asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Austria, France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal have granted or promised public money for the purpose of exploring and civilizing certain parts of Africa; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to devote any portion of the national resources to the same useful object?

in reply, said, that, as far as he understood, Her Majesty's Government had received no official information on this subject to show that either Austria, France, Germany, or Italy had granted or promised public money for the purpose of exploring and civilizing certain parts of Africa; but as regarded Portugal, he understood from Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon that last year a geographical society had been formed in that country, and had taken in hand the subject of exploration; and, further, that the Portuguese Colonial Minister had asked for a grant to organize an expedition which was to start on an early 'day. An Italian expedition was also to start for the same object; but whether it was fitted out by the Italian Government or not, he was unable to say. Her Majesty's Government had not granted or promised any sum for African exploration, but would always be ready, in other respects, as hitherto, to afford assistance to the exploration and civilization of Africa.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a sum of over £1,700 was recently paid by the Great Southern Railway Company of Ireland to the constabulary authorities for services in connection with the late strike of milesmen on their line; whether the police performed any, and, if so, what services on that occasion beyond those incidental to their duty of preserving the public peace; whether the money has been yet distributed; whether a demand has been made upon the Company by the authorities for £300 more; and, whether the constabulary authorities subsequent to the payment by the Company of the above sum of £1,700 have demanded back from the men a gratuity or payment of £3 each granted to them by the Government for their extra services on the occasion; what is the total amount of that gratuity or payment; and whether it has yet been refunded?

Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I may state that I have ascertained by inquiry of the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that the services rendered by the Constabulary during the late strike on the Great Southern Railway were only such as were proper to their office, consisting of constant patrols on the line of the Company for the protection of life and property. No charge for the services rendered could have been legally made on the Company, nor was any such charge attempted to be made; but the Directors of the Company at the close of the strike voluntarily and spontaneously offered to the Inspector General of Constabulary a certain sum of money to recoup the men who were so employed for their extra expense, and wear and tear of necessaries. The ordinary rules of the Constabulary Force would not have admitted of those men, who had been summoned from a distance, being compensated by the Treasury for expenses of this nature in so very exceptional a case, and it was decided that the offer of the Directors should be accepted. Accordingly the sum of £1,700 was paid by the Company to the Inspector General for this purpose towards the end of December, before the precise amount required could be accurately ascertained, in order that it might be included in the accounts of the Company up to the 31st of December, 1877. The sum thus forwarded was based on a rough estimate of what would probably be necessary; but, on further inquiry, it has been found that in order to carry out the wishes of the Directors a further sum will be required, and when this is known it will be notified to the Company, but by no means in the shape of a demand. The £1,700 paid has, of course, not yet been distributed. With reference to the last paragraph of the Question the facts are these—In the departmental audit of the Constabulary accounts in the Inspector General's office, it was discovered in the accounts of one county that the allowances payable only to men living out of barracks had been improperly paid to men who were accommodated therein while engaged on this duty, and that, contrary to the regulations, such payments had been passed unquestioned by the county Inspector. They were not allowed by law, and the Inspector General, as accounting officer for the Vote, was compelled to disallow them against the officer in default. In doing so, he expressly informed that officer that he could not assist him in recovering them; but it appeared from the cash accounts of that officer recently sent in that those payments had been recovered by him. The Inspector General has intimated to the county Inspector his strong disapproval of what was done; the matter is still under consideration, and it is my intention to make further inquiry into it.

Sir, I have been under the necessity of communicating to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that I should think it my duty to put several Questions to him this evening upon several important subjects. The first of those Questions is, Whether the terms of peace demanded by Russia have arrived, and are known to the Government? and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also be able to state at what hour they arrived yesterday? and also, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware that those terms were before the Porte, and were under the consideration of the Porte, at the time that the Notice which the Government gave yesterday was given? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may also be able to state, whether there is any foundation for the rumour, which I believe has within the last hour or two been spread, that preliminaries of peace or an armistice have actually been signed by the Porte? Sir, I have further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he can inform the House whether any steps have been taken, or any instructions have been given, for measures to be taken, which have not yet been communicated to Parliament? And, Sir, I have further to ask—and this Question, I must admit, is based upon nothing but popular rumour and newspaper statements; rumours and statements which, however, I think it would be mere affectation to despise— whether there is any foundation for the report that more than one influential Member of Her Majesty's Government has thought it necessary to tender his resignation? Sir, I do hope that the House will believe that in putting these Questions I am not actuated by any idle curiosity. On the contrary, I think it must be evident to the House that, if there is any foundation for such a statement, it must have a most important bearing upon the character of the measure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday announced it was his intention to propose for the consideration of the House on Monday. I have only, I think, one further Question to put to the right hon. Gentleman; but it is one as to which I shall have to ask the House to allow mo to enter upon a very short explanation. I must repeat the Question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the Table of the House any further Papers relating to their communications with foreign Powers? I thought that the object of the Question I put yesterday must have been perfectly obvious; but from the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it appeared to me that he did not altogether quite comprehend the object I had in view in putting the Question to him. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that it was a time to speak frankly. I entirely agree with him, and I shall endeavour to speak shortly, and at the same time frankly. The House and the public are, in my opinion, very much mistaken if it is not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that some of the conditions upon which the neutrality of this country depends are at this moment being imperilled, and the country believes those conditions are conditions which relate to the occupation of Constantinople and the question of the navigation of the Dardanelles. Now, Sir, I am not about to discuss those conditions, but I must say that side by side with the declaration which was made upon these points last year was the declaration that those were conditions not solely of English, but of European interest. Now, Sir, it appears to me that what the House has a right to know before the Government commits us to a course which may possibly—although I hope not—lead us to go to war, is what are the relations of the Government with the other Powers of Europe, in regard especially to those points upon which our conditional neutrality depends. The House has a right to be told whether the action which the Government proposes to take is taken with the knowledge of and with the assent of the other Powers; and if it is not so taken, the House has a right, in my opinion, to know how it has come to pass that those conditions which last year were asserted to be not questions of English interest only, but of European interest, have come to be entrusted solely to British guardianship. Sir, the necessity for the production of Papers which will throw some light upon those points is, of course, greatly increased if there is any truth in the rumours to which I have before alluded. I could conceive circumstances under which the Government might come down to the House and make an appeal to Parliament, and state that communications had passed between themselves and the other Powers of Europe, but which it was not in their power at present to submit to Parliament: and they might say that they trusted that Parliament, if it had any confidence in the Government at all, would believe that they would not make such an appeal as they were about to make without sufficient necessity and without the communications being of such a character that it would not be for the benefit of the country that they should be divulged. But the case would be very greatly altered if there is any foundation for those rumours which I have referred to. In that case, it would appear that some of their own Members —men not ignorant, as we are, of what is going on, but possessing the same knowledge as the Government themselves—consider that the action contemplated by the Government was not necessary. It is incumbent, therefore, I think, upon the Government to lay upon the Table of the House without delay such information as would enable the House to judge what is the condition of their relations with foreign Powers, and whether the action which they propose now to take is to be an isolated action, and if it is to be an isolated action, what are the grounds which have made isolated action on our part necessary. It has been pointed out to me that the Supplementary Estimate has not yet been laid upon the Table. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state when it will be in the possession of hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker, the noble Lord was good enough to make a communication to me this afternoon of his intention to put Questions of the character he has now addressed to me, and I will endeavour, so far as I can, to answer those Questions; but the noble Lord and the House must bear in mind that upon some of those points it is difficult, or indeed impossible, for me to speak fully and to answer every Question that has been put to me, because many of the points that have been raised by the noble Lord relate to matters of which we are not at liberty to speak fully without the assent of other Governments. Now, with regard to the first Question —or group of Questions, if I may so describe it—put by the noble Lord, I think they wore these—He wished to know, whether the terms submitted by Russia, or offered by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries, have arrived in this country, and have been made known to Her Majesty's Government? He further goes on—assuming the Answer to the Question in a manner which I am rather surprised at—he goes on to ask at what time those conditions arrived yesterday, and whether the Government were aware of them, and were aware that they were under the consideration of the Turkish Plenipotentiaries at the time when I gave the Notice I did?

That is not quite correct. I asked whether terms of peace were not at that time under the consideration of the Turkish Government.

I beg pardon. I understood your Question to be, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware that those terms were under the consideration of the Porte at the time that I made the announcement in this House of the Government's intention to propose a Vote?

