long labours of the inoffensive pastors he persecuted had done to render it honourable." In the Papers which had been submitted to the House there was a Petition from the Wesleyan missionaries to Sir William Gregory, which stated that the payment by the Government of certain sums under the head of "Ecclesiastical Establishments" was impolitic and unjust; that the effects of the Government providing pastors for the wealthy congregations of the towns, and the appointment of these pastors, from the revenue of the Island instead of the parishioners, were highly objec- tionable on the grounds—(1) that by such appointments Government did by its agents directly enter upon missionary work; (2) that it was unfair to the efforts of that society, which had for more than 50 years laboured in those places, to be subject to the rivalry of Government competition; (3) that in some of those places their efforts to induce the Wesleyans to support their own ministers had been hindered by the fact that the Episcopalians had their ministers supported by the Government, although the Episcopal congregations were not at all in need of pecuniary aid. They also stated that it was contrary to public policy for the Government to engage in missionary operations; that many of the Government officials did not belong to any of the Churches subsidized by Government, and a most offensive slight was placed on all the religious Bodies not receiving Government favour. That memorial was signed by seven English and 28 Native ministers in Ceylon. Sir William Gregory forwarded it to Lord Carnarvon, who sent a reply to the effect that he was not prepared to authorize any change which should deprive the Church of England or the Presbyterian Church of that support from Government which they had hitherto enjoyed. A large and influential meeting had since been held in Colombo protesting against these subsidies, and a Petition to Her Majesty had been forwarded, bearing the signatures of 8,000 Natives, praying for their discontinuance. The Petition stated that in Ceylon the existence of an Ecclesiastical Department of Government was a direct violation of the principle laid down in Her Majesty's Proclamation, namely—

"That none be in any way favoured, none be molested and disturbed, by reason of their religious faith or observance."

The Resolution which he now submitted to the House stated that this subsidy inflicted great injustice and occasioned serious discontent. The injustice he thought he had proved; and as to the discontent, it was manifest not only from the Papers laid on the Table, but from other information received from the Island, a very strong feeling prevailed among all classes, except a few recipients of Government bounty. So far from accomplishing the object proposed by Lord Carnarvon, as a missionary establishment, it had had a directly opposite effect. The Natives designated Christianity thus taught as the "Queen's religion," regarding it simply as a Department of the Government. A very distinguished Native and a Member of the Legislative Council, Sir Coomara Swamy, in a very able speech delivered by him in the Council, remarked—

"I have been repeatedly asked, 'How is it Christianity makes such a little progress among your people?' 'That it should be so is natural enough,' I answer. 'Think of the manner in which it is presented to us. You come with the drawn sword in one hand and the Bible in the other. Who can believe it? Your conduct belies your professions. The chances of Christianity would have been greater if it had been preached in the country by men entirely unconnected with the Government, sympathizing more with the people than with the rulers.'"

Similar views were expressed by Sir Charles M'Carthy, who said—

"Deeply convinced as I am that from the diffusion of Christianity alone any real progress or improvement could be looked for among the Native population, I yet must contend that Government, by acting as suggested, would only raise a barrier to the advancement of the Christian religion."

Now, he asked, what did the Government propose to do in relation to that question? The principle of religious equality almost universally prevailed in our Colonies, with the most satisfactory results. Why was Ceylon to be an exception? Would the Government disregard the strongly-expressed feelings of the whole community, from the Governor downwards? Did they wish to excite more dissatisfaction, and rouse the Natives as well as the Europeans to further agitation? What was the language of Sir Coomara Swamy in reference to the Petition from the Natives, to which some exception had been taken? He said—

"If the Council is not to be satisfied with such expressions of opinion as those embodied in it, how then shall we bring conviction to unwilling minds? Shall we hold monster meetings? Shall there be inflammatory speeches? Must there be commotion, and discontent, bloodshed, and other rebellion before official minds can be roused?"

If it was desired to diffuse a knowledge of Christianity among the Native population of Ceylon, that object would be best secured by voluntary effort. Had they really a right to levy a compulsory tribute upon the people to support a re- ligion in which they did not believe? Would the Government, for the sake of so paltry a sum, act in direct antagonism to the almost universal feeling of the Island, or would they, by placing Ceylon on the same footing as their other Colonies as far as lay in their power, promote its peace, its happiness, and its prosperity? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

declared that in all his Parliamentary experience he had never known a better case for an alteration of the ecclesiastical arrangements of a Colony than that which his hon. Friend had just submitted to the House. In the population there were 2,000,000 not Christians, while the Christians numbered only about 250,000, the greater portion being Roman Catholics. The object to which the grants of money in question were originally applied was a very laudable one—namely, to provide religious instruction for the military in the Island. But now the money was not devoted to that purpose at all. It went in salaries to clergymen, the great majority of whose hearers were not soldiers, but persons perfectly able to pay for their own religious instruction. What was done in point of fact was this—clergymen were being provided for two or three thousand rich members of the Church of England, while the great bulk of the Protestant poor population, to say nothing of the Roman Catholics, were left to provide for themselves. It was notorious all over the Colony that the bulk of the members of the Church of England preferred the services of the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society to those paid by the State. The Natives of Ceylon were actually taxed to support missions for their own conversion, and however much he might sympathize with missionary effort when properly directed, he felt bound to say that he knew of nothing more likely than that to prejudice Christianity in the eyes of the Cingalese people. There was a widespread hostility to these grants in the Island—a hostility which was not by any means unshared by members of the Anglican Church. That hostility had been expressed on various occasions in the Legislative Council, and he was sorry to see as one phase of it a disposition on the part of certain of the Natives, in consequence of these grants, to doubt the sincerity of Her Majesty's Proclamation in favour of neutrality and religious equality. The advice of Sir William Gregory to cease filling up vacancies as they occurred was wise advice, which he hoped the Government would consider. As showing the gravity of the situation, he was told that a Petition was coming home from India on the subject of the annual payments to Anglican clergymen in Hindostan. He hoped the Government would take time by the forelock and remove gradually causes of discontent which might lead to serious difficulties hereafter.

admitted that, so far as figures were concerned, the case presented to the House was a good one. He was not prepared, however, to accept the hon. Member's conclusion that the existence of an endowed Church ought to be dependent upon numbers. He had always protested against that argument in the case of the Irish Church, and he must now protest against it in the case of Ceylon. Something had been said about pensions to Bishops. It was, no doubt, true that at one time three Bishops were receiving pensions for work they had done. But the health of those Bishops having broken down in the Colony, he did not see any reason why, because of the particular functions they had filled, they should be deprived of their pensions. The failure of their health was no doubt an unfortunate occurrence; but the calamity might have happened to ex-Judges or ex-Governors as well as Bishops. The particular position filled by the Bishops did not, he thought, add much to the argument of the hon. Gentleman. The opinion of Sir Hercules Robinson h ad been quoted. Now Sir Hercules was no doubt a very good Governor, but he did not know that he was a very good authority on ecclesiastical matters. He had suggested that if the Bishop of Colombo were withdrawn the Bishop of Madras should receive Episcopal charge of the Island of Ceylon, Now, there could be no doubt that the Indian Bishops had a great deal too much to do already. And as some proof of this two additional Bishops had recently been given to Madras. As, however, Sir Hercules Robinson had been quoted, it was well that his mature conclusion should be known: and it would be found that it was by no means in favour of the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Sir Hercules Robinson had, no doubt, protested strongly against the continuation of the Colombo Bishopric; but, like other great men, he was open to conviction, and he found that in writing to the Earl of Kimberley, on the 14th of November, 1871, he said—

"My own opinion is—that a Bishop of the Church of England is not indispensable here; but that, so long as the Colony maintains from the general Revenue, as it does at present, a number of Episcopalian Chaplaincies, it is desirable that there should be a head of the Department, and that in the present flourishing condition of the finances the difference between the salary of an Archdeacon and of a Bishop is a matter of but little importance. So long, therefore, as the present State allowances to the Anglican clergy are continued, and so long as the right man can be found for the place, I think the additional expenditure entailed by maintaining the Bishopric is well invested in a social as well as in an official point of view. I have known Archdeacon Jermyn intimately for a number of years, and I am satisfied that it would have been difficult for your Lordship to have selected any person more suited than he is in every respect for the post which has been vacated here by Bishop Claughton's resignation; and now that the nomination is announced, I think the general feeling is one of satisfaction that the appointment has been filled up."

