asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, on consideration, he can see his way to pass a short Act declaring that in cases of indecent assault upon young children consent shall not be a valid defence?

, in re ply, said, he was glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had on the Order Book of the House a Bill to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member, and he (Sir William Harcourt) should do everything he could to facilitate its consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, What amount of postage has been received during the first six months of the current year on letters, newspapers, books, patterns, and other postal matter, conveyed to Australia by the "Orient" line of steamers, and of this amount how much has been retained by the Post Office, and how much paid to the Orient Company; what number of passages have been made between Brindisi and Bombay, by the Peninsular and Oriental Company's Mail Steamers, since 1st of February of the present year, when the new contract came into operation; how many of those passages have been made by ships which had incurred penalties for unpunctuality prior to 1st February 1880, and in how many of these passages has the contract time been exceeded; and, whether similar information can be given respecting the Peninsular and Oriental Steamers plying between Galle and Australia?

Sir, in reply to the Questions that have been addressed to me by my hon. Friend, I beg to state: —1. That the amount received during the first six months of the present year by the Post Office for all postal matter, including letters, newspapers, book packets, &c, conveyed to Australia by the steamers of the Orient Company, has been £1,843. Of this amount £390 was paid to the Orient Company, leaving £1,453 as the amount retained by the English Post Office. 2. So far as the records have yet reached the Post Office the number of voyages between Brindisi and Bombay which have been made by vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Company since the 1st of February of the present year, when the new postal contract came into operation, has been 21 outwards and 23 homewards. 3. Of the 21 outward voyages all, except three between Suez and Bombay, and of the 23 homeward voyages all, except two between Bombay and Suez, were made by ships which had incurred penalties for unpunctuality during the time the old contract was in operation. 4. In 10 out of the 21 outward passages the contract time was exceeded. The excess varied from 50 minutes to 53 hours 53 minutes, and the average excess was 23 hours 34 minutes. In two of the voyages, where the contract time was exceeded by 25 hours 42 minutes and 53 hours 53 minutes respectively, the vessels were detained by the Government at Suez and Aden to take in stores for Afghanistan. 5. In 14 out of the 23 homeward voyages the contract time was exceeded. The excess varied from 50 minutes to 44 hours 15 minutes, the average being 18 hours 31 minutes. 6. In consequence of the contract for the Australian portion of the Service—namely, that between Galle and Australia—being under the control of the Colonial Government, I cannot supply all the information which my hon. Friend asks for in the last of his Questions. I think, however, such information ought to be forthcoming; and I have asked the Australian Government to furnish us with regular information as to the time of arrival and departure of the Australian mails, and I have no doubt such information will be readily given. With regard to the time of arrival of the homeward Australian mail at Brindisi, I find that of the 11 voyages since the 1st of February, of which we have records, the contract time was exceeded in six cases. The excess has varied from three hours 40 minutes to 34 hours 10 minutes, the average being 18 hours 27 minutes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any relief fund available for assisting emigration from the distressed districts in Ireland, and who are intrusted with the administration of such fund; if there be no such relief fund, whether Her Majesty's Ministers contemplate the appropriation of any public moneys or means at their disposal for the above purpose; and, if no such means are at their disposal, whether they intend to propose that Parliament should afford assistance for such emigration?

Sir, under the existing Irish Poor Law Acts the Board of Guardians of any Union may strike a rate for assisting persons in the Union to emigrate. They may also raise a bulk sum for that purpose by borrowing upon the credit of the rates. Prior to the present year such loans had to be repaid in a period of seven years, and bore interest at such rate as might be agreed on between the Guardians and the lenders of the money. But by the Relief of Distress Act of last Session the Board of Works in Ireland were empowered to lend a special sum for this purpose to Boards of Guardians at 3½ per cent interest, repayable in 10 years; and by the amending Act of this Session these terms have been made still more favourable in the case of Unions in which Orders of the Local Government Board ordering extraordinary out-door relief to be granted are in force. In such cases the rate of interest is reduced to 1 per cent, and the period of repayment is extended to 12 years. The payment of the first instalment being postponed for two years, such loans can only be contracted with the sanction of the Local Government Board.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that the medical officer of the Crossgar dispensary district in the union of Banbridge, having, after forty years' service, applied for superannuation on the ground of broken down health, the guardians at a meeting summoned to consider such application, passed a resolution—

"To record on the minutes their approval of the manner in which the medical officer has filled such office for a period of forty years, but that the guardians cannot add to the rates by granting any retiring allowance;"

whether the passing of such a resolution under the circumstances fairly carries out the principle of the Medical Officers' Superannuation Act; if the Local Government Board can or will interfere in the matter; and, if the Government will promote or support a measure to make the superannuation of Poor Law Medical Officers, in proper cases, compulsory on Boards of Guardians?

Sir, the facts as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman are true. It is, no doubt, a case of great hardship; but the Guardians did not think fit to make the allowance, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere in the matter. I think I have stated before, in reference to an inquiry as to the superannuation of officers, that the subject was one which occupied largely the attention of the Government, and I hope we may be able to deal with it next year.

asked the Postmaster General, if it is true, as stated in the Scotch newspapers, that Mr. Sibbald was dismissed from the office of Postmaster of Inverary, and that the reasons for his dismissal were withheld from him; and, whether the Government have any intention of granting the prayer of his Petition to the House, and that of the provost and numerous inhabitants of Inverary, that the secret charges which it is understood have been made against him should be publicly investigated?

Sir, in order to make my answer to the Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Wigtownshire intelligible, I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that with regard to all postmasterships of less than £120 a-year in England, and with re- gard to all postmasterships of less than £100 a-year in Ireland and Scotland, the appointment is made by the nomination of the Treasury, and not by the Postmaster General. The postmastership of Inverary became vacant when the late Government was in Office; and being less in value than £100 a-year, the Lords of the Treasury of the late Government nominated Mr. Sibbald. Following the invariable course, a careful inquiry was made by the local surveyor as to Mr. Sibbald's qualifications; and the Report of that inquiry was, I believe, the very first Paper that was submitted to me after I was appointed to the Office I have now the honour to hold. This Report was very unfavourable to Mr. Sibbald; but there was some local feeling on the subject, and I somewhat departed from the ordinary rule, and I ordered another and a more careful inquiry to be made on the subject. The result of that inquiry was still unfavourable to Mr. Sibbald's appointment; and, this being the case, I felt that there was no course open to me but to refuse the nomination. I think the hon. Baronet will see that such a public inquiry as he asks for would prove highly detrimental to the efficiency of the Civil Service.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the question of leaving a detachment in charge of the Sherpur Camp until the result of General Sir Frederick Roberts's expedition is known?

Sir, I think that I have already informed the House that, in the opinion of the Government, it is not desirable to interfere with the discretion of the competent military authorities in command in India and in Afghanistan with reference to the details of military movements. I believe that the position of Sherpur cannot be occupied with safety by a detachment of less strength than 6,000 men of all arms. In the circumstances, I fail to see what advantage would be gained by leaving a detachment of that strength at Sherpur when the rest of the Army has returned to Gandamak.

Sir, I regret exceedingly the Answer which the noble Lord has given to my Question; and as I do not think I can be accused of having unnecessarily trespassed upon the time of the House, I should like to say a few words upon this very important matter. With the view of putting myself in Order I will conclude with a Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] I am aware that the course I am taking is one not generally approved; but I think the question is such an exceedingly grave one, and the time is so short, that I trust I may be excused. Her Majesty's Government have announced that the decision to evacuate Cabul has been taken in accordance with the advice, or, at all events, with the concurrence of General Sir Donald Stewart. Now I beg, most unhesitatingly, to say that such advice is in direct variance with the first principles of military warfare and of military strategy. I may be asked what business I have to set up an opinion against that of Sir Donald Stewart? I do not wish to set up my own opinion; but I have taken the opinion of a considerable number of military officers for whose judgment I entertain the highest possible respect, and one and all agree with me that I am perfectly right in the view I have taken. It so happens that I have studied at an Institution which has introduced into the Army such men as Sir Garnet Wolseley, Sir Richard Colley, Sir Evelyn Wood, Colonel Buller, and others; and I am certain that all these officers would, if present, corroborate what I have to say. We were always taught that when an Army is invading an enemy's country the first thing to do is to establish a secure base of operations. We have in the camp at Sherpur a magnificent base of operations. Sir Frederick Roberts has started from Sherpur with an Army of 8,000 men and 12 guns, to march for upwards of 300 miles through an enemy's country. We are told—but I hope it is not the case—that the guns are not the regular field guns, but that they are only light mountain guns; and it is calculated that it will take him from 25 to 30 days to complete the march. He has to pass two fortresses, one at Ghuzni and another at Khelat-i-Ghilzai. He will then have to meet with an Army estimated at 20,000 men, with 36 field guns. What will be the first thing that will happen? We cannot doubt that Ghuzni, which has been in the hands of Mahomed Jan, has been fortified, and every available gun mounted by the enemy. It would be absolute madness to attempt to assault it. Roberts has not got a sufficient number of troops to mask it; he must, therefore, march on and leave the fortress with its garrison behind him; the garrison would immediately come out and follow his footsteps; and there is scarcely a robber in the whole of Afghanistan that will not be upon the track of General Roberts during the whole of his march. The next place is Khelat-i-Ghilzai—and it is now besieged. If General Roberts can pass it, he will arrive at the end of his march with his provisions expended and with his base of operations absolutely cut off. I venture to say that in such a state of things, if anything happens to delay the march of the Force, the result would be disastrous. In the last War the House will remember that one man, Dr. Brydon, arrived at Jellala-bad to tell that the British Force was utterly annihilated; and I venture to say that if, unhappily, General Roberts meets with a reverse, or even a serious check or delay, and is found towards the end of his march with his provisions expended and his communications cut off, there will not be even one man left to tell the tale of disaster that will happen in such a state of things. I feel that Her Majesty's Government are incurring a tremendous responsibility in sending General Roberts from Cabul without maintaining a base of operations at Sherpur, and I would beg and implore them to re-consider their decision. If any disaster happens to General Roberts a feeling of indignation will spread throughout the length and breadth of the land. That, in itself, will be a matter of small importance; a graver and worse result will follow, for the fabric of our Indian Empire will be shaken to its very foundation. This is not a political but a military question, and I regret to see the political element which has been imported into it. I have no individual interest in the occupation of Afghanistan, or in our retirement from it. I was not a Member of the House when the War was first undertaken. On the other hand, the Government are deeply interested in the question; and there is a strong feeling among the advanced sec- tion of the Liberal Party in favour of a precipitate retreat from Afghanistan. I would, however, ask what possible harm could be done by our remaining at Sherpur a few weeks longer, or, even for a few days; at any rate, until we know what has happened to General Roberts at Ghuzni? We are told that the Afghans have been most officious in rendering us every assistance in clearing out of Sherpur; but I confess that I fear the wily race, even when professing friendship for us—"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes." I beg to move the adjournment of the House; and I beseech the Government, with all the energy I am capable of, to give a little more consideration to this grave question.