The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. What I asked him was whether the Government were aware that terms of peace were under the consideration of the Porte at the time he made his statement.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but of course I do not pretend to quote the language in which the noble Lord's Questions were couched, as he has not given me in handwriting the terms of them. However, I think with regard to one or two of these Questions I hardly ought to have been asked them. With regard to the circumstances under which I spoke, I think the House would hardly suppose that I should have been guilty, or that Her Majesty's Government would have been guilty of such a suppression, and even more than a suppression, of the truth as would have been involved in coming forward and giving the Notice which we did give, and explaining it as I subsequently did explain it, and yet making no allusion to such a remarkable fact, as that we were well aware that terms of peace had been communicated by the Russian Government to the Porte and were under consideration by the Porte. Sir, the Government had no knowledge that anything of the kind had occurred. And now with reference to the Questions the noble Lord put, I am really unable even now to answer positively the Question whether the terms of peace have arrived and are known to the Government. Certainly last night nothing of that sort had occurred. Last night, up to the time the House had met, we had not had communicated to us the terms, and we were not in a condition to say what were the terms, or even whether terms had been communicated to Turkey. Nay, further, we are not even now in the position of saying that those terms have been communicated to us. The Russian Ambassador, I believe, had previous to the time when I came down to the House been in communication with my noble Friend Lord Derby, and we were aware that no communication of the terms had been made. Well, in the course of yesterday evening certain communications of a private, and not of an authentic or formal character, were made to us on the subject of those terms. We received them by communications from abroad, and those communications certainly led to the impression that matters had gone further than we had been informed of before. But those communications, as I have said, were not of an authentic character; and they have been supplemented by others which show that they were not altogether quite accurate, and that they were not at that time fully or tho- roughly known. This morning my noble noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Derby) has received a communication from the Russian Ambassador, and the heads of certain bases have been communicated to Lord Derby; but whether we are in a position to make any communication with regard to them I am not able at this moment to say. They wore privately given, and it rests, therefore, with the Russian Ambassador to say whether we are to make any use of his communication. With respect to the next Question of the noble Lord—namely, whether we are aware that an armistice has been actually concluded, or preliminaries of peace agreed to by the Porte, I have to say that we are not aware of anything of the sort. That is the situation of affairs, so far as I am 'able to state them. The next Question put by the noble Lord was, whether any instructions have been given by Her Majesty's Government for steps to be taken which have not yet been communicated to Parliament. Well, I suppose I can divine to what particular kind of instructions the noble Lord refers. I presume it is to the movement of the Fleet—[The Marquess of HARTINGTON: Hear, hoar!]—which has been, I perceive, a matter of general comment. The case is this—On Wednesday evening we decided that orders should be sent to the Fleet to proceed to the Dardanelles to keep open the water-way and to protect British life and property in the event of tumults at Constantinople. But, Sir, in consequence of the communications to which I have referred— those private communications which we received late last night, a further telegram was despatched to the Fleet, ordering the Fleet, if they were at the mouth of the Dardanelles, where they had been directed to call for orders, to wait until they received further instructions. That is the position of affairs at the present moment. The noble Lord has put a Question to me with regard to other rumours which are afloat and as to the position of Members of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord has experience in those matters, and he will bear me out in saying, or will not be surprised at my saying, that I am not authorized to make any communication on that subject. With respect to the Question of the noble Lord as to the production of Papers, I said last night that we would see whether there were any more Papers which could properly be presented. But the noble Lord now supplements that Question by indicating the kind of Papers which he thinks the House ought to be supplied with. With regard to those Papers, I may say that we have, of course, had many communications with foreign Powers of a confidential character, and it would be impossible, without the consent of other Powers, to publish Papers of that description. The noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who sit near him must be perfectly well aware how difficult it is to carry on diplomatic correspondence if you are liable at all times to be called upon to produce everything. So far as Her Majesty's Government, however, are concerned, there is not a line that they have written which they would have the slightest objection to produce. But the matter is not in our hands alone, and it would not be right to present anything without communicating with foreign Powers. The noble Lord asked one other Question—namely, as to the Supplementary Estimate. The actual details of the Estimate are at the present moment being drawn up by those who are conversant with the Departments concerned; but I may state to the House generally that the Estimate itself will be laid on the Table this evening, together with particulars, and it may be convenient that I should say at once that the amount which will be asked for is £6,000,000.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put another Question which arises out of his statement. I understood him to say that orders had been given to the Fleet—which have now been, at all events, suspended—to enter the Dardanelles. I am under the impression that under the Treaty that step would be an infraction of the Treaty, unless it were taken with the consent of the Porte; and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is able to state that the consent of the Porte was obtained before that order was given? Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word in explanation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I conveyed some imputation upon him for want of candour in keeping back information when he made his announcement yesterday. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I had no such intention. A statement, however, has been published in all the Papers to-day, apparently on good authority, that yesterday afternoon the terms of peace, having been remitted by the Turkish Plenipotentiaries to Constantinople, were under the consideration of the Porte. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman to deny now the accuracy of that statement; and if it was the fact, surely it was not unnatural to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman might yesterday afternoon have been informed of it through our Ambassador at Constantinople? Neither did I suppose that he would be chargeable with keeping back anything which it was essential for the House to know when he did not make that communication yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, is aware now that terms are or have been under the consideration of the Porte; but I do not understand him to have said it makes any difference in the line of policy which Her Majesty's Government have announced their intention to take on Monday next.

As to the last observation of the noble Lord, it has certainly made no difference in the line of policy which Her Majesty's Government feel it their duty to take in proposing the Supplementary Vote, but it did make a difference in regard to moving the Fleet. But I think it better to refrain from saying more on that point until I have an opportunity on Monday of explaining the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to give their Notice for Monday next. With reference to the point which the noble Lord praised as to the bearing of Treaty obligations on the admission of the Fleet to the Dardanelles, of course it is one which has not escaped the observation of Her Majesty's Government. But I think it will be more convenient if I abstain at present from answering the Question that he put until I have an opportunity of making my statement on Monday. I would repeat again that I had not the information referred to at the time I made the statement yesterday, and that I should myself have considered it a want of candour, especially as the Question was asked, if I had refrained from mentioning it.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put a Question to him in order to elucidate his previous Answer. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he was about to place on the Table a Supplementary Estimate, and he has now stated that it would amount to £6,000,000. Now, a Supplementary Estimate must be an Estimate which is supplementary to some other Estimate; and what I have to ask is, whether this is an Estimate for the current year, 1877–8, or is to be supplementary to Estimates for next year which are not yet before us? On inquiry of the Clerk at the Table I find that there are no Estimates either for this or for the next year on the Table. Is the Estimate which is about to be presented one for the current year?

It is a Supplementary Estimate in the proper sense for the Naval and Military Services of the year 1877–8— that is to say, it is not additional to anything which has not been presented, but an addition to the Votes which were passed in the last Session of Parliament in the Appropriation Act for the Naval and Military Services of the country. A further sum is required for those Services, and the details will be mentioned in the Estimates.

I must apologize to the House, but my only object is to clear up the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, in one word, that before the 31st of March next the Government propose to spend £6,000,000?

It is not a question of whether it will require to be spent or not. It is a question of what the Government ask to have placed at their disposal for the purposes of the Naval and Military expenses of the country. This will be the heading—" For a sum required beyond the ordinary grants by Parliament towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred in immediately increasing the Naval and Military Services in the present crisis of the war between Russia and Turkey, including the cost of a further addition to the number of Land Forces during the year ending the 31st March, 1878." I think we had better defer the further discussion of the matter.