It would therefore be seen that Sir Hercules Robinson admitted that when the appointment of Archdeacon Jermyn was made it gave general satisfaction. The hon. Member had used an expression which he hoped on reflection he would be inclined to modify—he spoke of the English Government "taking the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other." That was an exaggeration of language which he trusted hardly any hon. Member would endorse. [MR. ALDERMAN W. M'ARTHUR explained. He had quoted the expression used by Sir Coomara Swaney, a Member of the Legislative Council of Ceylon.] He would only say he thought that anyone who used such an expression was not an authority that House would follow. He could not admit the validity of the argument which had been used against the continuance of the Colombo Bishopric, because an agitation was said to have commenced in Calcutta for the disestablishment of the Church in India. The same argument was used in the case of the Irish Church—if it were not disendowed, it was said, people would call out for the disestablishment of the English Church. He would not give way to such an argument. He was rather disposed to act on the old Latin maxim—principiis obsta. He regretted that the hon. Member had dragged into the discussion a personal matter relating to the present Bishop of Colombo. He stated that the first act of Bishop Copleston was to suspend the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society. Now, that statement was incorrect. The Bishop had, unfortunately, differences with the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society, who were endeavouring to establish an improper Episcopal authority. The step he took was simply with a view to maintain Episcopal authority, and when so much was said by certain parties of the duty of the clergy in this country to be subject to their Bishops he did not think that this act of Bishop Copleston ought to have been misrepresented as it had been. The statement was most exaggerated. The Bishop did everything he could to prevent the unhappy conclusion which had been brought about, and it was his greatest desire that all the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society should work in harmony with himself. He hoped the House would not agree with the Motion. It would give a blow to Christianity in the East. The Natives of Ceylon would think that a nation which valued its Christianity would set it forth in public places; and if this Resolution were carried into effect they would soon come to the conclusion that England had ceased to be a Christian nation, or at least a nation which cared about its Christianity.

said, he wished to explain the principles which were always followed by the Government of India in regard to ecclesiastical establishments. There was a very large number of European servants performing duties in India, who were in a position in which they had no private means of obtaining the consolations of religion or the care of medical men. The Government, therefore, found it necessary to provide both clergymen and doctors in sufficient numbers to attend to the wants of their European servants. That was the principle followed in India, and it was only in pursuance of it that a certain amount of the clerical and medical element was retained by Government there. It was said that the cry in India was that there were not too many Bishops, but too few, and that there was a necessity for an increase. In particular, it was said in the diocese of Madras that people were not satisfied with the Bishop they had already, but they had lately established other two. Those were not Government Bishops, but Missionary Bishops, established for missionary purposes which the Government did not undertake. So far as the Bishop of Madras was concerned, he undertook to say that that right rev. Prelate was not, for the special purpose for which he was appointed, an overworked man, and he might superintend Ceylon without any very large addition to his labours. In respect to the remaining questions raised by the Motion, he was not well acquainted with the affairs of Ceylon itself. He hoped when the Government came to deal with the matter they would be prepared to tell the House that they were desirous of dealing with it in connection with Ceylon exactly as it was dealt with in India—namely, that the Government themselves would provide a superintending Bishop and a sufficient number of chaplains to provide for the necessities of the Government servants, and the Government servants only. He thought it was not right to contribute out of public revenues for the maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment beyond that which was required for administering to the necessities of the public servants. If the Establishment in Ceylon did partake of that character, he thought the earliest opportunity should be taken to reduce it within a standard that would correspond with that which was retained in India.

held that the hon. Member who had brought this subject before the House had failed to show the existence of any practical grievance. The population of Ceylon was somewhat less than 2,500,000, and the total sum expended in the services to which reference had been made was only £14,000, or about ld. per head. That, certainly, was not a very crushing taxation, and was borne by all classes of the population varying in religious belief. The hon. Gentleman had quoted in support of his views many eminent authorities. But if he were to make known the opinion of many persons as eminent on the other side and as well qualified to form a judgment, he might, at the risk of wearying the House, go somewhat into the controversy. But the House, while paying every respect to the opinions of those eminent persons, would hardly be disposed to look to them for guidance on a question like this. The hon. Gentleman said that Sir William Gregory especially and Sir Charles M'Carthy were in favour of disestablishment. The right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) said that Sir William Gregory had quoted as a precedent the disestablishment of the Irish Church. He would like, however, to point out the exact position in which Her Majesty's Government stood with regard to that question. There was no doubt that the disestablishment of the Irish Church had commended itself to a large majority of the last Parliament. The present Government certainly could not be charged with having embarked on any re-actionary policy. Those who constituted that Government had not attempted on any occasion to go back upon the great subjects which had been determined by their predecessors. But he must demur to the doctrine which had apparently been laid down, that they were bound to continue that course and to carry out all over the world a policy which it was notorious every Member of the present Government—and he ventured to think a large majority of this House of Commons—emphatically condemned. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Arthur) had alluded to the policy of the late Government with regard to Colonial endowments. What was that policy? During the administration of Lord Kimberley at the Colonial Office various Colonies were subjected to schemes bearing on this question. But how were they dealt with? In some a policy was adopted which the hon. Gentleman would hardly endorse—namely, what was popularly known as "levelling up;" in others a policy of complete disendowment was effected. But he would remind the House that in all the cases to which he now referred the circumstances were widely different from those which existed in Ceylon. Notably, in Jamaica, Trinidad, the Leeward Islands, and others with which Lord Kimberley had to deal, there was not a large mixed population professing various forms of non-Christian religion; but the difficulty he had to meet was that of Christian communities, divided, for the most part, into Roman Catholics and Nonconformist Protestants; and the manner in which they were dealt with offered very little to guide us in approaching a subject like this. There was another point on which he thought the hon. Gentlemen had entirely failed. The hon. Member had spoken of assimilating the policy to be adopted in Ceylon with that which prevailed in all the different Colonies under Her Majesty's sway; but he (Mr. Lowther) hoped the House would not be led to believe that the policy of disestablishment had been already extended to the great bulk of the Colonies. Nothing of the kind had occurred. In certain exceptional instances this policy had been initiated. It was initiated previous to the accession of the Members of the present Government to office. In those instances where it had been deliberately adopted by their predecessors the present Government had not attempted to interfere; but they certainly had no intention of proceeding further in a direction which had not commended itself to their judgment. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the part of the population which derived an advantage from these endowments was well to do, that they drove to their places of worship in carriages; in fact, that they formed a portion of that class referred to by Mr. Carlyle under the designation of "gigmanity." But the hon. Gentleman, he hoped, did not mean that the House ought to embark on a course of policy on account of the social position of those to whom it might apply. He thought, however, if the hon. Gentleman would carry his researches a little further he would find that a considerable portion of those who derived benefit from these endowments were not in a position to contribute towards religious rites for themselves. The right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) said that the rest of the inhabitants of the Island, with the exceptions mentioned by him and the hon. Member for Lambeth, had to provide for their own religious services. Was that the fact? The right hon. Gentleman very likely was not aware that the Budhist community were possessed of no fewer than 376,000 acres of land for that purpose. [Mr. BAXTER said he had referred only to the Christian population.] It was right, at all events, that the House should be aware of the fact that this large extent of land was vested in the Budhist community; it was called the "Temple land," was held under grants, and had been guaranteed to them by the British Government on taking possession of the Island. When it was found that three-fourths of the population were Budhist and were largely endowed, it could hardly be said that the wealthy portion of the community were placed in an invidious position with regard to their poorer brethren in consequence of the endowments to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention. The hon. Gentleman quoted the language used by a member of Council. The language of that gentleman certainly compared very unfavourably with the studied moderation with which the hon. Gentleman himself brought forward this subject. The advice of that gentleman to his fellow-subjects reminded him of the somewhat similar advice—"Don't nail his ears to the pump." There was no reason to believe, however, that in that loyal portion of Her Majesty's dominions there was the slightest danger of hints of that kind being followed up. He should like to call the attention of the House to the precedent which would be established by adopting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It would be impossible to confine that policy to Ceylon; and the question of disestablishment would arise with reference to Colonies like Natal, Hong Kong, the Mauritius, British Honduras, and even India. Towards the end of the hon. Member's speech he referred to some differences which had occurred between the Bishop of Colombo and the missionaries of the Island. Now, the Bishop was in no sense a servant of the Government. He did not stand there as in any way responsible for the proceedings of the Bishop; and if he (Mr. Lowther) avoided expressing any opinion on his proceedings, the House must attribute it to his desire not to bark when he was unable to bite. He was happy, however, to think that the present condition of affairs, which was that with which the House had solely to do, was far more satisfactory than some speeches which had been made would lead hon. Members to suppose. He had heard from a private source that the Bishop was at present in every way conforming himself to the situation in which he was placed, and that the unfortunate differences of the past would not recur. Exception had been taken to the character and method of the missionary work. He would not stand up for proselytizing; but the House would agree with him that placed as the British power was in the midst of a large Native population, the existence of a Christian ministry could not but conduce to the welfare of the Island.