Sir, I had no notion that my hon. and gallant Friend was going to bring this question before the House; and I quite admit that a very great responsibility rests on any private Member in bringing a Motion of this kind, at this particular time, before the House of Commons. But I am bound to say that the noble Lord who is at this moment the Leader of the House has not satisfied the general public feeling in regard to the state of Afghanistan. A large Force has been detached from the Army which occupied the Sherpur fortifications and the ground around Cabul and sent to the relief of Candahar. There can be no doubt that great anxiety does exist among soldiers that that Army should get there in safety and security. But what has been done? The very moment the order was given to that Army to advance to Ghuzni on their way to Candahar, at that moment you took away its base of operations in retiring the rest of the Army to Gandamak, seeing that it is not to be reached from Gandamak in the same way as from the fortifications of Sherpur. All we ask now is very little—namely, that the retirement should be delayed. How has it been that all our disasters have occurred? How did the late disaster occur? It was because General Burrows was 75 miles away from any support whatever. At Isandula our troops were similarly without support; and I sincerely hope and believe that no disaster will occur, but that General Roberts will reach Candahar in perfect safety; but great responsibility will rest on the Government if they fail to secure a base of operations. If that is not done, there is nothing for General Roberts to do, in the event of a reverse, but to march on or be cut to pieces. I would ask the noble Lord to give every consideration to this matter, and, if it be still possible, to detain the Army at Sherpur—at any rate, until General Roberts shall have passed Ghuzni in safety.

Sir, I must decline to enter into military discussions raised in this irregular manner. I fully admit what has been said by the two hon. and gallant Officers opposite as to the heavy responsibility that rests upon the Government. The Government are perfectly aware of that, and they think they will best discharge that responsibility by leaving the management of military affairs to the military authorities in India, in whom they have confidence, and not by attempting to regulate those matters by the imperfect knowledge which they may possess here, and certainly not by discussing the details of this movement in a debate in this House. I entirely deny the imputation which I understand to have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton (Sir William Palliser), that the movement of our troops from Cabul has been dictated by political, and not by military, considerations. It is impossible for me to say that the movement of General Roberts is not attended with risk; of course, we are aware it is attended with some risk; but the retirement of General Stewart from Cabul to Gandamak has not been urged upon that officer by the Government of India or by the Government at Home from any political considerations, but has been suggested by himself as an operation most desirable under the circumstances. I have already said that we will not tamper or interfere with the discretion of the Government of India and their military Advisers. I have already, for my own satisfaction, asked the Government of India whether, in view of General Robert's removal, they thought it desirable that the withdrawal of troops from Cabul should be delayed for a certain time? I received a positive and distinct answer that, in their opinion, the movement of General Stewart was most desirable, and was dictated by their view of the military situation. I said I am not going to enter into a military discussion without Notice and raised in this manner; but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton, if it were necessary—and it has not been deemed necessary—that General Roberts should be left in communication with a base of operations, it would be far better that he should have communication with the Force under General Watson at Kuram Valley than with that under General Stewart at Sherpur.

said, the House would feel sure that Her Majesty's Government exercised a wise discretion in refraining from entering, at length, into this discussion at the present time. For his own part, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the action of Her Majesty's Government. History often repeated itself, and it was marvellous how that had occurred with regard to the Afghan War. It would be remembered that, after the lamentable events that took place in 1841, it was determined to retreat from Candahar by way of Cabul. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government would follow a wise course if, still believing that history repeated itself, they determined to carry out the converse of that and retired from Cabul by way of Candahar. Knowing something of the troops that composed General Roberts's Force, he was entirely without any excessive anxiety as to the fate of that General. The Force was a magnificent one, consisting, as it did, of the flower of the Indian Army. If there were the means by which it could be properly fed, and he had no doubt that was ascertained, and if it had fair fighting—and General Roberts could hardly meet with any other, knowing the road and having his choice of positions—he felt confident that it would not run any serious risk, and that it would be quite capable of disposing of any force of Afghans that might be brought against it. He was surprised at what he could not refrain from calling the somewhat unpatriotic anxiety which had been displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite with reference to 10,000 of the finest troops Her Majesty's Government had at their command. He repeated that he had no such anxiety himself. He had been asked what he thought would be the political effect in India of the retire- ment of our Forces from Afghanistan? He would say this—that in order to maintain our position, dignity, and security in India, it was more important to save our money and men, and keep our Indian Army in a state of efficiency, than to spend more money vainly and ingloriously over the Afghan campaign. He thought they would run much greater risk by staying in Afghanistan than by coming away from it.

said, that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had remarked that history repeated itself. He sincerely hoped that that would not be the case in regard to the present expedition. Military authorities, however, except, perhaps, those directly connected with the Government, were agreed that to cut away the base of an Army's, operations was a most dangerous and hazardous experiment. He had always understood hitherto from the statements of her Majesty's present Ministers that the retreat from Afghanistan was dictated by political and not military considerations; but, at all events, he thought it would have been well to have deferred the movement from Cabul until the Force of General Roberts had passed Ghuzni. Another reason for keeping a Force at Sherpur was that they had just established an Ameer who might require their support. The noble Marquess stated, yesterday, that General Skobeleff was marching towards Herat just in the same way that General Roberts might be said to be marching towards the Persian or the Russian Frontier; but he would remind the noble Lord that, two months ago, General Skobeleff, with a large Army, was not much further from Herat than General Roberts now was from Candahar. The Government had taken a serious step, and one which, even if General Roberts escaped in safety, might bring trouble upon General Stewart's line of communication.

Sir, I think that the observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) were somewhat uncalled for when he spoke of the unpatriotic anxiety on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir William Palliser). I think the hon. Member entirely misrepresented the spirit in which my hon. and gallant Friend addressed the House. The observations, so temperately and so ably made by my hon. and gallant Friend, in no way justified any remark of that kind. My hon. and gallant Friend feels strongly on this subject, and it is undoubtedly one on which everyone—even the noble Lord himself admitted it—must feel considerable anxiety. What my hon. and gallant Friend was chiefly anxious to ascertain was whether the movement now in progress on the part of the Force which has been occupying the neighbourhood of Cabul is a movement dictated purely by military reasons, or whether it was one dictated by political reasons. We have an assurance from the noble Lord that it has not been dictated by political but by military considerations; and the noble Lord has stated that those military considerations have weighed with those who are responsible for the conduct of our military affairs in India, and that the Government are prepared to accept the full responsibility of the decision at which they have arrived. In those circumstances, I do not think that we can do otherwise than leave entirely on the Government the responsibility they have so assumed. The House must feel that that is a serious responsibility; but that, at the same time, it is one with which we cannot properly or usefully interfere. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend, in raising this question as he has done, has given a word of caution in an admirable spirit, which ought to command the sympathy and the attention of the House; and I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that the movement which is being undertaken is one that is dictated and guided purely by military considerations, and on the authority of the proper military Commanders. That being so, I doubt whether we can conveniently or properly discuss the question, which I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend is open to the slightest degree of censure for having introduced. On the contrary, I think he deserves thanks for drawing attention to the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether men of Sections A and C of the Army Reserve, who were originally enlisted for long service, and had been transferred or recalled to the Reserve, and who were called out for active service in 1878, are entitled to receive pensions on the termination of their engagement?

Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that the case of these men has for some time engaged the attention of the War Office. It must be distinctly understood that they are not the short-service men who constitute the Reserve in its normal condition, and who, except when discharged for disability, have no claim whatever, in any circumstances, to pension. The men to whom my hon. and gallant Friend refers are long-service men; and, in my opinion, some of them, although not technically entitled to pension, have claims which ought to be satisfied. I propose, early next Session, to introduce a Bill asking Parliament to grant the necessary powers to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital which they have not at present.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether sufficient time has elasped for him to consult the various authorities, with a view to the establishment of the Mac-Mahon telegraph instruments in the House of Commons; and, if so, what is the conclusion he has arrived at?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that it is not in my power at present to say more than that the matter is being considered. I am bound to add, however, that my inquiries, as far as they have gone, lead me to doubt the utility of placing instruments such as he suggests in different parts of this building.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether in Ireland it is lawful for the constabulary to fire into an unarmed crowd, or to charge them with the bayonet, the Riot Act having not previously been read; and, if so, under what Act? He would also ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Whether he can state what measures the Government propose to adopt in order to check such acts by the constabulary?

Sir, I am not aware that the Government consider any check on the action of the Constabulary to be necessary. With respect to the printed Question of the hon. Gentleman, I must observe that it is entirely a general one, and the answer to it must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The state of circumstances might be such as to render it unlawful and criminal on the part of the Constabulary to act in the way described in the Question; but, on the other hand, the circumstances might be such as to render such action justifiable and lawful on the part of the Constabulary.

said, he was not satisfied with the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to know, further, Whether there was any law to authorize on the part of the Constabulary such action as was referred to in the Question? He had particular reasons for wishing for information on that point.

The hon. Member's Question has been put and answered.

wished to state that he considered his Question had not been answered. He asked, Whether it was lawful for the Constabulary to fire on an unarmed crowd without first reading the Riot Act; and, if so, under what Act? If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished him to explain this he would do so; but he had not answered his Question.

I am sorry the hon. Member does not consider my answer satisfactory; but it is obvious the answer must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. If the hon. Gentleman will state what the facts of the case are on which he desires an opinion, I will give him my opinion on them.

asked, Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was prepared to say that any circumstances would justify the Constabulary in firing into an unarmed crowd where the Riot Act had not been read? He confessed he had not heard of such a case.

Certainly, Sir. An unarmed crowd might be taking life or endangering life, and then it would be justifiable to fire on them.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the public press of proceedings at a meeting of Irish Home Rule Members of Parliament, held on Friday 6th instant, where a resolution is stated to have been passed to the following effect:—

"That on the conclusion of the Sessional business the Members of the Irish party should unite with their countrymen in agitation and organisation;"

and, whether he has reason to believe that such report is correct; and, if so, whether he will inform the House what notice Her Majesty's Government intend to take of such declaration?

The report from which the hon. Member quoted appears to have been taken from The Standard newspaper, where I find the words as he has given them, I find, however, from The Times and other newspapers, that the resolution passed at the meeting referred to was as follows:—

"That as soon as the Irish Members are released from their Parliamentary duties they should place themselves at the disposal of their countrymen to advise and act with them in this great emergency."