With the permission of the House, I desire to make a correction of an Answer I gave a few evenings ago to a Question put to me by one of the hon. Members for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur) relating to ecclesiastical grants in Ceylon. I find I am reported, and quite correctly, to have said that "Lord Carnarvon has communicated personally with Sir William Gregory on this as on other subjects connected with Ceylon." I have since received a letter from Sir William Gregory, from which it appears that my noble Friend was mistaken in his impression that this was among the subjects upon which they had privately conversed. I mention this, as Sir William Gregory is anxious I should do so. The decision, however, arrived at by Her Majesty's Government is as originally stated by me—namely, to continue the existing grants.

in rising to call attention to the Taxation of India, and to the injustice of placing new burdens on the food of the poor while the rich are not taxed in due proportion; and to move—

"That the total taxation on salt in India being already excessive should not he increased, and especially a very large additional burden on an article so essential to life and health should not be placed on the populations of Madras and Bombay at a time "when they are enfeebled and emaciated by a very prolonged and severe famine,"

said, he feared that the question might seem tame in these times, but it intimately concerned the welfare of 180,000,000 of the poorest of our fellow subjects, and was of special consequence at a time when, India and England being partners, both countries might be plunged into a greatly increased expenditure. In such an event, the mode of taxation in India would be of the utmost importance; we had heard the measures which were proposed, and he trusted that this matter, so urgent from an Indian point of view, would command the attention of the House. The principal aim and object of his Motion was that in his judgment—and he trusted it would appear, also, in the judgment of the House—it was unfair and inexpedient that the additional taxation which it had been found necessary to impose on the Indian people, should be imposed on the poor and not on the rich; and more especially so since it would be imposed in a very objectionable form of taxation on the food of the poorer classes. Upon that point he might claim the sympathy of those hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who represented the financial policy inaugurated by the late Sir Robert Peel and adopted by his successors, the effect of that policy being to remove the taxes on food, and substitute a fair, proportionate tax on the income of the rich. That was the policy at present pursued in England, but not in India, where the example of a few oligarchical colonies had been copied. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had often denounced the Government of the East India Company; but those censures came rather ill from him, as, whatever might have been the failings of the Company, it had, at any rate, protected the poor, and had done its best for the masses of the people. Undoubtedly the present Financial Minister of India (Sir John Strachey), was an able man, and nothing could be more true than his retrospect of the circumstances which had given rise to the present necessity; but when he dealt with the prospects of the future, he took the position rather of an advocate than of a statesman, so that the Indian journals gave him credit for abandoning his own views in deference to public opinion. The Budget was, he believed, in this respect, rather Lord Lytton's than Sir John Strachey's, especially with reference to the salt duty. Sir John Strachey had unfortunately allowed himself to give a viewy colouring to the future which was possible enough in a small Assembly, though not possible in a place where statements were narrowly criticized. He was compelled to agree with the Government of India that some serious addition to the taxation of that country was unfortunately necessary. Perhaps retrenchment might effect a saving; but, as a matter of fact, the authorities both of India and of England had tried to make reductions without much success. As regarded the military charges, that, he believed, was eminently the case, and the best way to guard against the increase of those charges was to abstain from a mischievous activity on the North-western frontier. Again, so far as the additional taxation which it was proposed to impose on India, there was, he thought, in that portion of the Budget extreme vagueness of statement, as well as a considerable inadequacy in the measures proposed. It was stated that a very heavy debt had been incurred on account of the Famine, and that it was deemed necessary to levy additional taxation to meet those recurring disasters. Out of the £1,500,000 a-year to be provided, only £700,000 per annum would be available from the new taxation proposed to be raised, and that was held out as available for material improvements rather than for paying the costs of the famine. It was not a large sum, and it was inadequate to meet the requirements of the case. Now, the famine tax which it was proposed to impose on land had his approval; while as to the tax on traders and artizans, he was in favour of the principle on which the Government had determined to proceed, provided the tax were justly and equally imposed upon all classes. He was ready to admit that up to the limit of £1,000 a-year, which would be represented by a £20 tax, the charge was a fair one; but his complaint was not of the mode of its imposition as a substitute for a regular income tax on the middle classes; but that, contrary to the practice in the case of such a tax, it was to be imposed on the very humblest and poorest artizans down apparently to men earning £5 a-year, while the very rich were left practically untaxed. Companies making £100,000 a-year of profit were to be taxed only on £1,000 a-year, and the same rule applied to the rich merchants and millionaires of India. The Government of India were afraid of touching these great Companies and rich men, because of the unpopularity it would cause, and because of the complaints that would appear in the newspapers. In agreeing to increase the salt tax, Lord Lytton, he was grieved and ashamed to say, had yielded to a selfish demand on the part of the rich for exemption from taxation; and he could not help expressing his opinion that it was a base and unjust thing for the Government of India to seek popularity on such terms. The net increase of the salt tax was only £300,000. If the Government extended the principle of the licence tax to the very rich, and taxed the rich for their servants, elephants, and horses, they would raise a much larger sum than they gained by this iniquitous tax on the food of the poor. He thought there should be a limit to the constant increase of this tax. The Government was getting dangerously near the point at which the camel's back would be broken; and it was desirable that a little of the burden imposed by this tax should be removed and laid upon different shoulders. By no man had that opinion been more strongly held than by the late Lord Mayo, assisted by the present Finance Minister, Sir John Strachey. It had also been held by Lord Lawrence, and Lord Hobart, and many others, and last year the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) had stated that the Secretary of State for India was of opinion that some means should be taken for reducing the tax. The statistics of the operation of the tax showed one or two very remarkable results. The consumers of rice and ragi in the South of India used a much larger proportion of salt than the population of the wheat-consuming country in the North of India. Among the latter the consumption was only 6lb. a-head; whereas in the South of India it amounted to 15lb. or 16lb. a-head. The tax would thus press most heavily on the population which was compelled to use the poorest class of grain, and a population impoverished, too, by the late Famine. It was a striking fact that, during the Famine, when food was scarce or of an inferior quality, the consumption of salt was greater than when it was plentiful and good, as the people used it as a kind of stimulant. The proposal to raise the salt tax 40 per cent in Madras and Bombay, and reduce it only 4 per cent in Bengal, would result in a very considerable increase as a whole. Equalization was no reason for raising the whole tax. He regretted that Sir John Strachey bad attempted to justify the action which had been taken in regard to the imposition of the salt tax in the way be bad. The proposal was said to be of a temporary character, and stress was laid on the benefit that would result from its decrease in future years; but that was a fallacy, for the proposed increase must result in a substantial increase of the tax. The increase of 40 per cent in Madras and Bombay was unjustifiable, for already the population of these Provinces paid a higher rate of taxation per head in the shape of salt duties than any other part of India. The inhabitants of Madras and Bombay already paid £2,000,000 net of the salt tax of India. They contained less than one-third of the population of the country, but they paid more than one-third of the salt tax, and those Presidencies had naturally protested against any increase of the tax. This increased tax was unjust and inexpedient. It was unjust, because the rich in India were not taxed in due proportion, whilst it was a very heavy tax on the poor. The salt tax was, in reality, a food tax in its worst form; and whilst the poor in India were heavily taxed, the rich in that country, since the abolition of the income tax, were the most lightly taxed people on the face of the earth. Deducting the land tax, and opium, and other similar sources of income, the real taxation of India amounted to some £12,000,000, one-half of which was derived, from salt, leaving only £6,000,000 to be paid by the country generally, and by far the greater part of that sum was paid by the poor. If additional taxation was to be imposed on India, it was only right and proper that a fair share of it should be imposed on the rich. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had moved a very ingenious Amendment against a Budget which was not in possession of the House; but it was impossible for the House, unless it was in possession of the full scope and bearing of Sir John Strachey's scheme, to understand why in one portion of India he had been obliged to increase the tax on a particular commodity. The hon. Member had jumped to the conclusion that Sir John Strachey had preferred to put all taxation on the poor and to abolish the taxes on the rich; but be could not understand bow anyone who was in full possession of the scheme could make such a statement. The statement of Sir John Strachey only reached this country a few days back. He (Lord George Hamilton) might say, without exaggeration, that Sir John Strachey had made a most comprehensive, most able, and statesmanlike exposition of the finances of India. It was true that he proposed additional taxation, but he coupled it with a large number of important administrative and financial reforms. Lord Mayo bad not only established an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure, but had bequeathed a considerable surplus to his successor. Lord Northbrook bad enlarged the surplus to such an extent that be thought it right to abolish the income tax. He thought the abolition of that tax was a matter to be regretted; but it had been abolished under peculiar circumstances, and it was one thing to abolish a tax and another to re-impose it. Prom the period at which the income tax was abolished up to the present time, there had been long-continued famines in one part of India or another, which bad entailed an expenditure of £16,000,000, adding £360,000 to the permanent expenditure of that country. The fall in the value of silver had imposed another charge, which could not be estimated at less than £1,500,000. There had also been an increased expenditure for military organization. Taking these amounts altogether, India had during the last four or five years to meet additional charges amounting to £3,000,000, and that had eaten up the whole of the surplus. Sir John Strachey had pointed out how they would obtain a surplus of £500,000, which was insisted upon by the Secretary of State, and also an insurance fund of £1,500,000 per annum to provide against famine. He proposed to do this by a series of wise administrative changes, and giving the Local Government greater control over the Civil Service. He in this way saved in this year and the next £400,000. That would leave £1,100,000 to be provided for, and he proposed to raise by land cess £450,000, and by licence taxes £650,000; Madras and Bombay being exempted from the land cess. He further proposed to hand over to the Local Government additional means to construct irrigation works and railways. He proposed to lay the foundation of a great fiscal and financial reform—namely, an equalization of the salt duty in India. The salt duty of India was said to be crushing; but where? Not in Madras and Bombay, but in Bengal. At the present moment the rate in Bengal was 52 annas per maund. The rate in the North-west and other parts of India was 48 annas. In Bombay and Madras it was 29 annas. It was the duty of the Government to equalize, not by levelling up, but by levelling down. But it was impossible to level down to the level of Bombay and Madras without sacrificing a very large part of the revenue. Were we, then, to sit still and never attempt to equalize the duties of India? There was one course that might be adopted— namely, that of raising, to a certain extent, the duty in Madras and Bombay and to level the duty in Bengal down to that which was proposed in Madras and Bombay. That was what Sir John Strachey proposed. He proposed to exempt Bombay and Madras from the land tax. It would be reversing the principle of local rule and responsibility to lay down a rule that when a locality suffered a calamity all others were to bear the taxation necessary for its relief; yet that would be the result of Sir John Strachey's proposals if he had not put additional taxation upon Madras and Bombay. He objected to put it in the shape of a land cess, because the land revenue was high, and impoverished people would have difficulty in paying a land cess, which would become payable at certain stated intervals. Therefore he proposed to bring the salt duty in Madras and Bombay to the level which he proposed for the whole of India—namely, 2 rupees 8 annas. An increase of 12 annas was, no doubt, a considerable one; but the raised duty would still be below the present rate in Bengal, which was to be reduced by 2 annas, while that of the North-west Provinces and elsewhere would be reduced by 4 annas. These changes were not made capriciously simply to increase taxation, but they were made to accomplish reforms and equalization, and to facilitate the abolition of the inner Customs' line of 2,000 miles, which reflected little credit on our administration. It would not be possible to carry out these reforms with a lower duty on salt. Negotiations were being carried on with the Native Princes on the other side of the line, and when these were completed there would be a uniform duty on salt throughout India. All other forms of taxation had been considered, and preference given to the increase of the salt duties, which amounted to only 2d. a-head, and would not be payable all at one time; while the change embodied the germ of a great fiscal reform and furnished the means by which Madras and Bombay would contribute their fair share towards a famine insurance fund. If the Amendment should be accepted the whole equilibrium of the Budget would be destroyed, and the most important of the reforms proposed would be indefinitely postponed. Notwithstanding all the criticism indulged in, no alternative was offered; yet it was proposed that the House should incur the serious responsibility of interfering with the functions of the Indian Government, which after mature deliberation had adopted a form of taxation preferred by the people, of whom 147,000,000 were now paying a tax higher than that proposed, which would be an advance to 45,000,000. He had always taken a sanguine view of the salt tax, and believed that reduction of the tax would be followed by increase of consumption. If that anticipation were realized, the Finance Minister would be able to reduce the rate for all India to the present rate for Madras and Bombay. Sir John Strachey had sketched reforms which would be of great utility, and he hoped the House would not, on a plausible Motion directed to the weakest part of the Budget, postpone indefinitely reforms which would confer great benefits on the people of India.

