asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he would state for what pre-eminent services the officer lately selected for promotion to K.C.B. in the Royal Marines is distinguished; whether it is not the case that the officer so selected has never served out of England since he was comparatively a junior lieutenant; and, whether there are not officers of the Royal Marines who have distinguished themselves in the command of battalions abroad and of brigades before the enemy, and whose services have been mentioned in Despatches, followed by C.B. and brevet rank of Colonel; if so, were their claims for further distinction not lost sight of when an officer who never served abroad except in the subordinate rank of lieutenant, and years junior to them in the Order of the Bath, was selected for promotion to K.C.B.?

Sir George Langley, K.C.B., was selected for that distinction, for long, faithful, and able services on the Staff of the corps of Royal Marines, and in early life he was highly distinguished in action. With regard to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I cannot undertake the responsibility of commencing what seems to me an innovation—comparing the relative claims of officers who have and who have not been recommended to Her Majesty for the honour of knighthood.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what progress has been made in printing the "Annals of Ulster," the publication of which was directed neatly three years ago?

, in reply, said, that the work would be begun during the present month.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any difference in the form submitted to Mr. Farrell, J.P., on his release from prison under the Coercion Act, to that which has been submitted to any other political prisoner; if he will say since when these forms have been in existence; whether all prisoners on their release have been obliged to sign them; whether they have been tendered to any prisoners who have refused to sign them; and, whether any form was submitted to, or signed by, Mr. James Daly, of Castlebar, on his release?

, in reply, said, the forms in question had been in existence since the 7th of last month. Prisoners released before that date were not required to sign any undertaking. None of the prisoners to whom the undertaking had been tendered had refused to sign it. Mr. James Daly was discharged on the 8th of May, before the form was brought into use; but, on being discharged, in view of the critical state of his health, he voluntarily tendered an undertaking that his future good conduct would justify the clemency of the Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the prison doctors have made any report on the case of Mr. Marshall, a prisoner confined in Kilmainham, and said to be suffering from disease of the brain, causing the most intense pain?

, in reply, said, the medical officer of Kilmainham had made a report with regard to the case of Mr. Marshall, from which it appeared that the complaint from which the prisoner suffered was a constant headache. The medical officer was unable to detect any organic disease, and his general health had not suffered since his imprisonment. He had consulted with two other medical gentlemen, who were likewise unable to discover any organic disease.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the general impression in the prison was that the man was mad?

said, he had not heard of such an impression.

asked, Whether arrangements have been made for completing the Court of Appeal, and filling up the vacancy caused by the death of Lord Justice James?

, in reply, said, he thought that this Question was answered by what had occurred in the House of Lords. A Bill had there been introduced for the purpose of filling up the vacancy, by making the Master of the Rolls sit in the Court of Appeal.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether any Report or Recommendations have been agreed upon by the Committee appointed to consider the operation of the Judicature Acts, and the procedure under them; and, if not, when such Report or Recommendations may be expected?

, in reply, said, that the Report and the Recommendations were made some seven or eight weeks ago. They had been circulated by the Lord Chancellor among the Judges, in order that the Committee of Judges might act on the Report. The Lord Chancellor thought it better to place it in the hands of the Judges before he laid it on the Table.

asked the Under Secretary or State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to state the names of the Commissioners, officers or others, on both sides, engaged in deciding the limits of Gibraltar?

It is not quite correct to describe these negotiations as relating to the limits of Gibraltar. They relate to the question of maritime jurisdiction. The negotiations are not sufficiently advanced for me to make any detailed statement on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Letter he has addressed to the Chambers of Commerce with reference to the English translation of the French Tariff, asked for by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool; and, if he will give a list of the Chambers to which he has written?

, in reply, said, that if the hon. Member wished for this Return, and moved for a copy of the Circular, and also for copies of the replies that had been received, he should be very glad to give it, as an unopposed Return. He might say that the Circular had been addressed to 59 Chambers of Commerce, and the Board of Trade had received 20 replies—7 of the replies being in favour of having a translation, and 13, including the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, against it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has made any inquiry into the conduct of the police with regard to the recent murder upon the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, with a view of ascertaining on what grounds they allowed the man Lefroy, who must have been intimately acquainted with the circumstances of the murder, to leave the place where he was staying, without their knowledge; and, whether he is in a position to communicate the results of such inquiry to the House?

It is a grave matter to pass judgment on the police. Although, of course, I have made inquiries into this matter, I should not consider myself justified at present in passing final sentence on the conduct of the police in this matter. At the same time, it is right that I should state that, as regards the Metropolitan Police, they cannot be regarded as directly responsible in the affair. The knowledge of this matter did not come to the authorities of the Metropolitan Police until after the escape of Lefroy. The police constables who had to do with the matter before were Sergeants Potter and Holmes. Although it is true that they are borne on the books of the Metropolitan Police, they are, by an arrangement which has hitherto been made, placed at the disposal of Railway Companies, who pay these officers; and although it is true that they still remain nominally members of the Metropolitan Police, for the purpose of pension and otherwise, they are not acting under the direction of the authorities of the Metropolitan Police. I doubt whether it is a good practice at all that persons who have passed out of the immediate jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police should continue to belong nominally to that Force while they are attached to bodies like Railway Companies. I doubt whether in such a case their connection with the Metropolitan Police ought not to be severed; for, otherwise, the Metropolitan Police become nominally responsible for the actions of persons who are not under their control.

asked, whether, as this was a matter that affected the public confidence in the Police Force generally, he would communicate the results of the inquiry to the House?