had heard the speech of the Under Secretary for the Colonies with mingled surprise and regret. These discussions were never very pleasant to the House; but he thought his hon. Friend might have taken advantage of the opportunity before him. He thought that a decidedly strong case had been made out; that it would have been satisfactory if the advice of Sir William Gregory had been followed, and these endowments suffered gradually to disappear. The hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Talbot) had expressed his approval of a Bishop "in active operation;" but this phrase, as far as the Bishop of Colombo was concerned, appeared to imply the suspending of his clergy and causing a general unpleasant state of feeling in the Island. It had been said that the policy of the late Government had been a policy either of levelling up or of disestablishment: when the exigencies of a Colony seemed to demand the latter policy, it had been followed, but all that had been done in the shape of "levelling up" had been this—that where it had seemed best to maintain endowments there had been some attempt to make them equal as between different religious bodies. The Under Secretary had contradicted himself, for he had first said that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the endowments in Ceylon, and immediately afterwards declared that if we abolished these endowments it would be necessary to apply to other Colonies the same treatment as that received by Ceylon. Then it was said, why did you not do this when you were in office? He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite had given the late Government credit for having done enough in the way of disestablishment; but the fact was that a blot was not a blot until it was hit, and everything could not be done at once. This was a question of right or wrong, and no greater mistake could be made than to refuse to do that which was right in one case for fear of having to do so in other cases with respect to which one was less confident. Give a remedy for an acknowledged evil, and let the future take care of itself. It was quite fair to defend the principle of establishment; but to his mind establishment was justified only when the Established Church was either the Church of the great majority of the people or was supported by the public opinion of the country in which it existed. Neither of these conditions existed in Ceylon where the Church was rendered inefficacious and Christianity hindered by the inequality and injustice of the endowments. The Under Secretary had spoken of the Budhists being endowed. Was that a fair argument? The only foundation for it was that we had not plundered the Budhists of the property which they possessed when we took the Island. Ceylon had a population of more than 2,000,000, of whom only about 250,000 were Christians. Of these, nearly 200,000 were Roman Catholics who received the magnificent sum of £100 per annum out of the £14,000 or £15,000 of endowment. The remainder went to about 15,000 of the rest of the Christians, some receiving no money at all, so that the system was unjust and unequal, first as between the Christians and the Native population, and, secondly, as between the different sects of Christians. He could not do otherwise than cordially support the Motion, and he believed that the existence of these petty establishments in defiance of the public opinion of the localities in which they existed, did more harm than good to the principle of establishment at home.

said, he thought that many of the remarks that had been made were rather wide of the subject. The Resolution said—

"That, as the members of the Anglican and Presbyterian Churches in Ceylon constitute a small part of the population and the great majority of the inhabitants are Budhists, Hin- doos, or Mahomedans, this House is of opinion that the payment out of the Revenues of the Colony of annual subsidies to the ministers of those Churches inflicts great injustice and occasions serious discontent, and ought, therefore, to he discontinued."

That was laying down the principle that, however necessary it might be to maintain any religious establishments in countries where the majority of the population were not Christians, one had no right to take any part of the revenue of the country for that purpose. That proposition would clearly cover the case of India, where it was always thought right that an Establishment should be maintained for the benefit of the Europeans in that country. But it could not be maintained that it was wrong to take any part of the Indian revenues for that purpose. The House would consider that this was a very broad assertion and that it really covered the case of every Colony; and he hoped that, under these circumstances, the House would be very slow to adopt a Motion of the character of that which was now before it.

said, that before they went to a division, he just wished to say that he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies quite did justice to the speech of a Native Member of the Ceylon Legislative Council to which allusion was made. He thought that speech was a very remarkable one on the whole, and as he laid it down he said to himself—"When Natives of Ceylon take to making speeches in the English tongue which show so full an acquaintance with the best thought of the day on the subjects about which they speak, as well as with what has been passing in this House, it is high time to give up supporting any institution in that Island which cannot be defended by argument;" and he put it to hon. Members on both sides of the House who had listened to this debate—Could the existing ecclesiastical endowments in Ceylon be defended by argument?

had hoped that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would have given the House some assurance that the present state of things would not long continue, as the existence of the subsidy of the State Church produced at present a great deal of dissatisfaction in the Island. In consequence of the Under Secretary's reply he felt bound to divide the House upon his Resolution.

said, he should vote against the Motion, but thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth for bringing the conduct of the Bishop under the notice of the House.

in rising to call attention to the forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-seventh Clauses of "The Irish Land Act, 1870," for promoting the purchase of land by occupying tenants; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the working and results of the forty-fourth, forty-fifth, and forty-seventh Clauses of "The Irish Land Act, 1870," and to report whether any further facilities should be given for promoting the purchase of land by occupying tenants, said, he had thought it desirable to introduce this subject in order to elicit the views of the Government upon it. He had the other night ventured to propose this as an alternative Motion to that of the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue); but as the House rejected that Motion by a very large majority, his proposal now became a substantive proposal, to which he trusted hon. Members from Ireland would give their support. His attention had been directed to the subject mainly by the Returns of the landowners in the two countries of England and Ireland, and, in his opinion, those Returns were well worthy of the attention of the House. In the case of Ireland they had before the House Returns prepared by the late Government at the time that the Irish Land Act was under consideration, and they showed that the total number of landowners in Ireland was not more than 19,000, and the comparison of this number with the landowners in England was worthy of consideration. The English Return showed that, on the whole, there were about 170,000 landowners holding over one acre of agricultural land. In England there was a landowner to every 130 of the population, while in Ireland the proportion was one to every 315 of the population. The comparison became the more remarkable if they included only the rural parts of England. Ireland was essentially a rural country; and if they made the comparison with the rural parts of England the number of landowners was very much smaller. There were in Ireland also, he found, no less than 600,000 small farmers, occupying an average of 34 acres, and 138,000 holding an average of 12 acres. Now, all the experience of the Continent went to prove that it was only when the occupation of small farms was combined with ownership that the best results were secured. It was the magic of property which, in the opinion of the great agricultural writer, Arthur Young, gave sufficient inducement to the small owner so to cultivate his farm as to produce the best result. Ireland was, therefore, a country in which they could have expected to find a large number of small owners established. In fact, there was no country in the world where there were so few small proprietors. Two efforts had been made by Parliament in that direction—the first under the Irish Church Act, the second under the Irish Land Act. Under the former Act it was provided that the tenants of Church property amounting to about 200,000 acres should have the right of pre-emption of their farms at a fair price, and considerable facilities were given under the Act for such purchases. The intention of the Legislature in that respect had been, it seemed to him, from their Reports, very judiciously carried out by the Irish Church Temporalities Commissioners. They had brought the subject home to every tenant of Church property in Ireland, and the result had been that a very large proportion of them had purchased their farms. Out of a total of 8,000 no less than two-thirds had become purchasers, and of these two-thirds 1,800 had, he found, paid the purchase money in full. The Commissioners further stated that a great many of the tenants had received from friends in America money in order to complete their purchases, which had, it was added, realized a full and fair price at 23½ years purchase, while land sold under the Incumbered Estates Court had brought only 20½ years purchase. In that way no less than 5,000 new landowners had, it appeared, been added to the total numbers in Ireland. Now, turning to the other experiment made in this direction, he came to those clauses of the Irish Land Act which went by the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and which had been conceived in the same spirit as those of the Church Act. In the case of the Land Act the terms offered to the tenants were not quite so favourable. Only two-thirds of the purchase-money, and not three-fourths, as in the other case, was permitted to remain on mortgage, but the rate of interest was 3½ per cent, instead of 4. During the six years since the passing of the Act the number of purchases under those clauses had been only 456, of which no less than 151 had arisen out of one transaction—that of the sale of the Marquess of Waterford's estate to his tenants. Yet during the same period no less than £6,000,000 worth of property—the rental amounting to £450,000—had been sold by the Incumbered Estates Court. That was more than double the amount of the Church property. The result was that while no less than 75 per cent of the Church property had been sold to the occupying tenants, in the case of the Land Act there had been only about 6 per cent. This being the state of the case, he thought he was justified in saying that the clauses of the Land Act had, to a great extent, been a failure. He did not attribute this result to the difference in terms he had already mentioned, but rather to the plan which had been adopted by the officials of the Incumbered Estates Court. The Church Commissioners had done everything they could to facilitate the operation, and had gone direct to the tenants. In the other ease, so far as he could make out, no facilities whatever had been given. The tenants had been left to find out as best they could what they ought to do. They had been obliged in consequence to employ lawyers, or other agents, and to incur expense in other ways. Moreover, instead of the farms having been put up for sale in a manner convenient to the tenants individually, they had been offered in lots of, perhaps, eight or ten together, and the tenants had been obliged to combine and make a common purse in order to get the property. This was a process which, on the face of it, appeared impracticable. He had no doubt it was from this want of facilities for buying single farms that the whole operation had broken down. It appeared to him there was no necessity for selling the land by auction, and that the proper course would be to offer it to the tenants individually at upset prices slightly above what would be obtained in the open market. He believed the officials of the Court would have no difficulty in arranging with the landlord as to the price, and that the tenants were willing to pay something over the market price. By such means, he thought, effect would be given to the clauses of the Act. Almost all the cases of hardship which were sometimes quoted by Irish Members had arisen, he found, in connection with lands recently sold through the Incumbered Estates Court. The reason was obvious. So long as the lands remained in the possession of the old families, they were managed according to the traditional method, the landlords feeling themselves bound to observe the customs of the country. When estates were sold through the Incumbered Estates Court at enhanced values, landlords felt justified in raising the rents, thus practically confiscating the improvements made by the tenants. He knew the occurrence of these hard cases was denied; but the clauses of the Land Act were passed on the assumption that there were such cases, and he hoped that since the passing of the Act they were reduced in number, while it was clear that if the clauses had been passed 25 years ago hard eases that had occurred might have been prevented, because so much more land would have passed into the hands of tenants. If similar principles had been adopted in the sales by the Landed Estates Court as had been followed by the Church Commissioners, the number of landowners in the country would have been greatly increased, because farmers would have been turned into landowners. The more extended adoption of the principle might be advocated as a Conservative measure introducing a fixity of tenure to which no objection could be made. He trusted the Government would consent to his Motion.