The subject upon which we are asked to pronounce an opinion by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy is one of no ordinary importance. I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that we ought to discuss the Budget with moderation, for there is no doubt that Sir John Strachey, in his recent able speech on Indian finance, has proved the need of increased taxation with the view of forming a famine insurance fund. That is to amount to £1,500,000, and he derives that sum by taxes on land and licences on trade. In addition to this sum, however, he proposes to raise £500,000 as a surplus on revenue in ordinary years. This £500,000 is to be obtained by raising the tax on salt in Madras and Bombay about 40 per cent on its present amount. He takes credit that while he thus largely augments the tax on these Presidencies, containing 47,000,000 of people, he actually reduces the tax in Bengal and Northern India, containing 137,000,000 of people. This is a taking statement, but as my hon. Friend shows, it in reality means that a heavy tax is made more heavy in Madras and Bombay, by at least 10d. per family, while it is lightened in other districts by about 3d. A salt tax is not peculiar to India. It is an ancient form of tax, established by the Romans, and has existed in almost every land. But since science showed how essential salt is as a necessary of life, the tax has been growing into disfavour, and when it was found to cramp the growth of manufacture, England long ago abandoned it as a source of revenue. Sir John Strachey adduces France as an example of a country which has increased the salt tax in recent years. France may be used as a warning, but scarcely as an example for imitation, as the history of her salt tax has always been lamentable. Its oppressiveness did more than any other single cause to bring on the Great Revolution, and its incidence in modern times has prevented the growth of manufactures in France. One strong objection to a salt tax is that it forms a poll tax of the worst description. The old poll tax did discriminate persons according to their ability to pay, but a salt tax presses on every man, woman, and child in the same way. The beggar must pay just as much of it as the Prince or rich trader; for salt is as necessary to human existence as air or water. It is more oppressive than ordinary taxes on food. A tax might be levied on every cultivated food, and still the poor man, unable to pay it, might live on herbs, or slugs, or caterpillars; but there are three things he must have—air, water, and salt— and in India we tax heavily one of these three essentials of life. The blood cannot be formed without salt, which indeed forms more than 50 per cent of its incombustible ingredients. All the animal juices likewise contain it. Hence every human being must consume a definite quantity each year, so that a salt tax becomes a universal poll tax. And it is upon this absolute essential to life that there is to be an increase of 40 per cent of tax levied from the inhabitants of Bombay and Madras. The famine in these districts has scarcely passed away, and upon their weakened populations this increased tax is to be levied. A tax on salt is especially heavy on a population like that of India, which chiefly lives on starchy food. Less salt is necessary with an animal diet than with one which has for its staple such food as rice or potatoes. We recollect how much salt the Irish used with their food before the potato famine, and the same requirement is felt by the rice-feeding people of India. If the supply of salt be stinted in such conditions, the health of the population suffers materially. In the districts of France, which purchased immunity from the Grande Gabelle, the consumption of salt was 181b per head. But in the, taxed districts it was slightly over 9lb This experience has also occurred in India. Formerly the consumption in India is said to have been 15 to 161b per head; in Bengal it is now 10 to 111b. In Bombay, under the discontent of a severe law, it sank down a few years ago to the minimum of 9–71b. Below that even the new tax can scarcely depress it. But diminished consumption means diminished health of the people, so that the expected surplus of £500,000 may soon vanish in the heavy charges which result from a decreased productive power of a population. I would point to another fact, which shows that no worse means could be found for increasing revenue than an augmentation of the salt tax. Salt is one of the most important materials of manufacturing industry. The products coming from it are essential for the bleaching of cotton goods, for the manufacture of soap, of glass, of earthenware, and many other industries. If any Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to re-impose so low a duty as 5s. per ton on salt in England, he would produce such agitation among the leading industries of this country that he could not hold his office for three weeks. The new equalized duty in India is not 5s. but 140s. per ton. How can India be expected to gain any industrial or commercial prosperity while she is burdened by such a tax? Even the curing of food cannot be properly carried on in India; and I observe in the last Report on the material condition of India that complaints are made of the Madras people eating imperfectly cured fish in order to save salt, and a timid proposal is made that a few yards in Madras might be opened for curing fish with salt supplied by the Government at a cheap rate. Sir John Strachey refers us to France, and I would remind the House that France liberates her salt for curing food, for the purposes of agriculture, and for the feeding of cattle. But India is very timid in all these matters. I see that the Bengal Government allows salt to be imported into Calcutta for earthenware, and this is a step in the right direction. But manufactures in India are of less importance than formerly. Where are now the exports which once wore so characteristic of Bengal? In the last Report on India only three-quarters of a page is given to the whole Subject of manufacture. If the old manufactures of India ceased to be in demand in the markets of Europe, surely it was the duty of the Indian Government to stimulate the growth of fresh industries. But this is impossible with a heavy salt tax, producing one-sixth or seventh of the whole revenue. The cotton growth in India might be made into saleable goods, were it not for the enormous tax on the salt, which is required to produce the soda, the soap, and the chlorine to bleach it. India has ample materials for glass and earthenware, but the salt tax again strangles these industries. It is quite true that the larger subject of the tax of £6,000,000 upon salt is scarcely raised upon the presentissue of increasing it by £500,000. But the impolicy of the tax forces itself upon our attention when it is again used as a means of augmenting the revenue. The whole sum is a small one, and might surely have been provided from a less objectionable source. Considerably more than that amount has been saved since the time of Lord Mayo by improvements in provincial administration. Surely economy in other directions might have prevented the imposition of £500,000 on the salt consumed by famine-stricken populations. We have now the opportunity of expressing our disapproval of this proceeding, and such an expression of opinion may in the future have an effect in mitigating the severity of a tax which now diminishes the free use of this necessary of life, and which stunts the growth of manufactures in India.