Certainly; it is my desire that the truth should be known as regards all concerned. It is necessary that the public should have confidence in the Police Force, both in London and elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the troops at Aldershot were seven hours under arms during the greatest heat of the day on Monday 4th July, and that the result has been that four men have died from this exposure, and many more are in hospital invalided from the same cause; and, if this is the case, whether he will take steps to pre- vent in the future the exercise of the troops in summer weather at such unseasonable hours; and, whether any provision has been made for the shelter of the Volunteers engaged in the review on Saturday, who will in some cases be under arms from twenty-four to thirty-six hours? He wished also to ask a Question of which he had not given Notice—namely, Whether a great many of the men were not paraded at 7.30 on Monday, and whether they had to march in some cases four miles before the operations began; also, whether there were any water-carts accompanying the regiments in this review?

also asked whether the Secretary of State was aware that the troops at Wellington Barracks were being drilled on Monday, the warmest day of the year, at 2 o'clock in the day, without having anything but a skull cap on?

The Questions last put to me are Questions of which I have not had previous Notice, and I cannot undertake to answer them at present. With regard to the other Questions, I have to say, first, that as soon as I heard of the deaths at Aldershot on Monday last, I called for full information on the subject, and the following are the facts:—A field-day had been appointed for the 4th instant some days before, and the weather at Aldershot on Sunday and Monday being cloudy, with a strong breeze on the Fox Hills, the troops went out as usual in field-day order—that is to say, carrying nothing except their water bottles—at half-past 8, after breakfast. The manœuvres were over before 1 o'clock, and until then there were no casualties, and few men fell out. About that time, however, the heat greatly increased, and, unfortunately, the usual anxiety to get back to their lines led to the Regiments hurrying the pace, and this in the heavy dust and increased heat, probably caused a good many men to fall out. Of the 19 men who were sent into hospital, the greater part fell out then. Three died of sunstroke—one a very stout man of 45, who did not fall out, and two men of long service, aged 32 and 33, one of them found, On post-mortem examination, to be highly pre-disposed to illness of this kind. The third was a healthy man. There was a fourth death of a driver, an officer's servant, from heart disease; but he was riding on a waggon all day, and had undergone no fatigue, nor did he complain till later in the day. It is remarkable that from the Brigade which went over the most ground and did the hardest work the smallest number of men—only 12—fell out, and none went into hospital. In reply to the next Question, I find that there is nothing in the Queen's Regulations limiting the hours for parades or exercises in this country; but it is well understood, and the practice is universally acted upon, that at times of exceptional heat all parades are to take place in the early morning, so that troops may be back in camp before the power of the sun becomes excessive. I do not think that, beyond this well-understood rule, attention to which has been especially called by a Circular issued on Tuesday, the discretion of commanding officers need be hampered. We are all greatly distressed by, and deeply lament the deaths of these men; but I think I have stated plainly the exceptional circumstances under which they occurred. With reference to my hon. Friend's last Question, it may interest the House to know what precautions have been taken as to the Volunteer Review by the Quartermaster General, who has been for some time past engaged in preparations for the comfort of the men taking part in the Review. With respect to the conveyance of the 52,000 men to Windsor, the Railway Companies have heartily co-operated with the military authorities, and all practical arrangements have been attended to. As to the supply of food during the day, this has always been arranged by the commanding officers of the respective regiments; but we endeavoured to help them by suggesting to some large firms accustomed to such business that they should establish booths for the sale of provisions on the ground, under arrangements with the Ranger of the Park. We found, however, that no well-known firm would undertake this; and it was then settled to revert to the ordinary plan, which seems most acceptable to the corps themselves; and I have authorized, as a special and exceptional arrangement, having regard to the unusual number of men assembled on the ground, the issue of a ration allowance of 1s. or 2s. a-head, according to the distance the men have come. Ample supplies of water and large blocks of ice will be in the rear of each division and at the railways, and great attention has been paid to the medical arrangements, both on the ground and at the stations. Should the day be very hot, care will be taken to keep the men under the trees as much as possible. I must apologize to the House for giving so long an answer; but it is perhaps justified by the public interest in this matter.

said, he would be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman could direct inquiries to be made how it was that the men were not able to take a rest after the Review, and before they returned?

said, he thought he could answer that Question now. Nothing was more disagreeable to the men than not to go back promptly to their dinner; and certainly the greater part of the casualities which occurred took place directly in consequence of that somewhat natural desire, after being out all the morning, to get their dinners as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Sergeant Majors of the Volunteers, appointed as such before the Royal Warrant of 1878, may be allowed to retain their rank and enjoy all the advantages accruing to them under that title, as regards pension?

No, Sir. This question was fully and carefully considered by my Predecessor; and I am not prepared to alter the decision, which only gave to Volunteer corps an acting sergeant-major.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If officers who entered the service above the age of twenty from the Militia, or as University candidates, and in whose favour a relaxation is made in the age of compulsory retirement, by Rule 77 of the New Army Reorganisation Scheme, will be allowed to benefit likewise by Rule 49, and consequently become available for regimental and staff employment up to the age of forty-five?