I do not know which is the correct report; but, assuming this to be a true version, I may say that, so far as at present advised, there is no necessity for the Government to take any notice of the action of the Irish Members.

wished to ask a Question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in consequence of a statement which appeared in the public journals that morning. The statement was to the effect that, if the Corti arrangement failed, the Porte was expected to join the Powers in assisting the Prince of Montenegro to take possession of the Dulcigno district. He wished to ask whether that statement was correct? He wished also to ask another Question, which, however, he would put down for Thursday, if the hon. Gentleman required Notice of it. It was, What was the nature of the assistance intended to be given by the Powers; and whether the Powers had in concert arranged what was to be its character?

, in reply, said, the statement referred to was substantially correct. With regard to the further Question, he would give such answer as he could on Thursday; but he did not know whether the feeling of the other Powers on the subject would enable him to fully answer it at present. He would take this opportunity of answering a Question put some time ago by the hon. and gallant Member for the County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) with regard to the position of Catholics in the district ceded to Montenegro. Mr. Kirby Green, Her Majesty's able Representative in Montenegro, reported that there was no foundation for the charges which had been made; that although the teachers in the Montenegrin public schools were of the orthodox Sclav faith, they were laymen, and permission had been granted for Catholic children to attend for religious instruction at the houses of the Catholic priests; that there was no foundation for the statement that permission to open new churches had been withheld; and that the Prince of Montenegro had shown the greatest anxiety to give full effect to the Article of the Treaty of Berlin with reference to complete religious equality.

said, he wished to put a Question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India with regard to the future conduct of Public Business during the remainder of the Session, and also to make a suggestion which he felt would conduce to the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House. To put himself in Order, he intended to conclude with a Motion. ["Oh!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said "Oh !" but he appeared to forget that the House of Commons was placed in a most unusual and unprecedented position owing to the peculiar mode in which Her Majesty's Government had thought fit to conduct their Business. ["Oh!"] He thought that the exclamation of the Home Secretary was unnecessary and uncalled for; and he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would permit him to conclude his observations without further interruption. The noble Marquess had made a statement yesterday with regard to Public Business, in the course of which he told the House that there were eight Bills before them which the Government hoped to be able to carry. Speaking of the Employers' Liability Bill, the Burials Bill, and the Hares and Rabbits Bill, the noble Marquess described those measures as important, but not as absolutely necessary. The noble Lord went on to say that it would be absolutely necessary to finish the Census Bill and the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; while the Merchant Shipping Bill, the Savings Banks Bill, and the Post Office Money Orders Bill, were all measures which, although not of the first class, were very important, and that it was necessary that they should be completed before the Session terminated. In addition to the measures so indicated by the noble Lord, a great portion of the Estimates still remained to be completed, and the Indian Budget would have to be discussed. But, beyond all this, the Session could not be concluded without a discussion being held upon the situation in Turkey and in Afghanistan, and also of a question in which many hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House took a deep interest—that of the recall of Sir Bartle Frere. The noble Lord had deprecated unnecessary discussion upon the measures to which he had referred; and while he shared the wish of the noble Marquess upon that point, he must remind him that both the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beres-ford Hope) and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had given Notice of their intention, based apparently upon good grounds, of offering the most determined opposition to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. With regard to the other measures referred to, there was no wish on that side of the House to delay their passing unnecessarily. ["Oh !"] He did not know whether hon. Members opposite intended to discredit that observation; but he wished to point out to the House that these must be all measures of great importance, otherwise Her Majesty's Government would not seek to press them upon the House at this late period of the Session. In. these circumstances, hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches had to consider not only the convenience of Her Majesty's Government, but their duty to those whom they represented, and they would most undoubtedly have to give great attention to these measures before they allowed them to pass into law. The noble Marquess could scarcely expect that the Burials Bill could be passed at a moment's notice and at a single Sitting. The Employers' Liability Bill was another measure that would require careful consideration. The Hares and Rabbits Bill also appeared likely to give rise to prolonged discussion, Notice having been given of something like 140 Amendments upon it. Did the noble Marquess think that that was a Bill which was likely to pass through that House in a couple of days? Certain of the remaining Estimates would not be allowed to pass without considerable opposition. He hoped the discussions that must arise would not be characterized as Obstruction. The present Government had never yet experienced what Obstruction was. [Cheers and Laughter.] He was certain that those cries proceeded from hon. Members who had not yet had much experience in that House. Had they sat in the last Parliament they would have known what Obstruction really meant; because nothing that they had experienced that Session could compare with the Obstruction which was constantly offered to the measures of the late Government. The discussion on the Indian Budget must necessarily take time; and he presumed that some day would be appointed for the discussion of the affairs of Europe and of Afghanistan. He hoped, in these circumstances, that the noble Lord would feel himself justified and bound to give some clear explanation to the House as to the intentions of the Government with reference to Public Business to be dealt with during the brief remainder of the Session. The programme which had been laid before them yesterday by the noble Lord would have been a very fair one had it been presented to them just after the Whitsuntide or the Easter Recess; but it was wholly without parallel at that period of the Session, and it could not be carried out unless the Session were indefinitely prolonged. The House was placed in the position in which they now found themselves entirely through the action of the Government, and not in consequence of any Obstruction which had been offered to their measures. The measure which had occupied the greater part of the Session had not even been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, and related to a question with which the Government had, at the commencement of the Session, expressly declared that it was not their intention to deal. The Government, however, had changed their minds on the subject, for reasons which were doubtless satisfactory to themselves, but which appeared utterly worthless to others. In these circumstances, he should like to ask the noble Lord, Whether, in the event of the Hares and Rabbits Bill not passing through Committee to-day or to-morrow, he intended to proceed with that measure on Friday? And he also wished to make the suggestion, which he hoped that the noble Lord would take in good part, as it was not put forward offensively, that the Government should make up their minds now to proceed at once with those measures which they deemed absolutely necessary, and to leave the others until it was seen what time there remained for discussing them. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, that this was the first time that he had ever seconded such a Motion; but he did so on the present occasion because he felt that it would be for the convenience of the House if the noble Lord would, either to-morrow or the day after, if he could not do so to-day, make a clear statement as to the work they really intended to get through before the end of the Session. He desired very much to see progress made with the Bill which they were about to discuss; but that progress depended very much upon the Government giving a clear and explicit statement of what their intentions were. It would be absolutely impossible for their whole programme to be carried out, and the sooner the House was informed which of their Bills was to follow the wretched example of the Vaccination Bill the better.

Sir, I waited a long time to know what was the Question which the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had to put to me, and it does not appear to be one that required so lengthy an introduction. The hon. Member said, no less than three times in the course of his observations, that the House of Commons was placed in a very peculiar position. That is an observation I have heard before. I should like to remind the House that we are likely to be placed in a much more peculiar position if hon. Members on the other side of the House, apparently encouraged by great numbers who sit there, are prepared to make Motions for the adjournment of the House twice in the course of a Morning Sitting for the purpose, as I think, of introducing irrelevant questions. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the House yesterday; but, whether he was or not, it appears to me that the chief object of his observations is to show how very little confidence is placed by hon. Members opposite in the right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to be their Leader, or even in those prominent Members of the Opposition who sit below the Gangway, whose assiduity and attention have received such well-merited tribute. I had yesterday to state, as far as I was able, what our intentions were; what were the proposals of the Government with regard to the Business of the present week. I am hardly able to make any statement with regard to next week. Some observations were made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which we supposed to represent the views of the Opposition, but which appear to be entirely unsatisfactory to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire, who seems to have assumed—and, no doubt, he is competent for it—the Leadership of his Party. The Question which I understood my hon. Friend to ask was what the Government would do in the contingency of the discussion on the Hares and Rabbits Bill not being finished to-morrow? I should prefer—and I think I should be justified in doing so—postponing my answer to that Question until such an unfortunate—and, as I believe, improbable—contingency arises. I have already stated what I was able to state; and I do not think that any time will be saved by an endeavour to review the position which we took up. Perhaps, next week, we may be in a position to make a further statement to the House; and, when it becomes my duty to do so, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his extremely practical and useful suggestions will be received with the utmost attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

said, that they were apparently in the middle of a Session, and yet the Government had acted as though it was near the end. They had had Morning Sittings. The time usually given to private Members had been sacrificed to advance the Business of the Government. When those arrangements were made it was understood that the Session was approaching its close. If the Opposition had known the intentions of the Government they would have insisted on everything going on in the usual way. He did not understand why the Government made the House sit on Tuesdays and Fridays in the morning, and why they appropriated Wednesdays to their own Business. He was glad to find that the noble Lord was not going to ask for Saturday Sittings. He hoped, also, as it appeared they were in the middle of a Sitting, that there would be no undue desire to curtail discussion, and that the House would not be expected to sit till the early hours of the morning, but that everything would go on in an ordinary manner. He hoped not only that the Government, but that the Opposition also, would discharge its proper functions. He would read to the House a statement of the duties of an Opposition by Lord Palmerston. In a speech delivered on the 18th of April, 1864, Lord Palmerston said—

"What is the natural occupation of an Opposition? What are they there for, if not to find out when a mistake has been made by the Government? They are assigned by Providence to watch with keen eye the conduct of the Government they oppose—to trip them up even before they fall—at all events, if they stumble, mark their stumbling, and call upon them to set things right again."—[3 Hansard, clxxiv. 1234.]

That function he hoped the Opposition would discharge. He had no objection to sit there till November. In conclusion, he expressed a hope that no interference would be allowed to take place with the Employers' Liability Bill, which was a measure of extreme difficulty. It ought to be considered not only by that House, but also by the other House of Parliament, which he hoped it would reach in good time, and whose criticisms on a measure of that kind would be exceedingly valuable.

said, that he could not allow the discussion to come to an end without expressing the great disappointment which had been felt in Ireland that the Government did not propose to do anything to remedy the state of things which had arisen in consequence of the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill. The Government might say they had done their best. and were no longer responsible for what might occur; but would any hon. Member tell him that if a similar state of things existed in Great Britain the Government would' remain supine, and not propose any remedy for a state of things described as on the verge of a civil war? No doubt, it was pleasant on the rising of the House to go shooting at birds and deer; but he doubted very much whether the hon. Gentlemen who were so anxious to get away to the moors of Scotland would be so anxious to be on the moors and mountains of Ireland to be fired at by the Royal Irish Constabulary.

intimated that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the proper limits of the grievances before the House.

said, he wished to call attention to the action of the Government in sending over additional troops to Ireland. The Government had either sent over those troops with the object of accentuating their declarations in the House of Commons, or else because there was necessity for an addition to the 25,000 already quartered in Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, the other evening——

called the hon. Gentleman to Order.

asked if he could not refer to an Answer to a Question?

said, the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to a late debate which had taken place.

again asked if he could not refer to the Answer to the Question?

said, the same remark applied to the Answer to a Question as to a debate.