suggested that hon. Members were entering into discussion of these matters rather in the dark, seeing that the Budget of Sir John Strachey was not yet officially before the House. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had used very hard words against the salt tax; but this was not the only tax in India against which hard words had been uttered. The opium tax had also come in for its share of reprobation; but if those taxes were reduced or done away with, he feared the finances of India would not long be in even so satisfactory a position as they were in now. This was an exceptional time in India; the finances of that country had been stretched to a great degree. Sir John Strachey had thought it advisable to raise additional taxation, and the question was, how that additional taxation should be raised—whether by again imposing an income tax, by a universal licence tax, or by enhancing the duties on Customs. This salt tax was a portion of a great scheme. No doubt it did affect a large portion of the people of India; but in such an emergency as the present, it was the duty of everyone, high and low, to assist Her Majesty's Government in extricating the finances of India from their present state. It was the duty of everyone, whether in India or in this country, to contribute something towards the maintenance of the State. It, therefore, seemed to him right to enhance, to a certain extent, the duty on salt. It should, however, be remembered that the tax would be decreased with reference to the majority and enhanced only on the minority. As to the rich not being taxed, it should be remembered that during the last few years local taxation in India had increased to an enormous extent, and that these local taxes hardly touched the poorer classes in the different Local Governments, but fell almost exclusively on the rich. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no!] It was said that Lord Lytton feared the Press; but if that was so he was the first Viceroy of India that ever did. He could not help thinking that Sir John Strachey had exercised a wise discretion in proposing this additional small burden on what might be called the necessities of the poorer classes; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not, in the absence of Sir John Strachey's Budget or official information, think this the proper time to press his Motion.

after pointing out that Sir John Strachey had been a most zealous advocate of various schemes for increasing the supply of salt, and referring to a speech which, when travelling in India, he had heard Sir John Strachey deliver at Sambhar, regretted that this moment had been chosen for raising the salt question, and said that while agreeing with all that had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as to the importance of salt to the Natives in India and to manufactures, he felt sure that the Budget of Sir John Strachey had been absolutely dictated by circumstances. There was a very large deficit to fill, and how was it to be filled? His hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy had shown that it could not be filled merely by a diminution of expenditure; and with that he himself entirely agreed, very little remaining to be done in that way. Well, then, was the income tax to be revived? His hon. Friend did not say in so many words that it ought; but his whole speech pointed in that direction. He himself had never hesitated to declare his opinion in favour of a light income tax as a permanent source of revenue in India; but, surely, this would have been a particularly unlucky moment to have chosen for renewing the income tax. No one would suggest that it should be imposed merely upon the rich Natives. They could imagine what an outcry would be raised if that had been proposed; nor was it a time to impose it on the European population, which had lately suffered greatly from the rates of exchange. Were we, then, to have a tobacco tax? He did not think his hon. Friend would be prepared to propose such a tax at a sufficiently high rate to fill this deficit. There were other taxes to be proposed, but they were considered one by one by Sir John Strachey and rightly put aside. Were we to fall back on an increase on the Customs duties? We had lately listened to denunciations of Customs duties upon cotton, with which he (Mr. Grant Duff) entirely sympathized, and were Sir John Strachey to propose an increase, he would be likely to hear a good deal against it. Nothing could be done in the circumstances, he thought, but by this slight addition to the salt tax and the other taxes proposed, to which he did not understand his hon. Friend to object. Although by this Budget the price of salt would be considerably augmented to a portion of the people, it would be slightly diminished to a much larger number; and he conceived that the measure, as a whole, was intended to arrive at that equalization of the salt tax, which was one of the things that every person who had seriously considered Indian finance desired to arrive at as soon as possible. He conscientiously believed that both Sir John Strachey and Lord Lytton, in all their dealings in this matter, did what they believed was best for India, and were not in any way actuated by fear of Press attacks. He had the pleasure of knowing personally both of those gentlemen, and he was sure that they were not men who would be turned away from any course which they thought right and just by the clamour of the Indian or any other Press. With regard to the conduct of Lord Lytton, he had come to a conclusion very different to that which his hon. Friend had formed. He had read State Papers his Lordship had written; he had narrowly observed his conduct; and had been struck—he might almost say surprised, considering that his previous training had been diplomatic and literary—at the great amount of administrative ability exhibited therein.

asked the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) to apply his intelligence and influence to some measure for obtaining additional revenue from a new source, and that new source he might find in a field already open to him—namely, in encouraging the cultivation of waste land, of which there were some 20,000,000 acres in the Madras Presidency. The noble Lord had forgotten that while the consumption of salt in Bengal was only 101b per head, in Madras it was 181b her head, for the simple reason that the food used in the two Presidencies differed so greatly. The surplus revenue of the Madras Presidency was at least £3,000,000, which was used for constructing railroads and other public works in different parts of India. He was of opinion that we had in every way insulted the Madras Presidency, which had always been loyal to this country. We had lowered the Army, taxed the people, and done all kinds of things that were wrong. At one time even the very dancing girls were taxed. With regard to the famine, he hoped the Secretary of State would take into consideration the question of taxing the Madras people for a famine which was owing to the neglect of the Government of India, for the money uselessly spent at Madras might have saved the people from such a visitation, if it had been expended carefully on proper means of providing an abundant supply of water. As to salt, nothing was more important to the health of the people of India than salt supplied at a cheap price.

although he could not quite agree in all the strong remarks which had been made against Sir John Strachey's proposals with respect to the salt tax, nevertheless regretted that gentleman had not sought to provide in some other way the £500,000 which he proposed to obtain by an increase of that tax. He could not understand why, when he had an opportunity of levying the amount he required by an Excise duty on cotton goods manufactured in India, that opportunity had not been used. That was no new idea. Lord Northbrook had suggested that if it was impossible to take off the import duty on Lancashire cotton goods sent to India, it might become expedient to impose an Excise duty on similar goods manufac- tured in India. Now, he did not see much present chance of the repeal of the 5 per cent duty on English cotton goods imported into India, which yielded £700,000 or £800,000 per annum; and, therefore, they might fairly raise an Excise duty on similar goods manufactured in India, where the millowners not only increased the number of their mills every year, but exported their goods to other places in competition with the manufacturers of this country.

proceeded to move the second reading of the Bill, which, he said, had been so many times before the House that it was unnecessary for him to enter into any lengthened explanation of its provisions. The Bill was drawn entirely within the lines of the Act of 1870, and since its first introduction the principles which it contained had been admitted in more than one measure. The custom of tenant-right was one of very old standing. For two centuries and a-half the Ulster tenant-right had been existent in the North of Ireland, and its extension under the Act of 1870, though denounced at first as spoliation of the landlords, had been productive of the most satisfactory results. The tenants were able to lay out their capital without the fear of its being lost. The effect of that had been to increase rents, improve the value of land, and promote the welfare and happiness of the tenantry. He desired to extend to the whole of Ireland the security possessed by the tenant farmers of the North; and, having explained the sections of his Bill fully on previous occasions, he would not detain the House further, but would merely move that the Bill be read a second time.