Yes, Sir; those officers will be able to do what my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether deputations from trading communities can be received now that the proceedings of the French Commissioners have been suspended; and, if not, whether any facilities can be afforded for making representations as to the manner in which particular trades will be affected by the proposed Treaty?

The sittings of the Royal Commission for the purpose of receiving deputations are for the present suspended; but the Commissioners will be very happy to receive any written representations which particular trades may have omitted to send in.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is correct, as stated in the papers, that the 2,000 ounces of gold dust imposed as a fine on the King of Ashantee have arrived in this country; whether, as also alleged, the celebrated Gold Axe of Ashantee, an article held in great reverence by the King and people of that country as "an emblem of high sovereignty," and forming no part of the exacted indemnity, has, by the repeated importunities of a trading captain, Captain Barrow, been delivered up and brought to England as a present to the Queen; and, whether Captain Barrow was invested with any official authority to treat with the King of Ashantee for the surrender of this article?

, in reply, said, that 1,200 ounces of gold dust had been received out of 2,000, and that bonds had been taken for the remainder in six months. Papers to be laid before Parliament would show the circumstances in which the King of Ashantee had decided to send the Gold Axe. The King stated that he surrendered it on the understanding that it would be sent to England to the Queen. Captain Barrow was not in the Merchant Service, but was a distinguished military officer who had acted as Political Secretary, and had been sent on various missions in the interior.

asked whether the British Government claimed the right to exact tribute from every unhappy African King?

No, Sir.

asked whether Captain Barrow had any authority to treat with the King of Ashantee for the surrender of the Axe?

Captain Barrow was authorized to treat with the King of Ashantee, but not to demand the surrender of the axe.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has received several applications from public bodies and private individuals begging him to permit the mail trains to be stopped at Thurles, and thus enable passengers and mails to be more conveniently and speedily transmitted to Clonmel and other districts by the new line of Railway recently opened; whether he is aware that the line was constructed on a guarantee on the rates of the County; and, whether, considering the interests of the ratepayers, and the convenience of the public, he can now accede to these applications?

, in reply, said, he had carefully considered the applications referred to in the Question, and found that no public advantage would ensue from complying with them. The disadvantage of stopping the trains would be that it would cause the trains to arrive somewhat later at Cork and Limerick. This would delay the letters, and would probably be inconvenient for the passengers. He was very sorry he could not accede to the request.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Report of the Law Officers of the Crown on the case of Mr. Lewisohn has been received; and, if so, whether the illegality of Mr. Lewisohn's expulsion is confirmed by that report or not; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will alone, or acting in conjunction with those Powers whose Jewish subjects have been similarly ill-treated, address a protest to the Russian Government on the subject?

We have received a preliminary Report from the Law Officers of the Crown, and communications on the subject are passing.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has had his attention called to the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, for the year 1880, just placed in the hands of Members; whether he has noticed the following statement with reference to the great increase in the daily average attendance of pupils:—

"This unusually large increase of 33,503 in the average attendance is to a considerable extent due to the benevolent operations of the Committee organised by her Grace the Duchess of Marlborough, the Mansion House Committee, and the 'New York Herald' Committee, who, in the early part of the year, supplied clothing and rations of food to destitute children in the schools of the impoverished districts;"

and, whether, looking to the impossibility of dealing permanently with this sad form of want in Ireland by means of private benevolence, he will advise the Government to take into consideration the necessity for making some arrangement by which a ration of food shall be given daily, at the public expense, to destitute children attending school in the impoverished districts?

, in reply, said, that he had seen the extract quoted by the hon. Member, but feared that if he acted on the suggestion he should be introducing a most important change. To give daily rations of food at the public expense would virtually be to give outdoor relief, and the hon. Member would at once perceive the great danger of taking such a course.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Report, issued to Members on the 5th July, drawn up by the Assistant Commissioners on Agriculture, and dated 1st January 1880; whether he has noticed the following statement in the Report with reference to the condition of the people in many parts of Ireland:—

"A succession of bad harvests has prevented them from paying up their accounts regularly. In this way debts have accumulated until many of the small farmers have come to owe the shopkeepers and others four, five, six, and even ten times the amount of their annual rent;"

whether he has noticed, amongst others, the following statements:—

"It appears to us that no industrial system could flourish under such conditions as we have described. Our experience justifies us in saying that there are many thousands of small farmers in Ireland who are paying away as interest an amount equal to the rent to their land;"

and again,

"We have already visited hundreds of these farms, and found the occupants of them in so deplorable a condition that we feel unable to describe it in a way which would enable His Grace (the Lord Lieutenant) to realise it fully;"

whether, looking to the fact that the revelations contained in the Report would, if supplied in time, have afforded valuable information to Members in considering the Irish Land Bill, he can inform the House why it was kept back so long; and, whether any further Report has been made by the Assistant Commissioners; and, if so, when can it be laid upon the Table of the House?