said, he would only state that he did not share the confidence which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary seemed to have either in the forbearance of Irish landlords or in the cowardice of Irish tenants. To rely on this would be to rely on a broken reed. He claimed to have some knowledge of the action of landlords in times of distress and danger. There would soon be evictions and processes by hundreds and thousands. The tenantry would not submit; and if the House rose without taking some other measures than sending Marines to prevent such a catastrophe, be feared there would be bloodshed and massacre in Ireland. ["Oh, oh !"] That was the truth; and although all the massacre would be mostly, no doubt, on the side of the people of Ireland, he warned the House that they were not doing wisely in supporting the Government in the course they were taking. The Irish Members would feel it their duty, in season and out of season, to force upon the House the condition of the people of Ireland, and to try to induce them to take some steps with regard to that condition, and they would do all they could to save the effusion of blood, and to save the wretched people who were now threatened by the Constabulary. So long as that House was sitting be should lose no opportunity of bringing forward the condition of the people; and if the House rose without taking some measures of alleviation and of protection for the Irish people, he could tell them that the winter would be marked with bloodshed and massacre in Ireland. The present occasion was one which no Government ought to allow to pass without attempting to apply some remedy to the evils which were impending. He did not wonder that the House was tired of having Irish questions discussed; but he could only express his surprise that, after so many weary years of talking about Ireland, hon. Members were no wiser about that country than they were 50 years ago. Hon. Members were heard to propose schemes of emigration as remedies, as if the scheme bad not been tried and wretchedly broken down in former times. In the other House, the other night, he heard a noble Lord say it was intended that it should be a forced emigration. It must be forced if it was to be carried out at all; not force by the Government—nobody supposed that—but the force landlords would use against tenants they wished to get rid of. He could tell the House that the Irish people would not leave their homes without compulsion, and would not be driven forth without violence, resistance, and bloodshed; and he warned the Government that, though hon. Members might consider that he was wasting the time of the House, they might have occasion to say, in another week, that they would have saved a considerable amount of time had they listened to him on that occasion.

desired to say a word on behalf of the legitimate Opposition, who were endeavouring to do their duty loyally and faithfully towards Her Majesty's Government. He had to protest against the interruption and confusion of the Business of the House by hon. Gentlemen whom he ventured to term Her Majesty's illegitimate Opposition, and whose misdeeds were so unfairly attributed to the legitimate Opposition. No doubt, he could sympathize a good deal with the impatience of the House at the way in which Irish questions were made engines of delay. But if they measured the length of the Session, and remembered the way in which the Business had been conducted, he ventured to say that, whatever had been their provocation from the other side, Her Majesty's Opposition had been eminently moderate in the discharge of their duty; while they were not, and would not, be responsible for the interruptions interjected by hon. Gentlemen whom they respected, but whom he should like to see sitting opposite—where they ought to sit—beside the hon. Member for the County of Cork ( Mr. Shaw), the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), and others who remained upon the Liberal side of the House. It should be remembered that Her Majesty's Government enjoyed an immunity which their Predecessors had not enjoyed—it had taken possession of Mondays entirely, without private Members having the opportunity of bringing forward any question of grievance before Supply. They obtained that privilege at the beginning of the Session; and, while still in the flush of prosperity, he hoped they would remember how sorely his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon had suffered in the beginning of 1879, when several Members—of whom he (Mr. Beresford Hope) was one—ably seconded by the hon. Baronet the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—who, for obvious reasons, was silent on the subject this year—lengthily, but reasonably, and in the proper exercise of their privileges, protested against the Mondays being appropriated by the Government. At present, the Government possessed all the Mondays, all the Tuesdays, all the Wednesdays, all the Thursdays, all the Fridays down to 7 o'clock, and all the Saturdays when they had a chance of getting them. In these circumstances, he called upon Her Majesty's Government not to endeavour to drive too hard the forbearance of hon. Members on that side of the House. It was for the Government to say what Bills they would press forward. It was for the Opposition to say that the Bills so pressed forward should be adequately discussed; so that, when they came to receive the Royal Assent, they should be as perfect as possible—and that on the day of Prorogation, on whatever day it occurred, hon. Members might proceed to the moors, the stubble, the copses, or to their Christmas festivities, conscious that they had done their duty as patriotic Members of Parliament.

said, he was sure he would not be regarded as a friend of Obstruction; but he wished to say that he had been long enough in the House to remember the Prime Minister, towards the close of a Session, opposing the Divorce Bill, then the subject of much debate, because Her Majesty's Ministers were trying to take advantage of the House by forcing a most important Bill on at a period of the Session which was at once unusual and known by the Government to be inconsistent with the engagements and the business of a great number of Members of the House. The present Government had, he was afraid, in the absence of their Leader, rendered themselves liable to condemnation for the reason that had evoked from him that severe censure of the conduct of a former Government. The Government were expecting more of the House than was consistent with its constitution, comprising, as it did, within its numbers men who were engaged in the most important commercial transactions of the country, and who could not be expected to sit to a late period of the year, or above a certain number of months in the year. It was inconsistent, too, with the efficiency of the House that the Session should be protracted to a very late period. He would remind the Irish Members that he had never opposed any measure for the relief of that country or for its real advantage; but he condemned the perpetual spirit of insurrection in which some nominal friends of Ireland indulged, but who, as hon. Members, if they read the history of their country, would see, were, and always had been, its bitterest enemies. As he had said, the Government were expecting too much of the House in pressing forward measures which deeply affected the largest commercial, mining, railway, agricultural, and other great interests of the country, including the vital interests of the Church of England—measures which could not be allowed to pass without the full consideration they deserved.

said, of course, he was aware that it would be impossible to speak with absolute certainty with regard to the Business; but he was anxious to have it fixed as far as possible. The noble Lord had told them yesterday what were the arrangements for Thursday and Friday, and that also for Tuesday next week. What he wanted to know was whether they could rely on the Burials Bill being taken on Thursday, the Employers' Liability Bill on Friday, and the Indian Financial Statement on Tuesday next? He thought that was a matter on which it was important that they should be sure. The state of uncertainty which had existed caused great anxiety in the minds of hon. Members, and did not conduce to the progress of Business.

said, he did not think it would be possible to make any more definite arrangements with regard to the Business than had already been announced. The programme of Business which he had stated for the Sittings to-morrow, on Friday, and on Tuesday next must, of course, depend on the progress made with the Hares and Rabbits Bill; and until he knew what that progress was, he could not say whether that programme would be adhered to to the letter.

complained that no definite statements were made by the Government as to the progress of Business, and that the announcements vouchsafed were of a kaleidoscopic character, which left hon. Members in a confused state of mind as to what they might be called upon to do. He did not think the noble Lord was justified in giving a vague answer to the Question which had been put in the most courteous terms by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. As far as he was personally concerned, he should certainly not have consented to give up to the Government the whole of the time of Parliament, excepting the Evening Sittings on Fridays, unless he had believed that the Session was to close at the ordinary time. It seemed that the noble Marquess and the Government had determined to get the House into a corner, and, relying on the abstention from voting or the weariness and disgust of hon. Members, to pass measures which could have no chance of success in ordinary circumstances. He wished to disassociate himself entirely from any idea of Obstruction, as the word had been used last Session, meaning opposition to every measure brought forward not on the merits, but with a view to stopping the Business of the House; but he did not intend to be deterred from submitting to detailed criticism any measure which he thought deserving of it. There was a widespread feeling among the quieter and less prominent Members that, sooner than allow this state of things to be unduly prolonged, they would take part in every legitimate movement for seeing the Business of the House properly conducted.

said, he had been a Member of that House for several years; and as far as he knew, or had read in the history of the House, he did not think the Leader of the Government, after having, on the pretence that the Session was drawing to a close, absorbed the whole——

asked whether the noble Lord was in Order in imputing to the Government that they had done anything on a pretence?

It is certainly out of Order to impute unworthy motives to Members of the House or the Government collectively.

said, he would at once withdraw the expression to which exception was taken. He disclaimed any intention to impute dishonourable motives to the Government. But the whole time of the House had been asked for, which was only done, ordinarily, when the Session was about to be brought to a close. The noble Lord had been asked to reduce the programme within limits which would afford a hope of its being carried out; but, from day to day, he had declined to inform them as to what course he intended to adopt. He could not consent to be a party to what might be called illegitimate Obstruction; but he thought that the House was justified in opposing, legitimately, the policy of endeavouring to force measures on the country which were not before it at the General Election, which were not included in the Queen's Speech, and which the break in the Session gave ample reasons for not forcing at present. There would be no inconvenience to the Public Service in deferring until next Session at least some of them, particularly if they met with strenuous resistance, not for the purpose of blocking the Business of Parliament generally, but for the purpose of declaring that Parliament would not have measures forced on it at this time of the year by this sort of conduct; and he considered such resistance would be justifiable.

said, he had noticed that, within the last two hours, there had been two Motions for adjournment, and that most of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House, instead of adhering to their texts, had gone out of their way to bring accusations of illegitimate Obstruction against the Irish Members. He need hardly say that he was not going to accept, in its entirety, the challenge thrown out; he should merely ask the House to note the share which the Irish Members had taken in the Obstruction that had been given to the progress of Business during the last two hours. On the first Motion not a single Irish Member rose to address the House. On the second Motion his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) thought that if the House was irregularly called upon to consider the best means to destroy life in Afghanistan, it might be regularly called upon to consider the best means of saving life in Ireland. His hon. Friend accordingly rose, impelled by a strong necessity, when Her Majesty's Government treated his complaint with silence, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was one of the Irish Members who sat there and still believed in their good intentions, and that, on the present occasion, it might not be necessary to call upon them for explanation. Well, how had their forbearance been treated by the hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Conservative Benches below the Gangway? Why, they had excercised no forbearance whatever in return, because they, rising in their places, repeated a Question which the noble Lord the present Leader of the House three times distinctly answered. He did not say that the noble Lord's answer was satisfactory; but it was the only one which the noble Lord said it was possible for the Government to give under the circumstances. He said that as it was in the last Parliament, so it was in this—that the men who had accused the Irish Members of Obstruction had themselves been the greatest Obstructives. He believed that if the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had taken time to re-consider the accusations brought against Irish Members in the last Parliament, he would not have followed the bad example which had been set on the present occasion by younger, more inexperienced, and less wise Members of that House who now renewed those accusations. As matters had gone so far, might he respectfully, and without subjecting himself and all his Colleagues to another accusation, ask some Member of the Government to reply to the very temperate speech which had been delivered by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary?

said, that the last Speaker, to serve his own purpose, appeared to be anxious to shift the charge of Obstruction from himself to others. The plea upon which the House had been induced to give up Tuesdays and Fridays to the Government was that the Session was drawing to a close, whereas the end of it appeared to be as far off as ever. It was not treating the House with fairness to try now and carry measures which would have been a very ample programme for the end of the Whitsuntide Holidays.