expressed himself at a loss to know how the success of the Bill of 1870 could furnish an argument in favour of the present Bill, the prin- ciple of which was altogether different. So far from proceeding on the principle that the Ulster tenant-right custom was to be admitted in cases where it was proved to exist, the Bill unsettled all that had been done by the Act of 1870. It proceeded upon the principle that it should be assumed, not that the general Ulster custom existed, but that the particular right defined in the Bill existed, unless the landlord could establish to the contrary. The Bill would establish an arbitrary and novel custom, altogether opposed to the interest of the landlord. It would tie the hands of the landlord; for while the existence of the custom was to be presumed, he would be wholly debarred from disproving the presumption.

said, another objection to the Bill was that it would enable a tenant, if he were about to be ejected or otherwise disturbed in his possession, or if he was desirous of quitting his holding, to sell his so-called right; and thus the landlord would have thrust upon him tenants not of his own choosing and whom he might consider very undesirable. It was true that the tenant to whom the holding was sold must be one to whom the landlord could not reasonably object; but why was he to be placed in a position not only of objecting to a tenant, but of supporting his objection as a reasonable one before some tribunal? It was true that in different parts of England assignments of leases might be freely made, but in most cases of agricultural holdings there was complete restriction in that respect placed upon the tenant. To impose restrictions unnecessarily upon freedom of contract was, in the highest degree, unphilosophical, and opposed to the first principles of political economy. The Bill as it stood presented features of a novel character in an attempt at legislation. A Bill similar to this was rejected two years ago by a decisive majority, and he hoped this one embodying as it did a principle, which, if carried out, involved a policy of confiscation and general interference with freedom of contract, and which would set an evil precedent, would also be rejected by a large majority. He moved that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.

said, he thought that the Bill had hardly had the attention it deserved from the Members of Parliament for Ireland. They had had two attempts at a count-out, and he only saw three hon. Members from the North of Ireland take part in the effort to avert this premature termination of the discussion. Was there anything of a confiscating or revolutionary policy in the Bill? He thought not. Its first object was to set up and confirm the Ulster custom. That custom was not a legal custom before the Land Act of Mr. Gladstone, and one of the leading objects of that Act was to give it a legal status. But when that Act was discussed in the Courts of Law in Ireland, it was hold that the words of the Act did not give the custom the validity intended by its framers, and the first object of the Bill was to cure the defect, and. to carry out the intention of the Act of 1870. Its object was therefore by no means so alarming as it had seemed to the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten). The arguments of the hon. and learned Member on this point were indeed inconsistent, for while in one breath he had described the custom as one easy of proof, in another he had spoken of it as so vague as not to be the basis of legal right. If there were, as he believed there were, estates on which tenant-right had never existed, it would be easy for a landlord to prove this. No injustice would, therefore, be done him by this Bill. The second part of the measure related to the valuation of the land for rent as between landlord and tenant. Well, that principle was recognized by the Land Act, which provided that if a landlord desired to turn out his tenant the tenant should receive compensation for his holding, a Court of Law determining on the fairness of the rent. That was intended to check capricious eviction, and if it had failed to produce that effect, the Legislature ought to make better provision. The hon. and learned Member seemed to hope that they would that night hear the last of this Bill. But he could assure him that in that respect his expectations would be disappointed. The tenants of the North of Ireland would never fail to receive the assistance of hon. Members from the South of Ireland in maintaining the excellent institution of tenant-right. He hoped the House would recognize the justice of the moderate demand of the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Crawford) and give the Bill a second reading.

observed that while liberty of assignment might be of great use, if not carried too far, the present Bill was far from fair as between landlord and tenant. Totally irrespective of the rights of the landlord, a tenant was to be empowered to offer for sale his interest in the tenancy to anyone he chose; and this was nothing less than confiscation of the property of the so-called landlord, to whom it was no protection that he could offer a "reasonable objection," the nature of which was undefined. The Bill was an attempt to take away from the landlord the last remnant of right that had been left to him. It was an interference with freedom of contract between man and man, which had worked so well for our grandfathers, who were surely not all fools, and its operation would do much to diminish friendly feeling between landlords and tenants whose relations were satisfactorily defined by written agreements, and produce a state of things which at the present moment could hardly be foreseen to its full extent.

said, he supported the second reading of the Bill, which, as a settlement of the question of tenant-right, was looked forward to with great interest in Ulster. The prosperity of Ulster depended very much upon the matter being satisfactorily settled. He supposed no Irish Member could be found courageous enough to move the rejection of the Bill, and therefore the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) had been selected to do so. This, together with the two attempts that had been made to count out the House, spoke volumes in favour of the Bill. It was fair and moderate what was asked, that the burden of proof should rest upon the landlord, and not be left to the tenant to prove that the custom of tenant-right existed or not. As to leaseholds, tenants were now in a worse position than they were prior to the Act of 1870; for, owing to that Act being so ill-defined, some Judges gave decision in one way and some in another. Then, as to free sale, the Act of 1870 admitted that the tenant had a right in his property. If so, why should he not get full value for his property in whatever way he wished to sell it? The result of "office rules" and restrictions were that a poor farm on which no money had been expended would bring an equal price with that upon which a large amount had been expended. He knew farms in Ulster valued at £20 to £30 an acre owing to the tenants improvements; but if the tenant wished to sell he would only obtain £10 an acre, and in many cases only £5. If the farmers were to invest their money in land instead of putting it in savings banks as they did at present, there must be some improvement in the land laws of Ulster; for they knew that if they now invested their money in land there was an increase of rent upon their own improvements. There was not a single Conservative Member from Ulster but knew the importance of tenant-right, and that it was a question of absorbing interest. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) observed that the tenants wanted to sell the rights of the landlord. The farmers of Ulster had no anxiety to interfere with the rights of the landlord. They wished to be able to sell their own rights. The improvements upon property and farms in Ulster were not effected by the landlords. They did not spend 1s. upon their properties. At the Election of 1874 every Ulster Member knew it was the chief question that was debated. In the addresses of every Ulster Member the question of tenant-right was put first, and some of the Members who sit on that side of the House were so anxious to make their position secure that they issued a second address. But where were the Ulster Members to-night? Not one of them was present to fulfil their pledges of 1874 except the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney); but the time was coming when they would be called to account for their unredeemed pledges. He believed that at the next General Election the tenant farmers would show their appreciation of their conduct in having now upon a question of great importance deserted them and their interests.

thought it was only fair that the onus of proof as to the nonexistence of the custom of tenant-right should be thrown on the landlord. The question whether tenant-right subsisted during a lease or was destroyed by it would be settled by this Bill. The presumption of law was that the lease extinguished tenant-right. Many tenants when asked by some sharp landlord's agent whether they would not like a lease, never dreamt that by taking it they gave up their tenant-right, and his hon. Friend proposed that the mere existence of a lease should not be legal evidence that the tenant-right had been given up. The Bill also provided that if there was any particular limitation on the right of the tenant to sell his tenant-right, the burden of proof should fall upon the landlord. That was equitable, while the provision which required that for the future no contract should sweep away the tenant-right, unless such contract was in writing, was only an extension of the Statute of Frauds. With respect to compensation for improvements, the Bill dealt with the practical working of the Act of 1870. The intention of that Act was perfectly plain—that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for improvements, and that that right could only be abolished under certain conditions. But on this point legal quibbles had been raised, and any change in the tenure and any change in the rent, even from pounds to guineas, was held to deprive the right of the tenant to compensation. This Bill provided that no such quibbles should deprive the tenant of his right; and, believing it was an honest attempt to carry out the intention of the Act of 1870, he should cordially support it, and he hoped it would meet with the approval of the House.

trusted that the Bill would be read a second time. He regretted that some additions had been made to the provisions of the measure of 1874 and 1875, as those additions might make the second reading more difficult; but he held that the main provisions of this Bill, which were those which the tenants in Ulster were most anxious to obtain, might be accepted without sacrificing the just rights of the landlord. Those main provisions he took to be the obtaining of tenant-right at the expiration of a lease, the power to sell the tenant-right at the fair market value, and, in cases of dispute as to tenant-right, the throwing of the burden of proof on the landlord. He thought it would be wise to read the Bill a second time, and that the passing of the measure would produce increased contentment and loyalty throughout Ireland. If there were any objections to the Bill, they might be brought forward in Committee, when it could be amended.