, in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member had asked him this Question by mistake. It ought to have been asked of some Member of the Duke of Richmond's Commission. That Commission was not under the control of the Irish Government. He supposed the hon. Member was induced to ask him the Question because of the presence of the words "His Grace" in one of the extracts. The words "His Grace" referred to the Duke of Richmond, and not to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

The Report referred to was addressed to the Lord Lieutenant.

said, he had the Report in his hand, and it began by stating—

"In accordance with your instructions, we submit to the consideration of His Grace the President of the Royal Agricultural Commission, &c."

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Rules made by him under the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, for the punishment of serious offences committed by soldiers upon active service?

No, Sir; but I hope to be able to do so before the end of the month. I have not received all the strictly confidential opinions for which I applied to officers of experience in command; but I expect these inquiries will be completed in a few days.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the evacuation of the first section of the territory to be ceded to Greece by Turkey not later than July 5th 1881, under the stipulations of the annex to the Convention of May 24th 1881, has been duly carried out?

A telegram was received yesterday from General Hamley stating that the Turks had retired from the Frontier, and that the Greeks had crossed and taken possession. All had been done in good order.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the smallness of the sums of money granted from any of the sources recently available for such purposes, towards the improvement of the fishing harbours and creeks in Clare; whether representations have been made to him as to the extraordinary way in which the fishermen of that county have availed themselves of every chance that has been afforded them, and as to the alacrity with which they have paid rents and other debts, out of their earnings under the first revival of their industry; and, whether under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are disposed to afford any further facilities for the improvement of some of the fishing harbours and creeks on that dangerous coast?

Until I read my hon. Friend's Question, my attention had not been called to the smallness of the sums assigned to County Clare. I may say, however, that the apportionment of the recent Canadian and Parliamentary grants of £60,000 was made on the recommendation of a Special Committee, which carefully examined the proposals brought before it, and the Treasury have no reason for thinking that the claims of County Clare were not duly weighed. I have no special knowledge of the condition of the fishermen on that coast. Considering the terms on which the special grant of £45,000 was made last year, I cannot at present make any promise with respect to further free grants. Any application for a loan on sufficient security, however, will be carefully considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, following the precedent of 1872, when M. Kindt was present as the representative of Belgium at the discussions in Paris between the British and French Commissioners to settle the Compensatory Duties, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure that a representative of England shall be present at the Conferences about to be held to discuss the terms of Commercial Treaties between France and Belgium, and between France and other countries?

I would beg leave to point out to the hon. Member that there is no precedent in the case of the negotiations in 1872 for what he proposes should be done now. When M. Kindt was present at the discussions between the British and French Commissioners in that year, a Treaty between this country and France had already been signed, and it was considered that the presence of a well-qualified and impartial Belgian official would facilitate an agreement as to the rates of the Compensatory Duties. In the present case, however, no Treaty has been signed; and I can hardly think it probable that the French Government would consent to the unusual, if not unprecedented, course which the hon. Member proposes.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Cunningham of Loughrea, who has been imprisoned under the Coercion Act, and now lies in Dundalk Gaol on the charge of meeting to murder presumably the man Dempsey, is a relative of the murdered man?

, in reply, said, he was informed that Mr. Cunningham, who was now in Dundalk Gaol, was a second cousin of the man Dempsey. The warrant for his arrest stated that he was suspected of inciting to murder. He might remind the hon. Member that there hed been three bad murders lately in the Loughrea district.

I beg, before asking the Question which stands in my name, to request the permission of the House to read a short extract from the morning papers of Tuesday on which my Question is founded. The extract says—

"Enclosures will be reserved to the left of Her Majesty for the members of the Royal Household, the Press, the Four-in-Hand Club, the Eton Boys—at least, those of them who are not present with their corps on the field—officers on foot and in uniform. On the right of Her Majesty places will be reserved for the Park officials, the children of the Royal Schools, the students of Cooper's Hill Indian Engineering College, and with these exceptions the remainder of the line of view will be free to all comers"—

that is to say, to Mr. Speaker, to the Lord Chancellor, and to Members of both Houses of Parliament. In answer to previous Questions on the same subject, I have hitherto been told that Members of this and the other House of Parliament could not have reserved places at the Review, because no places were to be reserved. After what has appeared in the newspapers on the subject, I have now to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it could be arranged that Peers and Members of Parliament wishing to attend the Volunteer Review on Saturday should be admitted, on presentation of their cards, to the spaces which it now appears will be reserved on the right hand and on the left of the position to be occupied by Her Majesty?

My answer is that the whole of the arrangements rest not with me, but with the Ranger of the Park. I know nothing of, and have not even seen, the notice in the paper quoted by the hon. Member. I may add that I have no intention of making to the Ranger any representations on the subject.

wished distinctly to understand whether the right hon. Gentleman, having seen the Question on the Paper for some days past, had not thought fit to communicate with His Royal Highness the Ranger of Windsor Park on a subject of so much interest to Members of both Houses of Parliament?

I have already twice answered the Question, and have distinctly stated that I have no authority in the matter. I do not propose to address to the Ranger any communication on the subject.

asked what Minister was responsible to Parliament for the action of the Ranger?

I myself most certainly am not. I believe the First Commissioner of Works is.

asked what was the name of this Ranger who had put this snub on the House of Commons?

said, that, in his opinion, the concluding words of the hon. Member were decidedly un-Parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether a right hon. Gentleman has a right to usurp your function, and describe as un-Parliamentary an observation made by another Member of the House?

made no reply to this Question.