said, that he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but to say that he had always thought that the clauses which were so honourably connected with the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) were founded on a very wise policy, and that he had seen with regret that they had not been so effective as was expected when they became law. He would offer no suggestion as to whether the failure of those clauses was due to any one cause more than to another; but he would express a hope that the Government would grant the Committee, and that, as regarded the clauses which had been referred to, means would be found to give effect to that wise and safe policy which was to be found in the Land Act.

also expressed a hope that the Government would be able to accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading. He believed that nothing would tend more to the tranquillity of Ireland than the establishment of a considerable number of persons who would be interested in the land, as owners as well as occupiers, and anything that would tend to increase the present number was a subject well worthy the consideration of that House. He was surprised that more advantage had not been taken of the clauses of the Act; but he believed that a good deal of it was owing to a want of knowledge amongst the people as to how they were to proceed to purchase.

said, he thought the clauses had failed through want of appreciation on the part of the tenants, although they favoured the creation of a so-called peasant proprietary consisting of farmers, who found one-fourth of the purchase-money and borrowed three-fourths from the gentry of the neighbourhood. When a proprietor got an indefeasible title with his land he obtained advantages from the State for which he ought to give something in return. He had himself made an offer on behalf of 80 tenants for land on the Wicklow Mountain estate. It was bad land, yet they offered 28 years' purchase for it in order that there might be no doubt about its acquisition. At that price it would not have paid more than 3½ per cent, but a nobleman who wanted it for shooting purposes offered 30 years' purchase, and his offer was accepted. Those men desired to become peasant proprietors, and they incurred great sacrifices to raise one-third of the purchase money. This showed a deficiency in the working of the Act. It seemed to him that in such a case if one or two years' purchase were lost to the owner, it would not be too great a price to pay for the Parliamentary title given under the Act.

believed that the farming classes, notwithstanding that Amendments were very desirable for the extensive application of the Act, would have availed themselves more extensively of the Bright clauses if they had been more thoroughly understood. It might be true that the clauses in the Church Act had been occasionally worked for the benefit of speculators rather than of tenants; but the Committee might suggest the means of putting a stop to such practices if they were carried to a vicious extent. He trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had been so anxious to promote the well-being of that country, would agree to the Motion.

wished to explain, in justice to the Irish Members, that it was only by an accident that a proposal of this kind had not been earlier brought before the House. The late Sir John Gray attached great importance to this question, and in the year 1874 brought in a Bill to extend the power of tenants to purchase land under these clauses. Unfortunately, the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) put a Notice on the Paper which brought the Bill under the half-past 12 o'clock Rule and it could not be brought on. Sir John Gray shortly afterwards died. He was glad to see the matter now taken up by an English Member, as he saw no ultimate solution of this question, except on the one hand a conflict between landlords and tenants, or else the creation of a considerable number of small proprietors. The number of proprietors in Ireland was smaller in proportion to the pecuniary value of the soil than in England. His own idea would be that the Government should advance money at a somewhat lower rate, and so as to enable the tenant to pay during a period of years what he could not pay down at once. The Motion if carried would not injure the proprietors of land, and he hoped the Government would accede to it.

said, he was very happy to find that the Government did not intend to oppose the Motion, and he was glad that this particular portion of the Act was to be referred to a Select Committee. There were many Members on the Conservative as well as the Liberal side of the House who wished to do justice to the Irish tenants; while, at the same time, there were Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative benches who would resist the extravagant demands which were sometimes made on behalf of tenants, but probably without their consent.

said, he thought few things could be more important, as far as the well-being of Ireland was concerned, than to take steps consistent with the safety of the public funds for the purpose of enabling tenants under the Church Act and the Land Act to become the owners of the land which they occupied. He hoped, therefore, no obstacles would be opposed by the Government to the granting of the inquiry which was asked.

said, he thought no one who had carefully considered the question could doubt that it would be advantageous to Ireland that the number of persons possessing a proprietary interest in land should be considerably increased. It was intended to bring about this result by the Land Act of 1870 and the amending Act of 1872; but it must be admitted that the clauses framed for this particular purpose had failed to a certain extent, though not quite so much as might be supposed from the figures already quoted showing the number of purchases. Confining himself to those cases in which purchases had been made by tenants with the aid of advances from the Board of Works, he found a very considerable increase in the year ending 31st March last, as compared with the previous year. The total number of cases given in the last Report of the Board of Works, as having occurred from the time the Act came into operation up to March 31st, 1876, was 456, the amount of purchase-money was £476,000, and the amount which the Board advanced was £281,000. But, adding the transactions up to 31st March last, the total number of cases was 574, the total amount of purchase-money was £598,773, and the total amount advanced by the Board of Works was £357,548. This showed, at least, that there was increased progress during the last year. A point of considerable interest was the great difference between the number of applications and the number of loans actually made, a difference which ought to be inquired into. It might be that there was something in the conditions exacted which was too hard for the tenants to accept; but he thought the fact was mainly due to the circumstance that tenants, after applying, failed to provide the proportion of the purchase-money which it was necessary they should provide in order to entitle them to loans from the Board of Works. He could not think that the charges made against the Incumbered Estates Court were entirely fair, because, as far as he had been able to ascertain, he believed that whenever a property was ordered by the Court to be sold, due notice was given to the tenants both as to the fact and as to the conditions under which they might purchase the property. The 46th section of the Irish Land Act provided that the tenant was to have notice when his farm was to be sold, and ho did not think that it could be alleged that those who were required to give such notice had failed to discharge the duty imposed upon them by that section. He would now proceed to the other reasons which, so far as he could judge, had really hindered the operation of the sections of the Act to which ho had referred. The main reason appeared to him to be that the persons who were now the occupying tenants in Ireland did not as a rule desire to buy their farms. The fact was that those persons were so contented with the position of tenants that, though willing to give extraordinary sums for the right of occupation, they did not care to, as it appeared to them, unnecessarily waste their funds by purchasing the freehold. This, at all events, was the conclusion that must be drawn from the fact that the Irish tenants had not to any large extent availed themselves of the facilities offered to them of borrowing money to enable them to purchase their farms. In these circumstances, therefore, he was afraid that any reasonable proposals for the amendment of these sections which might result from this inquiry would not have much effect in extending their operation. He did not gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Reading that any very sweeping alterations in the provisions of the Land Act were contemplated by him. He felt that the hon. Member would agree with him that under any possible legislation on the subject they should secure, in the first place, that there should be no interference with the freedom of landlords who might be desirous, in the ordinary way, of disposing of their property. With regard to estates sold in the Incumbered Estates Court, care should be taken that their full value was realized, and that the tenant should pay the fair market price for his holding, while ample security should be given to the Government for the money advanced to the tenant to enable him to purchase his farm. Bearing these principles in mind, he had no objection to the removal of any obstacles that might exist to the wider operation of the sections of the Land Act which had been brought under their notice. The hon. Member desired that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject. He was bound to say, as he had before stated, that he was not very favourably disposed to any large inquiry into the operation of the Irish Land Act at a period not very remote from its having been deliberately settled by Parliament. But he did not see that the proposal before the House was open to objection on that ground, inasmuch as the hon. Member had carefully limited the scope of the inquiry. The hon. Member had certainly shown that the sections in question of the Land Act had failed in producing the results which their authors might have expected from them, and had shown such a practical knowledge of the subject that very valuable suggestions might well be anticipated from the inquiry which he desired. He did not think, therefore, that he was in any way opening up a question as to the finality which must be held to apply to the great principles upon which the Land Act was based by assenting to this inquiry, which he trusted would result in showing that the Act had been fairly worked by those bodies to whom its carrying out had been entrusted, and in conducing still further to the contentment and prosperity of the country.