said, the Irish Members had consumed one-third of the time of the Session; and of the remaining two-thirds, one-half had been occupied by hon. Members on the Ministerial side. A large portion of the time of the House had been wasted by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who did not seem to know how to compress their answers to Questions, or their speeches into a reasonable space. If they had learned to give concise and carefully considered answers, and not to reiterate their views so often, as in the case of the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, there might have been nearly a fortnight of the Session now to spare. As a matter of fact, the legitimate Opposition had only taken up about one-fourth of the whole time at the disposal of the House.

protested against it being said that because Irish Members had brought the subject of the distressed condition of their country before Parliament they had been guilty of Obstruction. He deprecated the blame for the waste of time that had resulted from the incapacity of the Government being thrown upon the shoulders of the Irish Representatives. For his part, he should rejoice if Irish Members could say that the social condition of their country did not require their interference, and that they could say their constituents were as satisfied as were those of hon. Members opposite. It would not be necessary then to intrude on the time of the House as they had. But there was not an hon. Member in the House who had heard Irish Members address them—whether they agreed with the views put forward or not—who would admit that Ireland was in that state. He would not have risen had it not been for the few observations made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was one of those who concurred with all that the Government had attempted to do with reference to the Bill which was so long under discussion in the House. But he should regret if it should go forth that the state of Public Business, or the incapacity of the Government to do that which, if they had the power, in his mind, it would be their duty to do, should lead to anything occurring in Ireland, which he, for one, as an Irish Member, should entirely deplore. He was an Irish Member long connected with his county, and he was there to express an individual opinion; but he was not prepared to take the alarming view that the hon. Member for Tipperary had taken, and to suppose that in the coming winter either the landlords or tenants of Ireland should so far forget the interests of their country as, on the part of the landlords, to take steps which must weigh against them in future when the Land Question came on for consideration; or, on the other hand, that the unfortu- nate tenants should so forget the happiness of themselves and their families as to take a course which might subject them to what had been described as decimation and massacre. He trusted that the harvest which would shortly be reaped in that country would be sufficiently abundant to remove some of the despondency which had weighed upon them; but, in any case, he hoped that the good sense of all parties would admonish them to avoid doing anything which might bring about outrages and massacres, which they should all deplore.

remarked, that circumstances appeared to have changed since he had formerly sat in that House. He had clearly understood from the noble Marquess, yesterday, that the Employers' Liability Bill was to be taken on Friday, and now the noble Lord appeared to have withdrawn from that understanding. The conduct of the Government in the matter was entirely novel, and the noble Lord should state definitely to the House what course would be taken.

Sir, I am most anxious not to be misunderstood on this subject, and there is not the slightest ground for charging the Government with any discourtesy on this matter. I endeavoured, yesterday, to state, as clearly as I could, what were the arrangements with regard to Public Business which the Government thought it right to propose; but, of course, those arrangements depend very much upon whether it is possible or not to carry them out. For instance, we proposed to go into Committee upon the Hares and Rabbits Bill this morning, but we have not been allowed to do so; and if this discussion is continued we may not be able to get into Committee on the measure to-day, or even during the remainder of the week. I do not think that it is desirable that it should be understood that arrangements made beforehand at this period of the Session should be regarded as arrangements absolutely conclusive under all circumstances.

thought it would be for the convenience of the House if the Government would definitely state whether they adhered to the programme foreshadowed by the noble Marquess. He could not understand the great difficulty which the noble Marquess felt in carrying out that programme.

said, he thought it was to be regretted that his Motion had given rise to such a long debate. That, however, was not his fault. He did not want the noble Marquess to state definitely that, under all circumstances, such and such a Bill should come on. But it was important to know whether, if the Hares and Rabbits Bill was not completed to-morrow, it would be continued on Friday.

rose to Order, asking whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to make another speech?

The Question before the House being a substantive Motion, the hon. Gentleman has the right of reply.

hoped that the hon. Gentleman opposite would make himself more fully acquainted with the Rules of the House before he again unnecessarily interrupted an hon. Member in his speech. This debate might have been avoided, if only the Government had expressed its intentions with more clearness.

said, it was perfectly certain that if his noble Friend had said in case anybody succeeded in talking out the Hares and Rabbits Bill on Tuesday or Wednesday it would not be taken on Thursday or Friday, they would be giving a very unwise encouragement to such proceedings.

said, very many charges had been made against the Party to which he belonged; but, at the risk of bringing himself within the accusation of offering illegitimate Obstruction, he would not be deterred, whenever any question, directly or indirectly, affecting Ireland came before the House, from raising his voice in favour of just, and against any unjust proposals. He had no intention of delaying the Business of the House by prolonging the present debate, his object simply being to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was prepared to answer the straightforward Question of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon)? Ireland was on the eve of great events, caused by the collision of Party factions in England, and the exercise of a miserable and narrow spirit in "another place." The Irish tenants were now standing between their own little homes and the roadside; and if a law, declared by the responsible Government of the country to be an unjust law, was to be put in execution during the coming winter, then the Government would have to be responsible for what would follow. Both in Parliament and out of Parliament the Irish Members would, as they had a perfect right to do, agitate and organize to the best of their ability, and use whatever powers God or nature had endowed them with, in order to have the Land Question properly settled. They were now facing a very critical period in Irish history; and he thought it the duty of the Chief Secretary, who was responsible for the government of that country, to give the hon. Member for Tipperary a direct and immediate answer to the Question which had been put to him.

did not understand that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had asked him any Question. He simply understood him, in language part of which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) very much regretted, to make a protest with regard to the present state of matters in Ireland. He understood the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) to ask him whether the Government intended to take any steps, or to bring forward any measure, in consequence of what happened in "another place?" As regarded that Question, he could only refer to the answer he had already given, and which the Government saw no reason to change. He could not sit down without saying how deeply he regretted those anticipations of evil in the coming winter in Ireland. He thought they were anticipations that might do something, but he hoped not much, towards their own fulfilment. He could only state that the Government were conscious of their deep responsibility, and would continue to do their duty. They must preserve law and order in Ireland.

rose to move the adjournment of the House.

intimated to the hon. Member that his Motion was not in Order, no other Motion having intervened since the House had just decided against the adjournment.

said, he desired to make a few observations with reference to the Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper, which he hoped might facilitate the passing of the Bill. They seemed to him to be necessary, inconsequence of the extraordinary misunderstanding and misrepresentation which he had seen in The Daily News of that morning on the subject of these Amendments. The fact was, that the statement in that paper was not consistent with the facts.

, interposing, said, he must call attention to the fact that there were two Instructions to be moved upon going into Committee on this Bill, and that they ought to take precedence of any explanatory statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to make.

, in rising to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take powers to extend the provisions of the Bill to all game;"

said, the debate on the second reading of the Bill seemed, for the most part, to have been a little family discussion among the landlords and their friends. It would be well, he thought, to spend their time in giving a thoroughly Radical tone to the measure. Some people seemed to think that the Home Secretary had been guilty of sacrilege in attacking this monument of past legislation—the Game Laws—and he perceived, from the Amendment of which the right hon. Gentleman had given Notice, that he had made certain concessions to the landlord interest on the Ministerial side of the House, but had made none to the Radicals; and, therefore, it was that he desired to move the Instruction to the Committee, of which he had given Notice, for extending the Bill to other game besides ground game. The Home Secretary, in bringing in the Bill, said that the right to destroy animals which preyed on the crops should be an in- alienable incident of occupation. Were not birds animals? Why, then, should the Bill be limited to hares and rabbits? Now, he was not prepared to say that pheasants, partridges, and other winged game did as much damage to the crops as hares and rabbits did; but it would be admitted that partridges and pheasants, and particularly the latter, did a considerable amount of mischief to the crops. He held in his hand a letter from a farmer on this point, which he would quote to the House. The writer said—

"By my lease I was protected from damage from hares and rabbits by the insertion of a compensation clause; but so little was this covenant on the landlord's part regarded by him or his agents, that through the whole of the term protests and threats of proceedings had continually to be employed to prevent its being a complete mockery. The winged game was reserved unconditionally. The first sittings of pheasants' eggs were gathered up by the keepers, and hatched off under barn-door fowls in hen-houses near the keepers' lodges, and early put out with their cooped foster-mothers on a part of the park adjoining the tenants' arable lands. As soon as the barley began to change colour they were lured by the keepers into the standing corn, and might for weeks be seen by the hundred leisurely and fearlessly passing and re-passing the road between the park and the field. If, as in late years has been frequently the case, the wheat was left uncarted long in the fields, the tops of the shocks would be matted and grown together through the pheasants turning them into perches and feeding-ground, and the rakings of wheat and barley would be thrashed out completely through this species of so-called harmless game if left out long through bad weather. As these flocks of tame birds were not supposed to have reached their full size for the market until the end of November, the mischief did not end when the harvest was over. The newly-sown wheat and bean fields near the coverts furnished the next feeding-ground, and so much of the seed corn would they gouge out with their hooked beaks, that it was sometimes necessary to drill the field, or parts of it, again. The mangold-wurzels next received their attention, and cartloads of these would be perforated or hollowed out to a shell before storage time came. The damage done by partridges is not so great as that done by semi-domesticated pheasants. The former are not reared artificially, and of late the cold and wet in the hatching time has kept down their numbers. This bird lends itself less to the gratification of the craze for heavy game-bags; and were it not that the modern sportsman has substituted driving for the good old fashion of walking them down, which involves too much physical exertion to be in great favour, there would be little probability of the partridges becoming as great a nuisance as the pheasants; but there is no question that where partridges exist in excess they do a considerable amount of harm. Where they are numerous they frequently take out nearly all the seed corn in the drill mark of the furrow. When winter sets in the winter vetches form a favourite pasturage for them, and, consequently, early growth is checked. Swede turnips left for late feed for store sheep and ewes and lambs in spring are in sharp weather scooped out by the crown, which prevents the spring shoot appearing, or, by letting in the frost, causes them to rot."