What I said was that, in my opinion, the use of the word "snub" is not Parliamentary.

rose amid loud cries of "Order!"

The right hon. Gentleman was in possession of the House when the hon. Member rose.

I want only to add that the Ranger of Windsor Park is Prince Christian.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to say that in his opinion the language of the hon. Member was un-Parliamentary.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would state what claim the Four-in-Hand Club had to a place at the Review?

I told the House five times as distinctly as I could that I have no authority in the matter.

I do not wish to add to the numerous Questions which have been showered upon the right hon. Gentleman; but I should like to know whether the First Commissioner of Works is in the House? If he is present, I would put the question to him as to whether he can throw any light upon this Four-in-Hand question?

No, Sir; I am sorry to say that I cannot throw any light upon it. The Ranger of Windsor Park is not under my control.

I have to apologize for having, by a slip of the tongue, misled the House by saying that the Ranger of Windsor Park was under the control of the First Commissioner of Works instead of the Commissioner of Woods and Forests, which is a Department subject to the supervision of the Treasury.

said, that, under these circumstances, he begged to give Notice that he would ask his Question of the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that Private William Brooks, of the 1st Dragoon Guards, died in Zululand nearly two years ago (September 1879); whether repeated applications have been made to the War Office on behalf of his mother for her son's effects and for some money he had saved and desired should be remitted to her, with no other result than replies that no information had been received; and, whether he will cause some better arrangements to be made, to the end that more rapid justice may be rendered to the friendless relations of deceased soldiers?

The facts are as my hon. Friend states; but I am glad to say that the statement of Private Brooks' accounts was received at the War Office on the 5th instant, and the money will be paid to his relation forth- with. The officer commanding the regiment has been communicated with, on the subject of the delay, which appears to have been excessive. The instructions on this subject are now perfectly plain.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence relative to non-compulsory pilotage at Swansea; and, whether he can state what action he proposes to take in reference to this and other questions which have been raised affecting the pilot interest?

, in reply, said, the correspondence on this matter was not yet complete. As soon as it was complete there would be no objection to laying it on the Table. A letter had been addressed to the Trustees of Swansea Harbour asking some information, and until that information was received he was unable to say what action the Board of Trade would take in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the public press, that M. Roustan directs not only the Foreign Office, of Tunis, but also most of the Government Departments, and that claims by the municipality and other bodies against Europeans are made by M. Roustan; whether he is aware that in one of the aforesaid capacities M. Roustan has adjudged to a French subject a portion of ground adjoining the English Church, and secured in perpetuity to the British Colony by a deed signed by the Bey and the Bishop of Gibraltar, a counterpart of which has been deposited in the archives of the British Consulate at Tunis; and, if he will communicate with Her Majesty's Agent and the Rev. E. Frankel on the subject, with a view to the protection of the British rights involved?

No confirmation of the newspaper report to which the noble Lord's Question calls attention has been received from Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Tunis. With reference to the second portion of the noble Lord's Question, and the reply which I gave to him on Tuesday last, I may state that I have this day received from the Rev. E. Frankel the information, which he appears to have already given to the noble Lord, with regard to the ground adjoining the British Church, of which Mr. Frankel states that Mr. Reade was ordered by the President of the Municipality to take possession, and did so by having it fenced in and levelled for a lawn tennis court. If Mr. Reade considers that any injury has been done to British subjects or property, he will, no doubt, at once communicate with Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the case of the clerks in the lower division, as stated in a Memorial from them which has been presented to the Treasury, and have taken any decision in the matter?

Yes, Sir; the Treasury has given a most careful consideration to the Memorial referred to in the Question, and their decision is stated in a Treasury Minute, which I shall be happy to lay on the Table of the House if my hon. Friend likes to move for it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government will take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the appointment of a new Governor of the Windward Islands to insist on the much-needed reforms in the constitution and government of Barbadoes, especially the reforms recommended by Lord Carnarvon in 1877; and, whether he will lay upon the Table Copies of the Instructions which have been given to Mr. Robinson on these points, or take an opportunity of making a statement on the subject to the House?

, in reply, said that a number of Constitutional changes had been effected in the Barbadoes since 1877. The Executive Council had lately constituted an Executive Committee, which accomplished important works. The reforms proposed by Lord Carnarvon were for the most part ineffective, except that the officers of the Government were permitted to sit and speak in the Assembly without votes. Two such officers had been appointed for the last three years, and had introduced many Bills. Mr. Robinson had invited the Assembly to legislate upon various subjects, and hitherto the Assembly had shown itself quite ready to adopt his suggestions. No particular instructions had been sent to Mr. Robinson, as the Government had reason to believe that he was discharging his duties in a satisfactory manner.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, During how many hours in the day, and in what amount of space, are the prisoners who are confined under the Peace Preservation Act in Naas Jail permitted to take exercise; and, if he would have any objection to permit such of the prisoners as the Governor of the jail might select to take exercise, under supervision, outside of the prison, on their pledging their word to hold no communication with their friends or other persons outside, and to return in obedience to rule?