said, he was happy to hear that the right hon. Baronet had acceded to this Motion. Without intending to enter at length into a discussion upon this subject, he wished to fairly warn the House against attaching an exaggerated importance to the effect likely to be produced by an amendment of these clauses. There was this marked distinction between the powers entrusted to the Church Commissioners and those entrusted to the Landed Estates Court— that the latter were unable to offer the tenant his holding at a certain price, but were bound by law to set the estate out in lots to be sold by auction. It might, therefore, well be made a matter for inquiry whether the Landed Estates Court should not have conferred upon it the power to offer the tenant his holding at a certain fair but fixed price. He believed that every difficulty that red tape could devise had been thrown in the way of the Irish tenant borrowing the money for the purchase of his land, and that was also a point that ought to be inquired into. When they had done all this and had given every facility they must not imagine that they touched more than the hem of the garment. The question raised to-night would not touch the case of the great bulk of the Irish tenantry, because not one in a hundred of the Irish tenants would be able to purchase his holding even if the opportunity of doing so were afforded him. He entirely agreed with the statement of the right hon. Baronet that there was no great anxiety on the part of the Irish tenant occupiers to become the purchasers of their holdings; they did not appear to possess any of the pride of ownership. It might be that in the North of Ireland there was a desire on the part of the tenants to become the freeholders of their farms, but that was not the case in the rest of the country. The great bulk of the Irish tenants wished undoubtedly for fixity of tenure; but for some unexplained reason they would almost rather pay a rent—a small rent—provided they were perfectly secure in their possession, than become the absolute owners of their holdings. It might be from want of education, or perhaps it might be owing to the traditions of an older system, or to the want of independence resulting from years of oppression; but the fact remained, which he admitted with regret, that the people of Ireland took no manly pride in becoming their own landlords. He regretted this the more because nothing could be of more value to the country than the existence of a large body of independent landed yeomanry. He would impress the House that, in taking the present course, they were but touching the fringe of the land question.

said, that the doctrine which had been laid down that tenants in Ireland had no wish to become owners of their holdings was one to which he could not subscribe, nor could he allow it to be made without a challenge. That tenants did not become buyers of their holdings was due to other causes. If the Landed Estates Court would put a fixed price upon the lots, and the tenants knew they could have their farms at that price, he believed a great majority of tenants would avail themselves of the opportunity. If the land was sold in smaller lots he believed that there would be plenty of purchasers among the tenant-farmers, and more money obtained.

also dissented from the views expressed, that the tenant-farmers did not desire to become owners; on the contrary, he thought that if a fair opportunity of purchasing their farms was presented to them they would embrace it with the utmost eagerness, and one of the results of the inquiry would be to show the truth of that. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) said an inquiry into the operation of the "Bright" clauses would but touch the hem of the land question, and that was so. He did not know what the proceedings of the inquiry might be; but he firmly and strongly believed that whatever the endeavours of the right hon. Gentleman might be, the question would never be settled on any other basis than that of giving to the Irish people the right and liberty of living on their own farms as owners.

thanked the Government for acceding to this inquiry, because he believed that the position of the tenants in Ireland could be much improved without interfering with the owners of the soil, and if greater facilities were given for the purchasing of land in Ireland it would occasion its increased value in the market. Bright's clauses had not been taken advantage of to the extent it was perhaps thought they would have been, but that had arisen very much from the difficulties the tenants had in arranging for loans, which frequently were very small indeed. From what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he believed he was willing to make the inquiry a thorough one, and he hoped it would be carried as far as possible. One thing which should induce the Government to go as far as they could was the fact—he believed he was correct in saying so—that in all the advances made to Irish tenants there had never been a defaulter in paying those advances. That would show that whilst there was a desire to acquire land, there was also every effort made to carry out their engaements in connection therewith. He engagement strongly to the opinion that it was for the interest of Ireland and a matter of importance that land should be held by two classes of proprietors—a class of proprietors owning their own farms and a class of large owners. On the large estates the tenants were, as he knew, contented and comfortable, and between them and their landlords the best feelings existed; but it was on smaller and incumbered estates that the position of the tenant was unsatisfactory. No doubt as greater facilities were given to tenant-farmers they would hasten to seize the opportunity of becoming owners. Thanking the Government for granting the inquiry, he expected from it good results.

thanked the Government for assenting to the Motion. He was glad the Government had recognized the present position of the tenants as not satisfactory. With regard to the declaration that had been made that the tenants did not desire to become owners, he believed that was true in the case of large and old established properties, where the tenants were certain of the traditional customs of the country being carried out. But in the case of estates where there had been a change of proprietors in consequence of a sale under the Incumbered Estates Act, he believed the tenants would be anxious to purchase the land they farmed if they were able to avail themselves of the facilities which, under the Land Act, it was intended to offer them.

moved that a Select Committee be appointed "to inquire into and report on the operation of the Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867."

on behalf of the Government, said, he had great pleasure in assenting to the Motion. The Government were, nevertheless, desirous of reserving their freedom of action as regarded some minor points if they should feel it necessary to introduce a Bill to deal with them during the present Session.

in redemption of a pledge which he gave last Session, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for the foundation of four new Bishoprics in England. He did not think it would be wise to have a very large number of new Sees created all at once. It would take some time to raise the requisite funds, and it would not be well to have a large number of Bishops with a small amount of income. He had, therefore, thought it right to raise the minimum amount of income to £3,500—a limit somewhat above the one fixed for the new Sees of St. Alban's and Truro. He proposed to provide at present for four new Bishoprics, making, with the two previously created, six altogether, a number which would probably be sufficient for the wants of the Church for a considerable period of years. It was necessary that the four new Sees should be formed in the most populous parts of England. He proposed that the first of them should be the See of Liverpool, taking in the West Derby Hundred of Lancashire. It would be separated from the diocese of Chester, and attached to the Province of York. The second would be formed out of the southern part of the diocese of Ripon, where there was a growing population, leaving York untouched, leaving the division of the diocese of York for future subdivision. Various plans had been proposed as to whether the cathedral city should be Wakefield or Halifax, and no doubt there was a great deal to be said in favour of both towns. It was therefore intended to leave it to Her Majesty in Council to decide whether it should be at Wakefield or Halifax whenever the sum of money required was forthcoming. The third new See would be formed from the counties of Derby and Nottingham. There had, he believed, been a great wish to have new Sees formed out of the dioceses of both Lichfield and Lincoln; but the Government did not see their way to create two additional Sees for that part of England, and therefore they thought it better that the counties of Derby and Nottingham should be joined, so as to constitute one See, at present. Although that might cause some disappointment, especially to persons in the diocese of Lichfield, where there was a great desire to have another See for themselves alone; yet, looking at their great zeal and their willingness to sacrifice their own personal feeling for a great object, he believed they would be willing to accept that arrangement. That See would, of course, be in the Province of Canterbury. The fourth new See would be constituted out of the county of Northumberland, and for its formation the Bishop of Durham had made a handsome offer. On that occasion he need not further explain the measure, but trusted he had said enough to induce the House to consent to the introduction of the Bill.

expressed his thanks to the Home Secretary for having so quickly complied with what was the general wish of all who desired the prosperity of the Church—namely, an increase of her episcopal system. That wish had manifested itself with singular rapidity and unanimity through- out the country; and it had been met by the right hon. Gentleman in a way which would make his name grateful to all who had the well-being of the Church at heart. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise the minimum sum for each new See from the £3,000 of St. Albans and Truro to £3,500 with a house. He felt bound to say that in accepting that Bill under the regulations which the Government proposed, rather than lose it altogether, he and those for whom he spoke, gravely doubted if that alteration of the amount was desirable or not. Looking at all the circumstances, he thought it would have been better to have left the lower figure as it stood in the cases of Rochester and Truro. If £3,000 was sufficient for a Bishop charged with the care of the southern part of the metropolis, and bearing the historical title of Rochester, it could hardly be too little for the Bishops of such new Sees included in that Bill as Newcastle or Southwell. He should be glad to know where the cathedral city of the See to be formed out of the counties of Derby and Nottingham would be. [Mr. ASSUETON CROSS: Southwell.] He approved the choice of Southwell. The ancient Collegiate Church there would form a suitable cathedral, and the choice would compromise the rivalry of the two county towns, Nottingham and Derby. Personally he must say that he did not think this diocese was most judiciously formed. He would have preferred only giving East Derbyshire to Southwell, retaining the rest of Derbyshire in Lichfield, so as to retain the north of that county and all Staffordshire under one Bishop, and consolidate Salop under Hereford. However, he acquiesced another point on which he desired to receive some comfort and assurance was that the Bill should contain some provision, however rudimentary, for the chapters in the new dioceses. Without the addition of a chapter on the constitutional complaint of each diocese, the measure would be a great gain, but with that addition it would be a much greater gain. If a provision of that sort were introduced, those who did not like the Bill would not dislike it more on that account, while those who liked it would probably give it a still heartier support.