He thought it would be admitted that that letter was a very fair statement of the damage done. ["No!"] He would refer hon. Members who disputed it to the Reports of the Royal Commissions of 1845 and 1871 on that subject. It was said that excessive preservation was the exception, and not the rule. He should say that the man who turned out one bird to feed on the crops of his neighbours, without allowing the right of shooting it, would be indulging in excessive game preservation. But where the game was not preserved it was let to plutocrats from the City, and the plutocrats were a greater nuisance than the landlords. These plutocrats had no connection with the land, and no interest in the farmers. They paid for their shooting, and naturally wished to have the worth of their money, and to vie with the county gentlemen in making great bags. All this led to excessive preservation; and the result was that a large amount of the crops of the country were eaten up by game, and every year 10,000 persons were convicted for destroying birds which they thought they had a right to kill. ["No, no !"] An hon. Member said "No;" but the Bishop of Manchester did not take the same view. That respectable Prelate said "partridge and pheasants corrupt the virtue of the labourer." The labourers had a natural sense of justice, and although they knew that poaching was against the law they did not consider that it was a crime to poach; and it was a violation of the first principles of justice to make that a legal crime which was not a moral wrong. Many of the pheasants' eggs that were bought by gentlemen for their game preserves were supplied by poachers; and the labourer might well be astonished that the village squire should encourage him to poach an egg, and afterwards prosecute him for taking the egg when it had developed into a bird. The Game Laws had been termed by Blackstone a "bastard slip of the forest laws," which were intended to enable the privileged classes to destroy animals that were fer æ natureæ; but Blackstone would be surprised to find that Game Laws were passed to enable a country gentleman to raise kinds of predatory poultry for the mere purpose of knocking them over after they had fattened on the crops of his neighbour. Even the Norman Kings never thought of raising game in order to kill it. They simply insisted on their rights to kill the game they found within certain forest preserves. A sportsman of old would have scouted the idea of modern sporting, which was the outcome of a long and luxurious civilization. What was this noble sport about which they heard so much? It was, as a rule, effeminate, contemptible butchery of semi-domestic creatures. Take pheasant - shooting. They all knew what pheasant-shooting was. Partridge-shooting was carried on on the same principle. ["No!"] Why, partridge driving was the usual way. They shot partridges as they flew overhead. He did not exaggerate when he said that shooting was not a sport in the fair and legitimate sense of the word. The system of shooting which existed was an abuse. The shooting at Hurlingham—was that sport? It was an abuse. Speaking of deer-stalking, it was not so lazy or luxurious a sport. Its principal evil was, that they had to depopulate enormous tracts in Scotland in order to allow the deer to exist, and that every farmer in the neighbourhood had to inclose his fields most carefully in order to prevent the ferocious brutes from coming down and devouring everything on the ground. He believed that the great mass of country gentlemen would be secretly thankful if something were done to put an end to the present system of preserving. Every pheasant their friends shot cost them about a sovereign; and, doubtless, they would be glad if, in the autumn, they could say to their friends—"I wish I could have given you some shooting. But for these abominable Radicals, I should have been delighted to do so." They would be grateful to the House of Commons for such an excuse. He (Mr. Labouchere) and his political associates would not be satisfied until they had absolutely abolished all the Game Laws, and reduced the Trespass Laws to such proportions that they could not be converted into Game Laws. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but that was what was coming in the near future. Game was the common property of all men. Any law which interfered with the right to take game was an attack upon property, because it interfered with the right of a man to do what he liked with his own. Land also, in a certain sense, might be considered the common property of all. There were three concurrent owners—the community, the landlord, and the occupier. Mr. Williams, an eminent Conservative and a great legal authority, said, in one of his books, that the first thing a student of law had to do was to clear his mind of the notion that there was any absolute property in land. Hon. Members who thought differently would be better able to grasp the nature of the legislation impending over them if they took Mr. Williams's advice and cleared their minds of erroneous views on this subject. He thought it desirable that one or two words should be introduced into the Bill to include winged as well as ground game. If his proposal were adopted in the Bill it would be a very tolerable measure. Even if there were not time to introduce these Amendments this Session, it would be still well for the House to pass this Instruction as a protest against the existing form of the Game Laws. It would show the Home Secretary that instead of being in advance of public opinion he was lagging behind it; and it would show the Government that if they grasped this question in a far more drastic spirit than that which they now displayed they would receive from the Liberal side of the House the warmest and most cordial support. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Instruction to the Committee.

Sir, I shall only ask the indulgence of the House for a short time in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend upon a question which, I think, the House will acknowledge is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest for many years. I need not assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I have no desire to stop or to obstruct the Bill of which he is in charge. Had I any such intention I should not have waited until this point. On the contrary, Sir, I desire to treat the Bill with all respect. I follow, indeed, the dictum of the poet who tells us that "we must not scorn the meanest thing." There is no use denying, Sir, that the enemies of our iniquitous Game Law system in and out of the House have experienced a great disappointment at the very small—I would say the insignificant—character of the Billintroduced. Neither the House nor the country can forget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, and the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is a Member of the Government, and is a man who has done more than any man in the country to awaken the understanding of the people to the evils of game. Nor can we forget that another right hon. Friend of mine (the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland) nearly 20 years ago led us into the Lobby against the most infamous element in our Game Law system, the Poaching Prevention Act of 1862. I remember that, under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, we fought through the night, until broad daylight on one July morning, in an attempt to prevent that iniquitous Bill from being passed. One might, however, suppose that when a Government, containing those right hon. Gentlemen, proposed a Bill on this subject, the first thing they would have done would have been to abolish that particular law. But I am not, for all this, for a moment venturing to blame my right hon. Friends. I have no doubt that they think they are doing the very best that the circumstances of the moment will permit them to do. I know that they have game preservers opposite to them, that they have game preservers behind them, that they have game preservers all around them, and I was content to accept whatever they would offer. I should not, therefore, have ventured to trouble the House to-day but for the fear that more concessions will be made in the direction of weakness. The Bill, as it originally was brought in, was quite small enough to satisfy the most moderate of reformers. If it is to be diminished to the extent that I understand—I had not the honour of hearing the right hon. Gentleman, and I have not had an opportunity of seeing the Papers that he has laid on the Table—but if it is to be diminished in the sense that I have heard, it then becomes a very grave question for us more advanced reformers to ask ourselves whether it would not be better the Bill should be postponed altogether for another Session. Now, my right hon. Friend began by disappointing us. He told us he placed his Bill on a Par- liamentary basis, and that he based it on the recommendation of a well-known agriculturist, Mr. Clare Sewell Read, and also on the recommendations of the Committees which have sat twice on this subject during the last 30 or 40 years. But my right hon. Friend, when he had got the dictum of a Conservative agriculturist as that which should form the basis of his Bill, took only a very small proportion even of that Conservative agriculturist's recommendation. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture, stated before the Committee that that Chamber had resolved that hares and rabbits should be dropped out of the Game Laws, and that owners and occupiers should have an inalienable right to kill ground game. That was the proper remedy for the evil in the opinion of the Chamber. But my right hon. Friend has taken only a very small and insignificant portion of that recommendation. Sir, one might suppose that when a Bill was to be brought in which was said to contain the recommendations of the Select Committee, that it would have effected the destruction of that abomination—the cumulative penalty system. That was one of the things distinctly recommended by the Committee of 1846. Another one of the most injurious parts of the Game Law system is that which gives the informer half the penalty obtained. The abolition of that was also a distinct recommendation of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has neglected that also. One important provision which has already been carried into effect with regard to Scotland was a facile and cheap mode of redress for damage by arbitration. We hear nothing of that. Of course, it is nothing to say that those for whom I am principally concerned—the people of England—are not at all considered in the matter. The 10,000 convictions that take place every year, the wholesale demoralization alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—they are altogether left outside of the four corners of this Bill. Now, I am not sure that the Bill would not leave the agricultural labourer, in one respect, in an actually worse condition than that in which he is now, because when it is passed he will have a number of inferior and second-rate game preservers in the farmers themselves, and in place of every single prosecution now there may be two or three under the provisions of this Bill. Still, Sir, notwithstanding all these objections, I should not have risen at the present time to criticize the measure, but for the fear which is generally expressed that the Government intend still further to modify this very moderate Bill. I say nothing about my own opinion as to what good it will be to the farmer; but I must say one or two words upon the general effect of the Bill, because it is doubtful whether it will be any good whatever, and, therefore, any further modification must render the Bill clearly unworthy of our support. I can hardly see how the farmer is to get any practical good from this Bill, because, according to the law at the present time, not only the ground game, but the whole of the game, belongs to the occupier, unless he specifically makes them over to his landlord. If he is strong and bold, then he keeps the game. If he is cowardly and weak, he cannot prevent the preservation of game now, and he would not be able to prevent the preservation of game under this Bill. There has been much talk about the violation of contract, and also, upon the other hand, it is said that honourable landlords are not likely to fail in their pledges; but the Bill, in my opinion, does not touch these questions at all. There is no need for any violation of contract. What more natural than for a landlord to say to a farmer—"Well, my good friend, I am very happy to have you for my tenant; it is eminently desirable that we should keep a good relation, and that we should have a common understanding as to the cultivation of the land, that we should work harmoniously together. I suppose you would not wish to destroy all the game on the estate." The tenant, of course, would reply—"Oh no, master; I am not one for that." That maybe the only contract, and then, if afterwards the ideas of landlord and tenant on the subject of game preservation be found not to agree, why, then, the landlord gives the man notice to quit—and there is an end of safety under this Bill. But, further, the landlord would not violate the Act if he said to his tenant on audit day—"You have carried out very honourably our understanding; you have preserved as much game as I want; there is 10 per cent off your rent." That would not be a part of the contract; but, nevertheless, the result of it would be to defeat the Bill. Then, again, what could the farmer do if the landlord evaded the Bill by excluding his coverts from the four corners of the lease altogether? The Bill would then be no use against the worst enemies of the farmers—the rabbits—because, even if the farmer or his principal servant killed them in the open, if they cannot go into the coverts and stop them there, they cannot prevent the injury done by these pests. Although I do not speak as a practical man, I believe that every practical man will tell you, and I find the fact in our Blue Books, that you cannot possibly get rid of rabbits by shooting them in the fields; you have to snare them in the hedgerows, and ferret them out of the holes if they are at all to be kept under. Still, of all this I do not complain. I take it for granted that this Bill was as good as possible, and I am bound to admit that, so far as I can judge, the farmers take a much more favourable view of the Bill in regard to its effect upon themselves than I do. I will not put myself, or the cause for which I have acted for so many years, in the thankless and unenviable position of enabling the farmers to be able to say, even plausibly—"Here is an irreconcilable theorist, and because the man cannot get what he wants, he stands in the way of the efforts of the Government to benefit us." I therefore resolved at first to say nothing at all. Moreover, the language of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill very much more reconciled me to it, because he said that he brought forward this Bill now, and that if the House did not pass it, the alternative was the abolition of the Game Laws. It follows, therefore, quite distinctly, that if, as I believe, this poor palliative will be found to have failed, that my right hon. and learned Friend is clearly and obviously bound to take his other course, and go for the utter abolition of the Game Laws. Moreover, he says—"I am not dealing with the Game Laws themselves, that is a question that will come by-and-bye. It is an urgent and important question." I was delighted to hear him say that it was to be dealt with in a not distant future. It appears, however, as he has told us, that he is not dealing with the Game Laws at all, and when he also declared that he was merely dealing with the principal grievance which was affecting farmers, I felt, of course, entirely reconciled, and that the best plan I could take was not to complain of this little Bill, and to trust to the farmers and the right hon. Gentleman in the future. If there is one thing more astonishing than another in the course of these debates, it has been the wonderful change of opinion since I first came to the House on this question. I have been told many times that I am a fanatic on this question; but I shall, really, after what has taken place, be inclined to look upon myself as a prophet. When I hear hon. Gentlemen, from the mountain of the Opposition, declare that the evil of the Game Laws was a crying and an enormous one, with which the farmers of this country neither could nor would put up with much longer, I confess I was astonished at the change of opinion, and I was not surprised to find that I had a Government pledge at no very distant date to my measure for the abolition of the Game Laws; not absolutely and universally pledged, I am sorry to say, for I heard with regret and surprise the observations that were made by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), in which he declared that the abolition of the Game Laws neither was nor could be admitted, because if it were, a stringent trespass law would be obliged to be passed, and that would be a Game Law and something more. I trust my hon. Friend will have repented of his heresy before a very long time has passed, or he will find himself in singular disunion with the right hon. Gentlemen with whom he sits. He maintains the system of the Game Laws because it completes the divorce between the population and the land; but I have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make an eloquent speech upon this subject, and I agreed with every word he said when he denounced a system which allows to the great mass of the population no interest and no enjoyment in the land but the right to walk along the high road. I think that the heresy of my hon. Friend is as capable, as nearly as possible, of mathematical refutation as any theory could be. Trespassers upon the land are of two kinds—those who trespass in pursuit of game, and those who do not trespass in pursuit of game, but who go in search of birds' nests or to gather flowers, or to do anything else of that kind which takes the population on to the land. They will, so far as these Game Laws are concerned, of course be in precisely the same category as now; and in respect to those who trespass in search of game, it is manifest that when you have abolished the laws which keep up the head of game, you will have enormously diminished the head of game on the land, and you will consequently have proportionately diminished the temptation to trespass. We have long been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the old sentimental poacher is gone, and that we have now only the villain who makes money out of poaching as a business. Very well; then the villain presently will not be able to make money out of it, and everyone knows perfectly well that it is quite possible to have enough game for the purposes of sport in the old English style, and yet not to have half enough to tempt the professional poacher. I am, Sir, therefore, humbly thankful for the present Bill, and I believe that right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not really dislike the Bill so much for the practical effect of it as because they cannot bear that a daring finger should even touch their sacred Game Laws. I am, therefore, for this Bill heartily thankful; but I am not if it is to be emasculated, and disembowelled of all the good it contains. I have not seen the Amendments of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I have not read what they are; but I say at once that if they are framed with the object which I understand, I shall strongly object to them. If there is to be an Amendment which forbids the occupier to kill game except by daylight, that is a fatal blot in the Bill. [Sir WILLIAM: HARCOURT: That is not so.] I am delighted to hear it. If there is an Amendment which prevents the use of surface traps, which cannot be put where hares and rabbits run because they may catch other delicate creatures, that would be a most disastrous limitation. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear hear!] Another thing has been said, and I trust my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to deny it absolutely. I infer, from what I have seen in the papers, that he is now, for the first time in the history of this Bill, going to set up a close season for ground game. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am happy to say, by his replies, has entirely destroyed the effect of the criticisms which I wish to make, and I shall, therefore, not attempt to delay the passage of the Bill by talking any more about it. It is a Bill which does something; and, therefore, I thank him very cordially for its introduction. I thank him, however, above all, for the promise he has held out to the House that, at no distant date, we may look forward to the abolition of the Game Laws as a Government measure.