, in reply, said, that the first part of the Question related to matters of detail, which he could not explain till he received information from Dublin. In regard to the second Question, he must state that the Government could not give the information desired.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is not a fact that, under the Merchant Shipping Act, prisons used for the imprisonment of British sailors sentenced by naval courts abroad must be approved by the senior naval officer and certified in writing as proper for the purpose; whether, knowing that the gaols of Callao and Lima, always very bad, were in an exceptionally bad and dangerous condition during the Chilian occupation in February last, and without the necessary certification of their fitness, Mr. St. John, the British Minister at Lima, ordered the imprisonment in them of seven British seamen sentenced by a naval court for insubordination on board the merchant ship "Fort George;" whether Mr. St. John persisted in his attempts to have the men imprisoned in the gaols of Callao and Lima in spite of repeated remonstrances; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence relating to the subject?

According to the 18th Paragraph of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1875, the senior Naval or Consular Officer present at the place where a Naval Court is held is to approve the prison in which men sentenced to imprisonment are to be confined. On the occasion referred to in the Question, no Consular Officer appears to have been at the Naval Court, and it is not known whether the Naval Officer approved the prison. Mr. Spenser St. John reports having found a portion of the Lima Prison in a proper condition; but it is not known why the sentenced men were not placed there. Further inquiries are being made into the question, and the Papers cannot, therefore, be laid before Parliament at present.

asked whether Mr. St. John made inquiries as to the fitness of the prison before these men were detained?

That is one of the points upon which further inquiry is to be made.

asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that the permanent officials of the Post Office have decided that (in Ireland), telegraphists who joined the Telegraph Service after the transfer to the State are not eligible for any vacancy occurring in the Accountant's Department (Ireland), and that telegraphists who were taken over by the State at the transfer are eligible; and, if bearing in mind his recent statement as to telegraphists in general, he can state what is the nature of the distinction which appears to exist?

asked the Postmaster General, When the open competition for female clerkships in the Post Office Savings Bank will take place?

Telegraphists who have been appointed subsequent to the transfer are not eligible for appointment to vacancies in the Accountant's Department (Ireland), because the standard of examination for that office is higher than that prescribed for telegraphists. The standard of examination had not been prescribed at the time of the transfer; and it was held that the transferred telegraphists were eligible for appointment to any office to which clerks at that time in the Service could be appointed under the Regulations then in force. The Department of the Accountant of the Post Office in Ireland was one of those offices. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Mayo, I may state that the scheme for the open competitive examinations for female clerkships in the Savings Bank Department of the Post Office will come into operation almost immediately. The preliminary examination will be held on the 12th of August, by which the candidates will be sifted. The second and final examination will be held on the 2nd of September. The preliminary examinations will be conducted in 15 of the largest towns in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the final examinations in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If admissions to the Forest Department under the Government of India are by competition, or if there are any recent cases on record in which officers have been appointed either by the English or Indian authorities without undergoing any previous examination?

Candidates in this country for nomination to junior appointments in the Forest Department in India are required to pass an examination, and from among those who attain the required standard a selection is made of such as are deemed best adapted to the service. No recent appointments have been made by the authorities in this country without previous examination. Under the rules for the selection of candidates in India no previous examination is required if applicants can produce satisfactory certificates of their acquirements. Candidates selected in this country undergo a special training at the Forest School at Nancy before receiving their appointments; and those selected in India are required to pass two years' training in the forests attached to the Government Forest School, or to serve as probationers for the same length of time before their appointments are confirmed.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether arrangements could be made by which, when Questions are asked which required mere Department information, the answers there to might be printed with the Votes, and thus save the time which is taken up by the oral delivery of the reply of the Department in the House by the Minister in charge?

This important subject would necessarily require a good deal of consideration. I think it could not be adopted as a general rule.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following advertisement which appears in the "Times":—

"The Coupons of the Transvaal Amsterdam Loan will be paid under the usual conditions on the 1st July next, by Messrs. Insinger and Co. at their offices in Amsterdam. This payment falling due within the period during which the Commission charged with the settlement of affairs in the Transvaal is still sitting, Her Britannic Majesty's Government has supplied the necessary funds, but it hereby gives notice that by so doing it recognises no obligation to provide for any subsequent dividends, and in no way guarantees the payment of either principal or interest in the future;"

and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to repudiate the obligations entered into and cancel the guarantees already given with respect to the principal and interest of the Transvaal Amsterdam Loan on the strength of and in faith of which numbers of British subjects and others have invested their savings in that loan?

This is a matter on which I have communicated with the Colonial Office, and what I understand to be the case is this. At no period has the British Government admitted any liability, or given any guarantee with respect to this loan. In order to guard the credit of the Transvaal Government, the Colonial Office have given instructions for the payment of the interest falling due within the period during which the Commission charged with the settlement of affairs in the Transvaal is sitting. Arrangements are now being made by the Royal Commission which will involve negotiations for the resumption by the new Transvaal Government of all obligations. Although arrangements have been made from time to time, it has always been with the distinct understanding, that there would be no liability on the part of the British Government.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is his intention to make any provision for the repayment to Irish landlords, the rental of whose estates may be diminished by the action of the Court proposed to be created by the Irish Land Bill, of a proportionate amount of the Succession Duty paid by them on succeeding to real estates in Ireland since 1870?