said, he knew it was a matter of great interest, and he ought to mention that the Government had decided that as the new diocese of Rochester would contain so large a portion of the South of the Metropolis they had determined that the designation of the future Bishop should be Bishop of Rochester and Southwark.

moved that the Select Committee on Cattle Plague and Importation of Live Stock do consist of Twenty-three Members.

moved that the number of Members be increased to 27. He did so for this reason. The original constitution of the Committee had met with reprobation from many quarters of the House. There were altogether 10,000,000 of horned beasts in the United Kingdom. Ireland and Scotland had 4,000,000, that was two-fifths of the whole, and yet of the 23 Members proposed only two were Irish Members. Again, the selection of these two Members was a most extraordinary one, having been made without any consultation with what was called the Irish Party in the House, although on this question he was willing to acknowledge there ought to be no difference of Party. They were all equally interested, whether Home Rulers, Liberals sitting under the Gangway, or Conservatives; and of the two Members selected neither was a county Member, although it was well known that the wealth of Ireland chiefly consisted in its cattle. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) wished to put in three additional Members, leaving one for the Government to choose. He had risen in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend—whom he now observed in his seat—and he would propose the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman), who was a very large proprietor in Ireland, and also farmed 2,500 acres; of the hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar), who had a large experience in trade, and was practically acquainted with many cognate questions. He did not think any Cattle Committee would be complete, from an Irish point of view, which did not include a representative from Ballinasloe, where a most important fair was held, and although situated in his own county of Galway it was closely adjoining Roscommon. He was therefore glad to see that the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) was moved as one of the three additional Members.

seconded the Amendment, pointing out that there was no part of the United Kingdom more deeply interested in this question than Ireland, and submitting that it was not unreasonable to ask that the agricultural districts of Ireland should be represented. Speaking in conformity to the wishes of a meeting which had been held, he would suggest as additional Members of the Committee the three hon. Gentlemen named by his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Nolan).

confessed at once, on the part of the Government, that the Committee would be stronger if it had more representatives of Ireland, which, undoubtedly, had a very deep interest in the question. Government were willing that there should be four more Members appointed, and that three of these should be Irish Members. In the meantime, the House might decide, in accordance with the suggestion in the Amendment, that the total number should be 27, and the particular Members to be appointed could afterwards be considered.

observed that the names of hon. Members connected with the English counties and tenant-farmers were conspicuous by their absence. It should be remembered that although consumers had the first interest in this matter, it had been very much abated by the large importations of American meat. The farmers were the parties chiefly interested. It was their herds that suffered, and they had to pay the tax for compensation in a great proportion, as it came out of the county rate to which they were the chief contributors.

urged that the Committee should consist of 29 Members, and that the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) and Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) should be added.

felt himself mainly responsible for the names on the Committee, and when it was stated that tenant-farmers were conspicuous by their absence, he was bound to add that the first hon. Member to whom he applied to be a Member of the Committee was the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who refused to serve.

said, he had gathered from what had been said that three out of the four additional names were to be those of Irish Members. He felt rather disappointed, because Scotland was deserving of consideration as being an integral part of the United Kingdom. [Laughter.] He would explain the matter a little more fully. No cattle were allowed to be imported into Ireland, whereas Scotland was subjected to the importation of cattle from foreign ports all over the world, and cattle disease and the plague were brought over in that way. It was therefore important that Scotland should be considered in this matter, and he thought it right she should have an additional Member. There was a great amount of interest felt in Scotland in this matter. It was spoken of throughout the whole country, and if this was the only reason, Scotland ought, in his opinion, to be more fully represented than it was. It was a question in which, no doubt, the Government took all the precautions that could be possibly taken to stop this contagious plague from disseminating among cattle throughout the country, but those means were inadequate and insufficient for the purpose. It was therefore with great satisfaction that he found they were able to meet together in that House in order to appoint a Select Committee. As hon. Members very well knew, he had a Motion on the Paper on this subject, and probably if he had persevered with that Motion, this Select Committee could not have been discussed, much less appointed; but he was willing to waive that Motion in order that this Committee should be appointed, because he knew it would have been a sort of dog-in-the-manger policy to have obstructed the formation of the Committee. He was therefore inclined to support the Committee, in the hope that if carried through it would tend to stop the cattle plague.

moved "That Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson be one other Member of the Committee."

inquired what four names the Government intended to propose in addition to those on the Paper?

asked whether they would accept the three names which he understood the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had to propose?

moved "That Mr. W. E. Forster be one other Member of the Committee."

repeated the request that the Government would declare their intentions, and to enable the noble Lord to do so, he moved the omission of the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

said, it was usual to propose one name at a time. As soon as those names proposed by the Government were accepted, it would be perfectly competent for the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to move the addition of any of the names in his Notice. But no name could be proposed without Notice.

admitted that was the usual course. But the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) had engaged to accept three other names. Was it unfair to ask him what those names were?

said, though he did not wish to offer any objection to the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, he would vote under the circumstances that the name of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) be substituted.

supported the nomination of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

said, it would be impossible for him to vote against the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, because he was eminently qualified to serve; but he could not understand why the Government would not say who were the three Irish Members they intended to propose.

explained that the hon. Member for South Norfolk had refused to serve, though the Government were exceedingly anxious that he should.

said, the hon. Member's objection was to the terms of Reference, and not to serving on the Committee if those terms were altered.

said, that the best course would be for the Irish Party to allow the 23 first-named of the Committee to be nominated, and then to divide if necessary on three additional Irish Members which it was proposed to appoint. At the same time, he denied that the present mode according to which Select Committees were chosen by the Whips on each side was satisfactory. When there was a large independent Party in the House they ought to be consulted. The Irish Members were not anxious to break the Rules of the House more than they could possibly help. [Laughter.] He meant they were not anxious to strain the Rules of the House.

said, it was well known for many years that the system on which these Committees were presented to the House was not one that was represented as absolutely perfect, but as conducive to the convenience of the House. The system might be good or it might not; but, as far as he was himself concerned, it was a very uncomfortable one. It was impossible to cast a ray of satisfaction on the path of one hon. Member without embittering and destroying the political aspirations of another. The Home Secretary was asked whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared at once to announce all these names. His right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) knew how they had been harassed about this list of names. That very fact would show that if the right hon. Gentleman rose at once and said he was ready to give the four names he would be in this difficulty—that hon. Members might have risen and said it was impossible that those names could be accepted. In conversation with his right hon. Friend and with his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon) the Amendments which had stood for days on the Paper had been discussed, and they came to the conclusion that if the House wished that three Members representing Irish constituencies should be added, those three Members should be the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French), the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman), and the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore). Those three names were included in the various Amendments on the Paper.

quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend. No one knew better than his hon. Friend and himself the difficulty of forming these Committees, and the amount of badgering they received proved to him that it was impossible to get what would be admitted to be a fair Committee, because everybody seemed ready to raise objections. No doubt there was a good deal to be said for the claim of Ireland to have some Irish Members on the Committee, and ho quite agreed that two sitting on that side and one on the other side—namely, the hon. Members for Roscommon and Clonmel (Mr. French and Mr. A. Moore) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman)—should be appointed. Their names were already on the Paper, and therefore no further Notice would be required.

said, he should vote against every name on the Committee unless their men were put on. It was all very well for the Government to ask them to agree to the first 23 names and then say that they could divide on the 24th. They would go to a division on every name.

remarked that there was certainly a desire on both sides of the House that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) should sit on the Committee.

said, that he thought the Government had gracefully conceded the point that three more Irish Members should be placed on the Committee. It was now admitted that there was a third Party in the House; and he hoped that the Government would further act gracefully by acceding to the names mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan).

said, that in a very late conversation with the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) he said that nothing on earth should induce him to serve upon the Committee. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who said that the Government had gracefully conceded the point and allowed three more names to be added to the Committee, he might say that the Government had no power to interfere with the rights of the House, and he should object to the names of the Irish Members who had been referred to.

said, he would have voted for the hon. Member for South Norfolk if it had been certain that he would serve, but it had been distinctly stated that he would not. It had been said that his objection was not to serve on the Committee, but to the terms of the Reference; but unless he withdrew his objection to the terms of the Reference he (Mr. Butt) could not vote for him in any case. He must express his extreme regret at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam), in suggesting that the name of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) should be substituted for that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), a suggestion which could only tend to widen the breach which already existed between different sections of the House.

reminded the House that the question was whether the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) should or should not sit on the Committee. The name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) might be left out of the discussion till he was proposed. He regretted the increased numbers of the Committee. The plain truth was that 27 was too many, and there would be increased difficulty attending the examination of witnesses. It was not the case that the Committees were chosen by the front benches. The right of choice was with the House, but some one must needs nominate. For himself he would be willing that his own name should be withdrawn, and that he should be allowed to offer his services as a witness instead of as a Member of the Committee. With reference to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) that Gentleman had distinctly told him that nothing would induce him to serve. But the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire was also a Gentleman who would prove a good Member of Committee, and he hoped he would be elected.