said, that, judging from his state of alarm, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Taylor) had evidently been reading nothing but The Daily News. The statements in that paper concerning this Bill were entirely inaccurate; and the conclusions drawn from them were, therefore, groundless. The hon. Member had complained that the Bill did not remove all the evils of the Game Laws. That was perfectly true. It did not propose to be a Bill to amend the Game Laws as a whole, though he hoped to see such a Bill introduced one day, as those laws certainly required amending. The Bill was meant to remedy a special grievance of the farmers. It had been charged against him by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), as if it were a mistake, if not a crime, that he avowed that the Bill was brought in in the interest of the farmers. Well, he said again that it was a Bill for which the farmer wished. His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) desired to see the provisions of the Bill applied to pheasants and partridges; but, if he referred to the Report of the Select Committee, he would see that they stated that the complaints were principally directed against ground game, and that it was shown that little harm—and only that which could be easily prevented—was done by winged game, while partridges, by their consumption of the insects, were a benefit to the farmer. He could not help thinking that the hon. Members for Northampton and Leicester would not be doing what the farmers desired if they imperilled the passing of this Bill, as they would do if they succeeded in introducing partridges and pheasants into it. The object of the Bill was to secure the crops of the farmer, and not to destroy sport. He had always regarded crops as being more important than sport, and held that, if the two things were inconsistent, the sport of the gentleman should yield to the crop of the farmer. So far, however, as the two could be reconciled, he had always desired that that should be done. He had never disparaged sporting at all, so long as sporting could be enjoyed without the destruction of crops. What was desired was that sporting should not be pursued where, for the pleasure of the few, the interests of the many were sacrificed. The Bill was meant to protect the crops of the farmer, without interfering more than was necessary with the sport of other people—to do as much good to agriculture and as little harm to sporting as was possible. He had stated the principle of the Bill on the second reading, with the desire of seeing Amendments put on the Paper by hon. Members representing the interests of the farmer and of the sportsman, and examining them with a view of deciding which he could fairly adopt, having in view the interests of both parties. As the Bill stood, its 1st clause declared a naked right; the Proviso declared certain limitations of that right. The Amendments on the Paper might be grouped into two classes. They did not amount to 140, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), as the right hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir John Hay) had a considerable number of Amendments down to alter "ground game" into "hares and rabbits." After the first was disposed of, it could not be supposed that the right hon. and gallant Member would force them to discuss and vote on each of the others which remained, as they all referred to the same subject. The enumeration referred to was, therefore, delusive. In the Proviso he had put on the Paper he had dealt—he would not say satisfactorily to all hon. Members, but he hoped to many—with the Amendments. He did not think that any of the Amendments were altogether incompatible with the principle of the Bill save that of his hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand). He was not going at the present time to discuss whether the proposal was, in the abstract, a good or a bad one; but would simply say that, in his view, it was impracticable, and could not be introduced into the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had also proposed certain Amendments; but they were, in his view, incompatible with the scope of the Bill. There were other Amendments, however, which were not of that character, and which were not incompatible with the principle of the Bill. As to those which he had been unable to adopt, one had reference to the use of the gun by farmers. It was asked why farmers should be allowed to use the gun—why they should not be limited to snares and traps? He was not prepared to say that it was not possible to destroy hares and rabbits without using the gun; but he must say that this Bill would be utterly unacceptable to the class in whose interests it was framed if the use of the gun was prohibited. He thought, indeed, it would be a very ungracious and—he did not use the word offensively—a very shabby act if such a prohibition were to be enacted. He did not think it was in the interests of sport to give to the farmer simply destructive facilities, and to forbid him the more dignified method, approaching somewhat to the character of sport. It was far better, in his opinion, that they should interest the farmer in the sport in which the landlords themselves engaged, and not to say to them—"I am here for a few days in the year and can use a gun; but you, who live all the year round on the estate, must not use such a weapon; I confine you to the lower methods." For his own part, he had lived from his earliest youth on an estate where it was always the habit to give the farmers the right of shooting all the game. What was the consequence? There was not a tenant there who might not do exactly as he liked—shoot hares, rabbits, and partridges—and there was not a keeper in the whole place. Yet there were a great many partridges and hares on the estate, and much better sport was enjoyed than on estates where keepers were employed. It was well to treat farmers in a generous spirit. He had talked, the other day, with a large farmer holding under the Duke of Roxburghe, who had expressed astonishment at the opposition to the Bill, because it would give him nothing that the Duke did not give to every one of his tenants. He (Sir William Harcourt) admitted that the main object of the Bill was to keep down hares and rabbits; but if, in carrying out that object, the farmer incidentally enjoyed some little sport, why should it be grudged him? If a farmer saw a rabbit eating out the heart of his prize turnips or favourite carrots, there was a natural feeling of resentment at the act—such a feeling as would prompt him to avenge himself on the spot—not to wait till night, and entrap the offender in a snare. With regard to the close time, Mr. Clare Read had expressed his willingness to consent to one of three months—namely, April, May, and June; but if the Bill were taken advantage of for the first time to create a close time for hares, it would be somewhat incongruous and illogical. There was no such intention on the part of the Government in framing the Bill, and he could not now see his way to adopting any such principle. It was true, a close time existed for bares in Ireland; but that was one of the eccentricities of Irish legislation. As to the Amendments he had adopted, the first had reference to the persons to be authorized by the occupier to kill game. There was very little alteration in the original proposal. Instead of enacting the proposal in a clause, he had put it in as a limitation. There was no alteration in the original Bill with the exception that, under pressure, he had confined the outsider, not being a member of the farmer's household or in his service, to one instead of seven. What this man ought to be was a professional rabbit-killer. Many people did not know how to kill rabbits. Notice was to be given to the collector of taxes as to who was this authorized agent. That was really the only alteration he had made in the "unauthorized agent," with the exception of introducing notice of other persons entitled to kill game. He came now to the second proposal. He had excluded from the right of killing game those who had only "commoners'" rights. His next Amendment had reference to the prevention of using firearms by night. He did not know that anyone should prefer shooting by night, and during the darkness it was much more probable that greater execution would be done by snaring than by discharging a double barrelled gun. There was another Amendment which was, perhaps, more serious, and that was the prevention of traps being used above ground, which, of course, was a limitation, to a certain extent, upon the right of killing. Such traps were in some cases cruel, and he considered there were plenty of other methods of killing game than that involved in this barbarous practice. In the list of Amendments which he had from the first promised was one with regard to moorland, as to which it was proposed that the rights conferred by the section should obtain only from 11th December to 31st March. In making this proposal he had had in view the desirableness of reconciling the interests of sport with the permanent interests and security of the crops; but if the Committee thought upon any alternative period, he would have no objection to consider it with care when they got into Committee. Some people might think that his Amendments went too far, and others, no doubt, would say that they did not go far enough; but he could say that he had produced them in the hope, and with the expectation, that they would facilitate the passing of the Bill, and, at the same time, render it as effective as possible.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was to be congratulated on his speech. He did not think that he had ever heard two speeches more different in character than that to which they had just listened, and the one delivered on the bringing forward of the measure; and had the right hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward the Bill in the same spirit as he had now displayed, he could not doubt that less aversion would have been evinced towards it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now appeared to have discovered, for the first time, that it was not inexpedient to adopt a spirit of conciliation. It appeared to him (Mr. Balfour) that the measure was conceived while the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in electioneering difficulties, and that that occurred to him between his rejection at Oxford and his election at Derby. As first introduced, the Bill bore traces of this origin. It seemed to have been brought in merely for the purpose of satisfying an electioneering cry, and an Act of Parliament based on such a cry was not likely to be eminently satisfactory. The Amendments the right hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced, however, would do a good deal to remedy its defects; but there was one defect remaining against which he felt bound to protest—although he was afraid it was too much of the essence of the Bill to be overcome now—and that was the manner in which the Bill interfered with the liberty of contract. Some hon. Members opposite would appear to think that freedom of contract was a doctrine recently invented by Tory squires for the protection of their own interests. He would appeal from the new to the old Radicals. He would remind them how the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), when dealing, many years ago, with the Ten Hours Bill, opposed that measure on the ground that it interfered with freedom of contract. Yet that Bill was designed to protect not a class like the English tenant farmers, but women and children. Its object was not to remove an obstacle to industry, which was, after all, more vexatious than serious; but to preserve the health and promote the education of large classes of the population. The apology usually made for any interference with principle was that it was exceptional, or was very small; but the acceptance of such an excuse made it easier that the principle should be interfered with again. Every time a small interference was made fresh precedents were put on the Statute Book. He entertained no hostility to the professed objects of the Bill, for his firm belief was that something effectual must be done. He looked with the greatest aversion upon those game preservers by whose folly all these difficulties had arisen. He held them responsible not only for the difficulties which had arisen between landlords and tenants, but in part for the legislation now submitted to Parliament. But whether some legislation was necessary or not, he could not allow the present attempt to deal with the question to pass without entering his protest against the principle which underlay it—namely, the violation of freedom of contract.