, in reply, said, he was not prepared to return any amount of the Succession Duty paid by Irish landlords on succeeding to their estates. The duty was fixed on the most lenient conditions, and was not liable to be returned according to the subsequent depreciation or decrease of value in the property.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any engagement has been made by the Government, or any authority conferred on the British representative at the Silver Conference in Paris, which goes beyond the use of silver as at present permitted by Law for purposes of currency; whether the Trea- sury have made any communication to the Directors of the Bank of England requiring or requesting them to hold in silver any part of their reserve for the due payment of notes; and, if so, what; whether the Government have authorised or concurred in any engagement by the Secretary of State for India, by which the free action of the Government of India, in dealing with silver for currency purposes, would be restrained; whether he will state if there is any intention on the part of the Government to alter in any degree whatever the standard upon which our present system of currency depends; whether, having regard to the fact that speculation in silver, by which much temporary disarrangement would be imported into operations of trade, is likely to arise during the sitting of the Conference, he will instruct the British Commissioner to hasten the decision as much as possible, so as to put an end to the intermediate state of uncertainty; and, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers bearing upon the question?

1. No engagementh as been made by the Government, and no authority conferred on the British Representative at the Paris Conference, to alter the limits now imposed by law upon the use of silver as currency. 2. The Government were informed that an agreement might be possible between the silver-using Powers if, among other matters, the Bank of England would hold in the issue department part of its reserve in silver, and they communicated their information to the Bank, inviting the Bank Court to state its opinion upon such an exercise of the discretion entrusted to the Bank by the Act of 1844. The Court replied that it saw no reason why an assurance should not be conveyed to the Monetary Conference, if the Treasury thought it desirable, that the Bank, agreeably with the Act of 1844, will be always open to the purchase of silver, provided that the Mints of other countries return to such rules as would insure the conversion of gold into silver and silver into gold. The Treasury, noting the statement of the Bank that it saw no danger to the principle of the Act of 1844 in such an assurance, caused the Delegate of the United Kingdom at the Conference to be instructed to convey the assurance to the Conference. Mr. Fremantle informed the Conference accordingly at its meeting of yesterday. 3. The Secretary of State for India will state whether he has authorized the Delegate of India to convey any assurance to the Conference. 4. There is no intention on the part of the Government to alter the present Currency Law. 5. The Government could not undertake to make representations to the Conference as to its course of proceeding. 6. If the hon. Member will move for Papers, I will have such of them as explain the action of the Government presented.

The only engagement which the Representatives of the Government of India at the Monetary Conference have been authorized to make on behalf of that Government is that for a definite term of years it will undertake not to depart in any direction calculated to lower the value of silver from the existing practice of coining silver freely in the Indian Mints as legal tender throughout the Indian Dominions of Her Majesty. Such a declaration must, however, be conditional on the acceptance by a number of the principal States of an agreement binding them, in some manner or other, to open their Mints for a similar term to the coinage of silver as full legal tender in the proportion of 15½ of silver to 1 of gold, and the engagement on the part of India would be obligatory only so long as that agreement remained in force.

said, he thought there would be no objection on the part of the Government to the publication of the proceedings at the Conference. He believed that a record of the transactions was being made; but it would be some time before it was completed. He should, perhaps, therefore, move that it be given as an unopposed Return. As the document would be so voluminous, he did not think it desirable to print it; but he would be able to place seine copies of it in the Library of the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the further Papers relating to South Africa will be published, and whether they will include Mr. Forssman's letter and any other Memorials addressed to Her Majesty's Government from the Transvaal; whether any communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the present Government of the Cape Colony with reference to the Basutos; and, if so, whether those communications will be included in the Papers?

The Papers relating to the Transvaal will be placed in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow. The Memorials referring to claims only will not be included, as they are only documents of first instance which must be referred to the re-assembled Commissioners before the Government will be in a condition to ask for a judgment upon them. Upon the subject of Basutoland, there are certain communications between the Government and the new Ministry at the Cape; but they are incomplete, and will not be comprised in the Papers to be distributed to-morrow. In case we should, as I hope we may, conclude the Committee on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill in the course of next week, towards the close or by the close, we shall be ready to appropriate the Monday in the following week, the first clear day at our command, to take the debate on the Transvaal.

Am I right in inferring that we are to know nothing of the claims made for compensation until they are decided on?

I have not said as much as that; but we do not propose to present to the House any document of that kind at the present stage.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to absorb Wednesday July 20th with their business, when the Bill for better securing the purity of Beer is the first Order for Second Reading?

, in reply, said, he did not know whether the hon. and gallant Member saw a felicitous connection between a measure for promoting the purity of beer and the absorption of Wednesday by Government Business. He should be glad if the Committee were concluded before Wednesday. As he had stated, it was their duty to go forward with the Committee from day to day; and until it was concluded he was afraid the Bill referred to could not come on.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the great importance to the commercial community of obtaining the earliest information respecting the Tariff upon which the French Government propose to base a Commercial Treaty with this Country, Her Majesty's Government will cause the necessary information respecting that Tariff to be laid, without delay, before Parliament? The hon. Gentleman said he pressed this matter on the attention of the Government, because the Return of the new General Tariff which had been presented to Parliament was calculated to mislead the public and the country.