said, that he was sorry that the House appeared to be on the eve of a prolonged wrangle. The increase of the numbers of the Committee which had just been deprecated was a foregone conclusion, and had been conceded by Government. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) said that the Irish Members had met together and had selected three Members whom they desired to represent the whole body—namely, the hon. Members for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman), Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and Roscommon (Mr. French). Two of these Members had been accepted; but in the place of the hon. Member for Cavan the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) had been proposed. He confessed that he regarded this as a most unfortunate proposal, and he could hardly express the sorrow with which he had heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin). Anything which tended to increase the breach between any Party in the House and the great body of hon. Members was, in his judgment, to be much regretted. Even if it were true, which he did not allow, that they had to deal with an unreasonable person, they ought not to combat that person in an equally unreasonable way. Several times he had had to regret the manner in which it had been proposed to meet such conduct. He rose for the purpose of appealing to the reasonableness of the hon. Member for Cavan, and he would ask him to get up in his place and decline to servo upon the Committee. He knew this was a great request to make; but a mistaken prejudice which had been created must be banished by such action on the part of the hon. Member for Cavan. ["Question!"] He maintained that he was speaking strictly to the question. If the hon. Member for Cavan would decline to serve, he would be doing a very great thing for the Party of which he was a Member.

agreed that a Committee with so large a number of Members would be very heavy and unworkable. With regard to the suggestion which had been made to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) he should offer no advice. He thought that, being engaged in a trade which was intimately connected with the subject with which the Committee would have to deal, the hon. Gentleman would prove a decided acquisition to that body. Although that hon. Member had been represented as obstructing the progress of Public Business, and although he might have done so on some occasions, he did not think any person who had heard him speak in the House could recall a single occasion on which he had been as offensive to any Member of the House as the Representative of Rochester (Mr. P. W. Martin) had been that evening. A great deal had been said about the dignity of the House. Hon. Members stood up heated in argument, and, excited perhaps by the interruptions of their opponents, used language which might not be pleasant, but which was excusable because it was uttered in hot blood. The hon. Member for Rochester, however, got up in cold blood and made a directly personal attack upon another hon. Member. ["Order!"]

thought the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Question before the House.

asserted, with reference to the question as between the hon. Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, that at a late hour on the previous night the former had not withdrawn his name, and that, while objecting to the terms of the Reference, he was ready under the peculiar circumstances to act.

thought the House generally must regret that a discussion of this kind should have taken the turn of a personal debate. For his own part, he declined to go into the personal question. As for the subject actually before the House, he regretted that the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart) had not come on, because he regretted the appointment of the Committee altogether. He should vote for the appointment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).

desired to express on behalf of the agriculturists of the country their earnest wish that the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire should be retained on the Committee.

believed there could be no doubt that his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) had been repeatedly asked to serve on this Committee, and had expressed his unwillingness to do so. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that there existed in the House a strong feeling that it was desirable that his hon. Friend should take part in the deliberations of the Committee. The House had agreed that the Committee should consist of 27 Members. There were at present only 23 names on the list, and hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had indicated that they would propose three other names, thus only bringing up the number to 26, and leaving one name still to be supplied. He would therefore suggest they should nominate the hon. Member for South Norfolk as a Member of the Committee. If his hon. Friend, who was not now present, should afterwards decline to serve, and wished to be removed, that would be a matter for subsequent consideration.

said, that after the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the concession of the right hon. Gentleman only affected a portion of the case, and did not remove further objections to the constitution of the Committee.

expressed his regret that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) should have found fault with the course which he had taken in proposing the substitution of the name of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) instead of that of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He had not the slightest objection to see the latter hon. Gentleman sitting on the Committee; and he had suggested the name of the hon. Member for Clonmel because he had found it set down twice among the names proposed, while that of the hon. Member for Cavan was set down only once.

said, he hoped they might now come to a termination of this discussion in which he had been exceedingly unwilling to take part. It did no credit to either side of the House, and, he thought, did not tend to add to its dignity. The three hon. Gentlemen's names which had been suggested by the Irish Party had been unanimously elected at a very full meeting of the Party, and the name of the hon. Member for Cavan was chosen, with the others, by that meeting, which included many who did not sympathize with a great deal which the hon. Member for Cavan did. That hon. Gentleman might be right in the course he pursued, or he might be wrong. He would not stay to discuss it, but was it right to ostracize any Member of the House? If they thought the hon. Member for Cavan displayed any surplus energy, let them put him on a Committee and give him something to do. Do not make an outlaw or a martyr of him, for that would only tend to magnify him. It seemed to him that an attempt had been made to gratify petty spite in this matter. If they thought the hon. Member for Cavan had done wrong, let them arraign him before the House and censure him for it. But he appealed to the House not to reject his name because of his unpopularity.

said, he thought the hon, and learned Gentleman's notion of what constituted a martyr must be a somewhat curious one, if he was under the impression that the word was applicable to the case of an hon. Member because he was not about to be appointed to serve on a Committee. The real question before the House, however, was the appointment as a Member of the Committee of his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright). He did not understand the "ostracizing" of any hon. Member. If a Gentleman was elected by a constituency to sit in that House he was competent to serve on a Committee, and he was informed that the hon. Member for Cavan had a good deal of practical acquaintance with the subject which the proposed Committee would have to consider. That practical knowledge which the hon. Member for Cavan possessed would no doubt be of service on the Committee; and the hon. Member's name therefore might very fairly be proposed and considered as soon as the names now before the House were disposed of.

remarked that he was very sorry to have heard observations made on the occupation of the hon. Member for Cavan. It was true that the hon. Member for Cavan was in business; but he wished they had more such hon. Members, and Ireland would then be in a much better position.

rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member for Meath was in Order in alluding to the name of the hon. Member for Cavan?

was about to speak, when—

said, he could only decide one point of Order at once. The name of the hon. Member for Cavan would come on for consideration by-and-by. At present the Question before the House was, whether Mr. Wilbraham Egerton should be added to the Committee.

would not refer further to the name of the hon. Member for Cavan, but certainly the question of occupation had been introduced. ["No, no!"] The miserable question of personal conditions had been introduced by an hon. Member who ought to have known better. ["Order, order!"]

again reminded the hon. Member that the Question before the House was whether the name of Mr. Wilbraham Egerton should be added.

suggested to his hon. Friend that, after the conciliatory disposition which had been shown on both sides, they might trust to the good sense of the House and not object to the name now before them.

thought that if the Government would state that they accepted the nomination of the hon. Member for Cavan all opposition would cease.

objected to his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland giving any such undertaking at present. All the Government desired was, that the Committee should be nominated in a regular, business-like way. They had no prejudice at all in the matter, and nothing was further from their thoughts than to speak lightly of any hon. Member's occupation. They had paid the most sincere respect to all the Members of the House, and certainly it would be their very last idea to make an objection to anyone on account of his occupation; but it was a most irregular course to bring up the name of another Member when a name was submitted to the House to vote upon. The name of the hon. Member for Cavan would be duly considered by-and-by.

said, every name ought to be judged on its merits, and if the hon. Member for Cavan was guilty of any offence let him be punished. This dispute, he thought, had arisen because of a feeling in the mind of the Irish Members that the hon. Member for Cavan was, being struck at. If it were shown that that was not intended, the opposition would cease.

thought no one would object to the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Cheshire (Mr. W. Egerton). He conceded that the hon. Member for Cavan was well qualified to be a Member of the Committee. He protested against any one entertaining the feeling that any hon. Member was ostracized. It was most desirable that Ireland should be represented on the Committee, and for this special reason—that the cattle disease had been kept out of Ireland. The law appeared to have been better carried out there than in England, and it was most desirable to place experienced Members from Ireland on the Committee. If the hon. Member for Cavan had rendered himself some-what unpopular, that ought not to prevent him from being nominated. He had been proposed by Irish Members, he had their confidence, and he (Lord Eslington) hoped the House would accept the name.

protested against its being supposed that the House were bound to appoint as a Member of the Committee an hon. Member who had been selected by Members who called themselves "The Irish Members." It was an attempt to dictate to the House, which he hoped they would be slow to recognize.