said, that if the Government opposed this Bill, they would find that some of their most ardent supporters would vote against them. He understood, for instance, that the hon. Member who had last spoken had been elected as a champion of tenant-right in its fullest sense. The hon. Members for Ulster were in favour of tenant-right there, and he supposed that when the same hon. Members came to vote for similar rights in the South and South-west of Ireland, they would be in favour of giving the tenants there the tenant-right of Ulster. That custom in Ulster meant that the tenant had rights as assured as those of the landlord; but the question could not be dealt with properly from a purely English point of view. It was necessary to remember that when James I. formed the Plantation of Ulster he stipulated for perpetuity of tenure for the tenants, and in the North of Ireland for many years there were very few cases of hardship, the sturdy Ulsterman being, better able to defend himself than the simpler and more pliable Celt, and tenant-right was never interfered with; but the Land Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) gave to an unscrupulous landlord an unsuspected power of getting out of his obligations. Hence the necessity for this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had wished to introduce the Ulster custom into parts of the country where it had not previously existed; but he had found it impossible to engraft an old practice on new circumstances—a failure which was, however, no reason for not reverting to the old law that a tenant should remain undisturbed so long as he paid rent and submitted from time to time to a reasonable increase of it. He trusted that the measure now before the House would become law—as of a Land Bill especially it might be said, vires acquiriteundo. The constant discussion of the land laws was leading people to think that everybody had a right to the land, and they were beginning to adopt the philosophers' view—at any rate of the type of John Stuart Mill. If reasonable demands, such as the Bill contained, were not conceded, wild views would take root, and do much mischief, and the longer a reform was postponed the more unpalatable it would ultimately become.

opposed the Bill as an old enemy, the object of which was to hand over to the tenant rights which he had never possessed, and which had not been known in the South of Ireland. He did not like the Bill when first he saw it, and he liked it no more now. He objected to the measure, because he believed it held out a direct premium to tenants to raise disputes with their landlords. The only clause of the Bill which he could cordially support was that which provided that it should extend to no other country.

said, that although he was perfectly unpledged with regard to this Bill, he should vote for the second reading, because he regarded its two leading provisions as reasonable—? namely, that which shifted the onus of proof from the tenant to the landlord, and that which did away with the rule, acted upon by some Judges, that at the termination of his lease the tenant should not have the advantage of the same Ulster custom as he would if he held only from year to year. The main provisions of the Bill were requisite, and their enactment would put an end to a great deal of ill-feeling in Ireland. Its provisions would not violate any rule or principle of justice, and because he believed it to be the wish of every landlord -and tenant in the North of Ireland to settle the question at issue on these principles he should support the Bill.

thought it unfortunate that so few of those hon. Members for Ulster counties were now present who, from their own personal experience, could have supplied to their Friends on the opposite benches much of the information that seemed to be so sadly wanted Several objections had been stated which could not possibly have been raised by hon. Members acquainted with the subject, because they were founded on an entire misapprehension as to the nature of the Ulster tenant-right custom that had been legalized by the Land Act. For example, the effect of the most important clause in the Bill now before the House—namely, the second — had been entirely misunderstood by both his hon. and learned Friends opposite. The enactment of that clause would not extend or alter in the very least the right which an Ulster tenant had this moment, wherever the custom existed, even in its most restricted form. The landlord could not now raise the rent as much as he pleased, nor object to a purchaser of the tenant's interest, without showing reasonable grounds for doing so. The reason was obvious. If he could increase the rent ad libitum, or object to any and every purchaser, he might thus destroy those rights which had been brought within the protection of the law, and which were entitled to that protection just as much as his own. Too much had been made of the varieties of form which this Ulster custom assumed on different estates. Whatever might be the regulations of rent-offices as to the sale, they all agreed in this—indeed, such regulations implied it—that there was a right of sale in the occupying tenant. Now, the principle of the Bill before the House was simply this—that, as the Land Act had declared that the tenant-right custom, that is to say the qualified right of sale already described, was prevalent throughout the Province of Ulster, and as it was notorious that this declaration was in accordance with the fact, it should in every case be presumed that the holding was subject to the custom; but, of course, only prima facie, and until the contrary was proved. In other words, the Bill proposed to throw the burthen of proof, in accordance with common sense and common justice, on the man who denied rather than on the man who affirmed a custom, the prevalence of which had been recognized by law; to make the presumption in favour of what was general rather than what was exceptional; in favour of the weaker rather than the stronger party; and in favour of the tenant, who could not have that access to evidence which the landlord had. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), in introducing his Land Tenure Bill two years ago, had stated, that if the landlords of Ireland had been actuated by a desire to carry out the intentions of the Legislature, as embodied in the Land Act, there would probably have been no necessity for him to propose that somewhat sweeping measure. He (Mr. Law) must say he feared there was solid ground for that complaint. "Difficulties have arisen," as this Bill recited, in carrying into effect the provisions of the Land Act for enforcing the Ulster tenant-right custom. Much of the difficulty was attributable to the feeling which now appeared unhappily to actuate some landlords and induced them, when any land claims were made, to put their tenants at arm's length, obliging them to prove everything, no matter how notorious; whilst they, assisted by ingenious lawyers, took advantage of all the impediments thus placed in the tenants' way. For his own part, he sincerely desired to see the best possible feeling between landlords and tenants. He thought, however, that the landlords, speaking generally, had displayed much less than their usual prudence in not frankly accepting the Act as it was, and abstaining from all attempts to obstruct any of its provisions. Of late the Chairmen or Judges of the Land Courts had spoken of the altered demeanour of landlords and their agents since 1870. For example, the Chairman of one Ulster county had publicly stated that when he first presided there, he was constantly told that the tenant-right practically settled all controversies; so that if he observed upon the number of ejectments, the answer was sure to be—" Oh, you must not be startled by that, we arrange everything here by means of the tenant-right; "whereas now since 1870 he had found the very existence of tenant-right as constantly denied, and the tenants put to proof of the custom that was before not only admitted, but put forward by those representing the landlords as the excuse and explanation of everything. Again, the Chairman of another Ulster county, giving judgment lately in a land case, had said that, whilst from the large estates and old proprietors, he had not had much difficulty placed in his way, assistance being given him by the production of the office books and otherwise; yet, to quote his words—" In the case of recent purchases, and with new proprietors, particularly of small estates, I almost invariably find efforts made to baffle and render nugatory the Land Act of 1870." Considering, then, the exist- once of this state of things, and the increasing difficulties arising from the breaking-up of largo estates by sale and from the lapse of time, he (Mr. Law) thought this proposal of his hon. Friend was perfectly just and reasonable. With respect to the clause dealing with leasehold tenant-right, the propriety of that had been so often admitted—-even by hon. Members opposite—that he should say nothing more than this, that it seemed hardly fair to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) to put him forward to move the rejection of the Bill without giving him some more accurate information on that and other parts of the measure. There was, however, a clause which required more particular notice—namely, the proposed abolition of "office rules," as they were called, purporting to prescribe the price of tenant-right or otherwise regulating the sale. He (Mr. Law) had before contended, and must still contend, that such restrictions were as indefensible in principle as they had always been notoriously disregarded in practice, and should therefore be declared inoperative. The Legislature had in effect provided that the Ulster tenant's interest in his holding should be regarded as a legal interest, and that interest was chiefly a right of sale. It must, then, be obvious that arbitrary restrictions of the price to a sum far less than the real value of the thing to be sold, must be unjust as well as futile. Accordingly, even before 1870, however the landlord or agent of an estate on which these office rules had been imposed might affect to ignore the fact, they as well as everybody else knew that on every sale the full price was paid; the only difference being that, instead of the whole of it passing through the office, only the "regulation" price was so paid, the rest being paid elsewhere. So much, indeed, was this recognized, that if the landlord of one of these "regulation" estates himself took up a holding from the tenant, he paid the fair market price of the tenant right, or was regarded as having acted unfairly and in violation of the custom. Would hon. Members allow him (Mr. Law) to illustrate this by an analogous case with which they were all familiar? They would recollect that a great many years ago "regulation prices" were fixed by the proper authorities for commissions in the Army. It was, on the one hand, made a criminal offence for any officer to give or take more than the sum prescribed by the War Office; and, on the other hand, it was required that the officer selling, and the officer buying, and their commanding officer also, should all make declarations "on their honour" that this sum had not been exceeded. Well we knew he w far these statutory and official attempts were successful. Notwithstanding the formidable checks referred to, the full competition price or value of the commission was in fact paid. The military authorities affected to ignore the practice just as these "regulation" landlords or agents in Ulster affected to ignore what was notorious to all the world; and the end of the matter was, that when the sale of commissions was wholly abolished, and Parliament came to determine what compensation should be given to existing officers who had themselves purchased, that compensation was based not on the restricted or regulation price of the War Office, but on the full market price that had been paid, though such payment had been in fact illegal and even criminal according to the law of the land. He (Mr. Law) submitted that the Ulster tenants were at least equally well entitled to have these futile restrictions on the price of their interests declared to be invalid. Again, with respect to the attempts to prevent sale of the tenant-right by auction, it had been strongly urged, and with great show of reason, that this was, generally speaking, useless, as it no doubt was irritating, where such regulation was attempted. It, of course, hampered and impeded the tenant in his efforts to get the full market price for his interest; but he often, as it seemed, managed to get it in the end, though after much needless delay and needless trouble. In such cases—as he (Mr. Law) had been informed—the matter was arranged by leaving a sheet of paper or a book open on a desk for a week or a month if necessary, in which anyone who desired to bid wrote down his name, and the amount he would give, calling in, of course, frequently to see if his offer had been exceeded, and, if so, increasing it accordingly. The result, then, was said to be that in the end the farm was sold, whilst the landlord got nothing by his interference, beyond the certainty that he had vexed, and annoyed his tenants. But, however this might be, he (Mr. Law) could not for a moment admit that the proposal to let the tenant sell by auction if he liked, furnished any sufficient ground for the total rejection of the Bill. There was now but one other provision on which he wished to say a word. It was the clause to facilitate the ascertainment of a fair rent, when that alone was in controversy between the parties. Whether it was tenant-right as in Ulster, or the right to be paid for improvements there or elsewhere, it was plain that this interest vested by law in the tenant ought to be protected against encroachment on the occasion of any revision of the rent. All were agreed on that. Now, in almost every case in which the landlord served a notice to quit, it was only for the purpose of getting the tenant to agree to an increase of the rent. Accordingly, the notice to quit was accompanied by another notice explaining its real object, and thus the parties were at issue. But suppose that they honestly differed as to what the new rent should be, the end of it now was that they came before the Chairman of the county—the landlord with his ejectment, and the tenant with his land claim. Sometimes the controversy was then settled at the last moment either between themselves or by a reference to arbitration; but otherwise the case must go on in the ordinary way, and the landlord be obliged to evict a tenant he did not want to evict, and besides that probably have to pay a substantial amount of compensation, which the tenant would gladly have foregone if he could only have remained on in his farm at a fair rent. For the Chairman had now no jurisdiction to determine this, the only real controversy between the parties. And yet, strange to say, though he could not determine it for them, he must determine it for himself before he could decide whether the tenant was entitled to compensation; for this, in the case supposed, depended on whether the rent demanded by the landlord was a "fair rent" or not. The provision, then, of this Bill, which he (Mr. Law) was now considering, sought the enable the parties, if they so desired, to submit this question of rent directly to the Chairman for his decision. It would interfere in no way with the landlord's power of serving notice to quit, and putting out the tenant if he liked; but would save him from the disagreeable necessity of being obliged to proceed as if for eviction when he did not desire it. He (Mr. Law) would not further try the patience of hon. Members, but content himself with saying he considered the main objects of the measure good, and for that reason should give it his support; whilst he hoped that the Conservative Ulster Members, if they appeared at all, would vote for and not as before against the Bill.