said, that many of his constituents were greatly interested in the measure, which they regarded as a redemption of promises made in election speeches. Within the last few days he had travelled in the Midland Counties, and had come in contact with members of Agricultural Associations, and he found everywhere a feeling of thankfulness that the Bill had been brought in. The tenant farmer felt at last that he would have some chance of relief from the ravages of ground game. It would have been far better, however—and he (Mr. Wiggin) had wished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department could have seen his way sufficiently clear—to have gone somewhat further, and have given the tenant an exclusive right to deal with the ground game, rather than a concurrent right. The concurrent right might probably produce much jealousy and ill-feeling between landlord and tenant. For instance, if the landlord heard some morning that the tenant had shot six or seven hares the day before, the landlord would make haste to secure his quota, and between them these useful animals, in the right place, would be exterminated. Beyond that, an exclusive right for the tenant would do much to tempt men of capital and enterprize to enter upon agricultural pursuits. He might be told that the tenant had that right now; but if such were the case the law was a dead letter. It was really a monstrous thing that a tenant should be called upon to supply food for an unknown quantity of hares and rabbits for the benefit of his landlord; and the principle which he suggested was that which he acted upon in his arrangements with his own tenants, in whose case he bargained with them for the shooting, if they did not care to have it themselves. With a fair rent, and moderate rates and taxes, and an exclusive right to the ground game, the English tenant farmer, notwithstanding this excessive foreign competition and variable climate, would yet be able to hold his own against the competition of all the world.

could not imagine that the House would consent to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Northampton. If he made a few remarks upon the present position of affairs, it was with no desire to delay the progress of the Bill, the principle of which, it ought always to be remembered, had been assented to without a division on the second reading. Therefore, the objections now raised to interference with freedom of contract could not be entertained, as they might have been if the House was discussing the Bill for the first time. The principle of the Bill having been assented to, they were, to some extent, bound by it, and that principle was this—It was considered contrary to public policy that the occupier should wholly divest himself of the right to protect his property in the growing crops, and that this property was entitled to the same protection as all other property. It was said that such protection was never less needed than at the present time, when on many estates ground game had been kept down to such an extent that there was no practical grievance; but they must look forward to a time when there would be the same competition for farms that there had been in the past. It was desirable that tenants should be encouraged to lay out capital freely, and to devote their energies to agriculture. He could not conceal the fact that their agriculturists had to face a severe competition. It was necessary that farmers should not be unduly weighted; and, in fact, if landlords were to have their rents, they must not be too particular about the rabbits. But this measure, as introduced, was a tremendous interference with what had been the law and custom and habit of country life in England. In all the cases in which freedom of contract had been interfered with by legislation the interference had been defended on the ground that it was necessary to make the practice of the best landlords, or shipowners, or factory-owners, compulsory upon all; but this Bill went further than was necessary for such a purpose as that. What the tenant farmers wanted was a protective right, not a sporting right. He believed the Bill would destroy much good feeling between landlords and tenants, and in that way might do more harm than good. It might even have a worse effect than that. At the same time, they would all thank the Home Secretary for the manner in which he had considered the Amendments on the Paper; and he hoped he would, in the same spirit of concession, give special attention to the Amendments of which Notice had been given by the hon. Members for Richmond, Sussex, and East Suffolk, which seemed to give the protection to the tenant which he needed. They gave the landlord and tenant power to enter into a contract to limit the time in which the right should be exercised to, say, three or four months. During that time the tenant would have power to reduce the number of ground game to an extent reasonably compatible with the suc- cess of his crops, and for the remainder of the year the landlord would be able to enjoy undisputed sport. Such an arrangement would do satisfactory and substantial justice between owner and occupier, and they might expect it to afford a fair settlement of the question.

said, he believed the farmers of Norfolk were unanimously in favour of this Bill; but they were by no means prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton.

said, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his Amendment, if adopted, would render it impossible to go on with the Bill this Session, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw it. The measure did not go very far; but, as far as it went, he did not desire to defeat it.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had alluded to some Amendments he (Sir John Hay) had placed on the Paper with reference to this Bill. It was quite true there were no fewer than 14 of them; but, as the House would see, they were, for the most part, merely consequential Amendments. It was the supposition that there was a large amount of feeling in favour of this Bill among the farmers. Now, a question had been put to him by the constituency who had recently elected him with reference to this Bill, and his answer was that he would not support it—an answer for which he had given very good reasons. The first reason was that it was an interference with freedom of contract. It was to be recognized that there were other persons besides landlords and tenants affected. He happened to represent a constituency in which there were few tenant farmers. The majority of his constituents were persons who ate rabbits, not farmers who were eaten up by them; and those people were considerably opposed to the Bill as it at present stood. They were also opposed to the attempt to introduce between man and man these restrictions in the matter of freedom of contract. They knew very well that for women and children, and for seamen under certain conditions, it was necessary and right that the Legislature should intervene; but if this principle were admitted as between landlord and tenant, it would very soon follow between tenants and the much larger class whom tenants em- ployed. It seemed to him very injurious to the public welfare that tenants, contrary to the wish of their landlords, and contrary to their contracts, should be committing an act for which the herd or the shepherd would get six weeks' imprisonment. In Scotland that was felt very strongly to be injurious to the people. It was for that reason, and acknowledging and recognizing, as he did, that some legislation of this kind might be necessary, that he was exceedingly desirous of seeing hares and rabbits struck out of the game list, and so remove the anomaly which was evident in the large portions of the population of the country being liable to be punished, while a small number of persons were allowed to break the law and their contracts by the regulation of this Act of Parliament. It was for that reason that he had placed on the Paper his Amendments. He agreed entirely in the suggestion that ground game should be struck out of the Bill entirely. He felt that taking hares and rabbits and calling them ground game was to legislate in the direction of giving to farmers a right to break their contracts—should do that which the large majority of the population—["Divide!"] He held that it was a bad form of legislation to place a penalty upon one class—the larger class—to whom he understood the Government were about to extend the franchise, while, at the same time, to set before them the fact that a smaller portion of the population were able against their contracts to do lawfully that which was illegal. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill would make the change he had suggested. It was only the change of a few letters; but it would have the effect of taking hares and rabbits out of the game list, and make it no longer criminal to kill them. He had recently seen a large number of tenant farmers, and he believed that there was no desire on their part to abolish the Game Laws. They were found extremely advantageous for the protection of turnips and other things which were exceedingly necessary for the tenant farmer.

expressed regret that the Home Secretary had listened to those who advised him to put these Amendments on the Paper. It was stated that the Norfolk Chamber of Agriculture had approved these Amend- ments; but Mr. Clare Read, at the meeting, distinctly stated that he desired to see the Bill passed exactly as it was printed. In that opinion he (Mr. Howard) entirely concurred. No reasons, moreover, had been advanced for bringing forward these Amendments. He would remind hon. Members that something like one-third of the farmers of England were already in possession of the sporting rights of their holdings, and the demand for the Bill came from that portion of the farmers who did not possess those rights. The farmers now in possession of sporting rights did not exercise them in an unfair and unsportsmanlike manner, and no attempt had been made to show they did. He maintained that there was no reason to conclude that those who would be intrusted by the Bill with the same rights would do so. His own little estate was surrounded by farmers big and little, who possessed a concurrent, or the sole right to the game, and not one of them exercised his rights in a way which would justify the limitations which the Amendments would impose.

said, that the hon. Member for Northampton had signified his willingness to withdraw his Motion. He was glad he had done so; but the hon. Member made certain observations of a caustic character in reference to the landlords that he (Mr. Chaplin) could not allow to pass without making one or two observations in reply, and in vindication of the conduct of those gentlemen of whose body he himself was a Member. The hon. Member had spoken of the eventual abolition of the Game Laws, and he was followed by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). Those two hon. Members apparently regarded the complete change or abolition of the Game Laws as a matter which could not be long delayed. When they made those observations he was very much surprised to hear cheers coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No!] He was delighted to get the admission that the Home Secretary was opposed to the abolition of the Game Laws.

The second statement of the hon. Member is as inaccurate as the first.

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having made that exceedingly courteous observation, ought to have pointed out in what the inaccuracy consisted. What was he to infer? He heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say "Hear, hear!" to a remark of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), in which he spoke of the abolition of the Game Laws.

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.

said, that, owing to the important statement made the previous evening by the Secretary of State for India, he had lost the opportunity of making the Amendment on this Bill of which he had given Notice. There was an important omission in the Bill, in so far as the column relating to religious profession was concerned. In 1861, Sir George Cornewall Lewis was in favour of such a column, though it was withdrawn at the time, and that Gentleman expressed a hope that it might be re-inserted. In 1871, again, Mr. Bruce, the then Home Secretary, was in favour of such a column; and he (Mr. C. Dalrymple) should have been glad to move the insertion of a similar one on this occasion. He did not himself attach much importance to the numbers of religious denominations. There were some people, however—such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren)—who got Returns on the subject, and on whose accuracy, when not favourable to the object they had in view, they threw doubt.

wished to know whether that was not "contentious" Business according to the Rules of the House. He wished to have an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member; and he was afraid if he did so he should not be in Order. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that if the Order of the Day was opposed it could not be proceeded with at that time.