The hon. Member who has just spoken may be perfectly easy in his mind. We object to the name of the hon. Member for Cheshire—that is all.

said, that one side of the House was, as the hon. Member said, dictating to the other as to the composition of the Committee. He wished to tell the Government that there was a peculiar unfairness in putting the name of the hon. Member for Clonmel before that of the hon. Member for Cavan.

wished to point out to the House that the Question before it was the name of Mr. Wilbraham Egerton. When all the names originally proposed were nominated, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) would be called upon to make his Motion, and the House could then discuss the nomination of the three Members mentioned in it.

said, he hoped that the hon. Member for Cheshire would be nominated to serve on the Committee. But in present circumstances he did not consider him so fit a man as his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan.

would again remind the hon. and gallant Member that the name of the hon. Member for Cavan would be more properly brought forward when it was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.

moved—"That the name of Mr. Biggar be substituted for that of Colonel Kingscote." He hoped the House would excuse him for trying to say a few words, not in the way of opposition to the name of Colonel Kings-cote, but to show their feeling in desiring to have Mr. Biggar on the Committee. In the early part of the evening they expressed a desire to have Mr. Biggar on the Committee, and the Government sent them a communication that they objected to that and another name, and they suggested the name of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore). The Irish Members, however, wished to have Mr. Biggar on the Committee. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that when the name of the hon. Member came forward the Government would not offer any opposition. If he gave such an assurance, he believed there would not be another word of opposition from the Irish Members. It was hardly necessary to say that he did not intend to persist in his Motion.

said, he had no objection to the name of the hon. Member for Cavan being added to the Committee; but he did not think the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was treating the hon. Member for Cavan fairly by running him against the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote).

did not feel himself committed by the resolution of a so-called Irish Representative meeting, at which the Irish names to be proposed on the Committee were agreed upon. No Irish Conservative Members had been summoned to it.

explained how the meeting was convened and composed, and stated that Irish Conservative Members were intended to be present at it. If the Government were going to avenge upon the hon. Member for Cavan any fault which he might have committed, they had better say so at once.

pointed out that the name of the hon. Member for Cavan was not before the House.

expressed a hope that the House would terminate the unseemly wrangle in which they had been engaged. If the Government would say they would not oppose the nomination of the hon. Member for Cavan the matter would be at an end.

said, that it would be impossible for the Government to give such a pledge as that asked for by the hon. Member who had just sat down.

pointed out that in order to satisfy certain English Members, the Government had already promised to propose the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) as one of the four new Members to be added to the 23 whose names stood on the Paper. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, was somewhat inconsistent when he said that Government could not agree to the name of any other Member until the 23 had been appointed. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had waited all the evening in order to vote for the three Irish Members whom the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had proposed; but as hon. Members from Ireland persisted in opposing names to which no one objected, and thus causing unnecessary delay, he should think of his own constitution rather than of the constitution of the Committee, and remain no longer.

said, he intended to propose an Amendment. The hon. Member for Clonmel, as high sheriff of his county, would not be able to attend on the Committee. There was at present no cattle plague in Ireland; but if it should break out there, the farmers of Ireland would be ruined. It was the duty of Irish Members to insist on being properly represented on the Committee, and they had met and determined on three names—the only real reason assigned for rejecting the name of the hon. Member for Cavan, who was one of the three, being the miserable prejudice that had been avowed by an hon. Member opposite.

said, the hon. Member had not been speaking to the Question at all.

said he would not propose, as he intended, the nomination of the hon. Member for Cavan.

said, the hon. Member announced at the commencement of his speech that he would move an Amendment. If he had done so his speech would have been in Order; but as he had not concluded with doing so he must inform he hon. Gentleman that his whole speech had been out of Order.

said, that he was sorry that any misunderstanding should have arisen. He therefore begged to move the substitution of Mr. Biggar's name for that of Colonel Kingscote.

seconded the Amendment. It was better that a Vote should be taken than that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath would not be pressed. He complained of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite setting an exceedingly bad example, remarking with reference to certain noises from the opposite benches in that quarter that he could conceive nothing more inconsistent in any man who felt the dignity of the House and the responsibility of a Member of Parliament than to sit silent, excepting when he sought to disturb others who were speaking. He would suggest that all the remaining names on the list should be accepted by the Irish Members, and then a vote should be taken as to the name of the hon. Member for Cavan, in respect to which he would rely on the good feeling of the House.

having been alluded to, wished to explain. When the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) asked the Government to accept his names en bloc, he (Mr. W. Martin) said it was not in the power of the Government to do that. When he said he had a personal objection to the hon. Member for Cavan, that was not exactly the idea he wished to convey to the House, although for a reason which he would give, he had individually an objection to the hon. Member serving on the Committee. Some time ago, a Bill in which he (Mr. Martin) took an interest, was unanimously read a second time and passed through Committee, and the hon. Member, although in his hearing he said he had only read that Bill a few minutes before, suddenly made it an opposed Order. That showed that if elected he might possibly take a course which would bring the whole of the important business of the Committee to a standstill. He had occasionally spoken to the hon. Member, and he had no personal objection to him whatever; but he preferred the hon. Member for Kildare.

was sorry that that Amendment had been moved, and hoped it would be withdrawn. If the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) wished to see the hon. Member for Cavan placed on the Committee, he was taking the course to render that impossible by running his name against that of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire.

pointed out, that if the House declined to substitute Mr. Biggar's name for that of Colonel Kings-cote, it would still be open to any hon. Member to propose the addition of the hon. Member for Cavan to the Committee.

wished to make a personal explanation with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. W. Martin). The fact was that he thoroughly approved of the Bill to which the hon. Member had alluded, but he wished to have a clause inserted, and that was his reason for making it an opposed Order. It was perfectly true that he had read the Bill only a few minutes before; but it was short, and he had thoroughly comprehended all the points.

said, his only objection to the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) was that unless Irish names were added to the Committee, the Irish Members would oppose every name. He appealed to the hon. Member for Meath to withdraw his Amendment.

observed that he did not blame the Government for acting as they had done, as they could not manage the Party behind them, There had been several occasions within the last week or two on which the Government had expressed their intention of taking a certain course and then left the House, whereupon their followers took a different course. Hon. Members opposite wished 23 nominations to the Committee to be accepted before the hon. Member for Cavan's name was submitted to them. That name would then be objected to. If the Government would give their assurance that they would do their best to secure a vote on the hon. Member's name without prejudice when it was reached, no doubt hon. Members from Ireland would not oppose the other names. If such a pledge were not given, Irish Members would be justified in opposing every nomination.

hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn, as it presented a false issue to the House.

said, it was clearly understood that the Amendment was made not with any view of objection to the name of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote), but with the intention of bringing on a discussion on the question whether the hon. Member fur Cavan should be appointed or not on the Committee. The hon. Member for Meath had made this Motion, not with any view of pressing it, but to put himself in Order; and therefore he suggested that the House should allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, and that the other names should be agreed to; and after that, when they came to the appointment of the four additional Members, the discussion might be taken. He thought that course would save time.

asked what corresponding advantage the Irish Members would obtain if they accepted the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

would vote for the hon. Member of Cavan when the proper time came; but he protested against the course of placing his name against that of every other Member proposed.

hoped the appointment of a Committee would be proceeded with, and that hon. Members for Ireland would not offer any further opposition. He would remind them that Scotland had a right to be represented, but Scotch Members were too modest to come forward.

complained that more Scotch Representatives had not been placed on the Committee.

said, two Members to represent Scotland was a totally inadequate number.

said, they had now been over three hours discussing this question, and it was clear that it could not be finished that night. He therefore moved that the further consideration of the Committee be adjourned until Thursday.

seconded the Motion.

begged the hon. Member not to persevere with the Motion for Adjournment. While hon. Members were talking the Cattle Plague was spreading.

also hoped the hon. Member for Meath would withdraw his Motion. He should not vote for an Adjournment, nor should he vote against the name of any other Member, believing that such a course would tend to prevent the accomplishment of the object he had in view.

moved, "That the name of Mr. Biggar be added to the Committee."

moved the Adjournment of the House, on the ground that some heat had been thrown into the proceedings of the past hour, and the Members of the Government had been divided in their support of the Amendment; and therefore he thought some time should be given to the Government to consider what names they would adopt.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had a Notice on the Paper to move the addition of two other names.

declined to make any further Motion on the subject.

thought there was no necessity for the Adjournment. The question on which the House divided was a question for the House, and not for the Government; and as the House had decided the question, he was of opinion that the subject might be there allowed to drop, and the remaining Members of the Committee appointed.

suggested that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House might be amended and altered to the adjournment of the Debate. He intimated that on the next name he would move to substitute a Scotch Member.

said, he had voted in the minority, and was sorry for the decision which the House had just arrived at. He hoped there would be an Adjournment of the Debate.

asked, having seen the Chief Secretary for Ireland go into the Lobby against his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar), what Ireland had to expect? He should divide the House on the questions of the Adjournment of the House and the Debate.

said, that this was not a Government division, and he felt it his duty to exercise his individual judgment upon the matter before them. Surely they had the liberty of deciding who, in their judgment, was the fittest Member to serve on this Committee, and he had considered the qualifications of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) to be preferable to those of the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar).

moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

said, the Government wished to add three Irish Members to the Committee.

nominated one other Member of the Committee.