expressed his intention of supporting the Bill; but was afraid it would fail to do as much good as those who wished to see it pass anticipated. A bad landlord, after it passed, would still have the power of being a bad landlord. He suggested that the Bill should contain a definition of the Ulster tenant-right, which should be legalized throughout the whole of Ireland. He would recommend the Government to accept the principle of the measure, and then amend it in Committee.

said, he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading. When the Irish Land Act of 1870 was brought in, it was understood that that Act would for some years to come settle the question with which it dealt. Under this Bill all the relations between landlord and tenant would be so upset that, in all probability, the conditions between the landlord and tenant in England would be also unsettled. He regretted, therefore, that so important a question as that should now have been raised, and he was sorry also that so few English Members on his own side should be found here to express their opinions upon the matter. Considering how much attention Parliament had given to the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland so recently as the year 1870, he thought they ought not to venture so soon afterwards to disturb a question which they had understood had been set at rest for some considerable time.

supported the Bill, remarking that many of the best class of tenants who had a legal interest in their farms had lost their tenant-right by their inability to prove that right; and he thought it was the duty of that House to amend the Land Act of 1870, which, although it was one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon Ireland, did not go far enough in placing safeguards against an undue rising of the rent by the landlord. It ought to be made the legal presumption that in all the farms of Ulster that tenant-right existed which was known to exist in nearly every case. To accomplish that object was one of the chief objects of this Bill. He trusted that all hon. Members from the North of Ireland, whether Conservative or Liberal, would vote for the Bill.

said, he thought the Bill embodied a principle of immense advantage to the tenant farmers of Ulster, and therefore he should cordially support the second reading.

said, it was thought when the Land Act of 1870 was passed, that some kind of finality had been arrived at, but now the question at issue was again re-opened. For his own part, he deprecated an annual disturbance of the arrangement then come to. It was acknowledged that in the main the landlords were willing to treat their tenants well; but if they wished to grant some advantage to their tenants they were discouraged from doing so by the prospect of fresh laws relating to land. It was, therefore, highly desirable to get rid of the irritation produced by incessant new legislation. He was glad to hear, on legal authority, that the present Bill did not deal with anything out of Ulster.

said, he could not help thinking that some of the arguments which had been urged in favour of the Bill were of a very peculiar character, and especially that of the hon. Member for Cavan; who, although he did not regard the measure as a good one, urged hon. Members to vote for it, because it would take the wind out of the sails of hon. Gentlemen of the Whig persuasion. For his own part, he did not mean to say that there was not in the Bill some things which he approved, and others which he thought might be discussed; but then there was in it so many clauses so much open, in his opinion, to objection, that he thought he would be wrong in advising the House to assent to the second reading. The present, he might add, was the fourth Session in which it had been discussed, and in 1875 it had been thrown out in a full House of 450 Members by a majority of two to one, and the Leader of the Opposition, who on that occasion voted for it, pointed out that there were considerable objections to three of the six clauses, of which it then consisted, and those objections were applicable as it now stood. The usages that made up the Ulster right were various and diverse, so much so that he believed there was not a single hon. Member for Ulster in the House who would say that there were not 100 or even 200 different usages in Ulster, and it seemed to him a strange proposal to make, that a part of the country subject to no usage whatever should be assumed to be subject to the strongest of all usages which prevailed anywhere, and that the landlord should be under the necessity of proving the contrary. Again, it was a very startling proposition to lay down, that the tenant should not only have the power of selling his holding, but of selling it by auction practically independently of the landlord. Could there be anything more repugnant to the very essence of Ulster tenant-right, one of the conditions of which was that the landlord should have a substantial power of selecting or approving a tenant? As to the limitation of price, it seemed to him' not very unreasonable that a landlord, desiring to have solvent tenants, should be able to say that he would only take tenants who would not give more than three, or five, or six years' purchase, as it might be. There was a clause in the Bill for giving additional facilities to tenants for the purchase of their holdings. The present was obviously an inconvenient time for the discussion of that proposal after the re-appointment of a Committee yesterday, which would have the subject under their consideration. When that Committee had reported, he had no doubt the House would deal satisfactorily with their recommendations. The Bill would, moreover, hamper and destroy the operation of that kindly feeling which existed in many cases between the landlord and the tenant. He had no intention of going into details, but nearly every speaker-had called attention to the 3rd clause of the Bill. He was not prepared to say that the subject of leasehold tenant-right did not deserve most favourable consideration. There was a Bill dealing separately with it, and when that' Bill came before the House, hon. Members would have a clear and satisfactory opportunity of giving expression to their wishes on that branch of the law, free from the objections to which the present measure was subject. While he admitted that there were portions of the Bill to which he could not object and others which might fairly be discussed, he could not advise the House to give it a second reading.

in reply, stated that the auctions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman so strongly objected had been repeatedly carried out in the North of Ireland, and that no evil results had attended the practice.