No doubt, the public would make a mistake if they were to assume that the new General Tariff has been laid before them, and that they have the final practical arrangements under which the commerce of the two countries is to be conducted. I hope it will not be so. We shall be glad when the communications between the Commissions now reach such a state as to enable us to give more practical information on the subject; but at present such projected Tariffs as have been produced to the Commission are considered as confidential at the request of the French Commissioners. We are, therefore, not at liberty to produce them.

It may be convenient if I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman which is germane to the answer just given. It is—(1.) Whether he can hold out any hope of being able to make public the "Tarif à discuter"—that is, the secret terms for the new Commercial Treaty offered by France to England, before the close of the Session, and before Her Majesty's Government finally commits the country to the acceptance or rejection of a Treaty; (2.) And whether, during the month which is to elapse before the Anglo-French Commission re-assembles for final decision, Her Majesty's Government will communicate confidentially to the leading officers of each of the principal Trades Unions (registered under Act of Parliament) concerned with the trades affected by the French Tariff, and, so far as it relates to their own trades, the terms above mentioned—that is, the "Tarif à discuter," in the same manner as these terms have been confidentially communicated by the Foreign Office to Chambers of Commerce and to manufacturers, in order that Her Majesty's Government may have the advantage of becoming acquainted with the views and practical experience, not only of the master manufacturers, but also of the important and numerous bodies of handicraftsmen whose wages and means of living will be largely affected by the decision as to a Commercial Treaty with France?

I think it would be better to postpone the answer, because I am not able at present to give any positive engagement about producing the Tariff. On the other hand, I should be unwilling to abandon the hope of producing it, because we are most anxious to make it known as soon as we can do so without misleading the public or violating the consideration which we owe to those with whom we are in communication.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he had any information from Constantinople with regard to the fate of Midhat Pasha?

; I can give no information upon this subject. The telegrams which have passed up to the present time do not show what are Lord Dufferin's views; but representations are being made.

wished to ask the Prime Minister whether, in case the Land Law (Ireland) Bill were concluded as soon as he expected, he intended to take Tuesday nights for Government Business after the Morning Sittings, or to leave the Evening Sittings to private Members?

I should like to ask a similar Question with reference to Wednesdays, when the Land Law (Ireland) Bill is out of Committee.

I was under a mistake in the answer I gave before when I said I feared that on the day the hon. Member referred to we should be in Committee. I was under the impression that he meant Wednesday in next week; I find now that he means Wednesday, the 20th. The authority the House has given us is simply an authority for precedence on behalf of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill on all the days when it is set down; but upon other days we fall back under the ordinary rules; and that will probably be the state of the case until we have disposed finally of the Land Bill. It must be two or three weeks, at any rate, before we have finally disposed of it. I therefore feel hardly prepared to say what, in reference to the state of Public Business, it may be our duty to do; but obviously some opportunities will be left to private Members.

gave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Prime Minister whether he would personally communicate with His Royal Highness the Ranger of Windsor Park, for the purpose of obtaining admission, for Members of both Houses of Parliament wishing to attend the Review, to the reserved space enclosed in the Park on either hand of the position occupied by Her Majesty on that occasion?

The First Lord of the Treasury has asked me, with reference to the Notice just given, to read a letter I received two or three minutes ago after the Questions that were put to me. It is from Mr. Charles Gore, the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests. He says—

"I have made further inquiry to-day, by telegram, as to the possibility, if required, of making an enclosure for Peers and Members of Parliament. The existing enclosures are in front of the line of carriages. Any further enclosures will necessarily reduce the space available for the general public."

Enclosed in that letter is another—not from the Ranger himself, who at the moment the inquiry was made was away, but from a gentleman in the Office, whose name I cannot be quite stir of; but which, as well as I can make out, appears to be Simmons. He uses these words—

"An enclosure could be formed of hurdles, either for the foot people or for carriages. There are no stands. Prince Christian thinks the enclosures would shut out the view of the general public."

I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the charge of Windsor Park be transferred from the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."

wished to remind Members of the Committee who were not there yesterday of the circumstances under which this Amendment was moved. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had moved an Amendment which made it imperative upon the Court, in every case in which a limited Administrator was appointed, to require such Administrator to give security for the due performance of the duties imposed upon him by the Act. The Attorney General for Ireland, in contesting that Amendment, showed clearly and plainly how unnecessary it was, and pointed out that a limited Administrator would have very few duties to discharge. Under those circumstances he had thought that the noble Lord would not further oppose the clause; but, with the perseverance which distinguished the noble Lord, he pressed the matter still further, and at length induced the Attorney General for Ireland to introduce an Amendment which he (Mr. Martin) must characterise as, at the best, unnecessary, but which, in his judgment, would be mischievous and injurious to the interests of the tenants, and likely to give rise to considerable litigation. Turning to the 42nd clause of the Bill, it would be found that the fullest powers were given to the Court in regard to the making of rules, and giving directions of every kind for carrying the Act into effect. In point of fact, the Court had as full powers as he could conceive to be necessary. In this 14th section, which dealt with the appointment of a limited Administrator for the purposes of the Act, Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland now introduced words which must be taken by the Court as an indication upon the part of the Legislature that security must be given. The words of the Amendment were—"On such terms and conditions, if any, as they may think fit." He thought it would not unfairly be contended that these words meant that in every case some security must be given, and that the terms and conditions on which that security was to be taken alone was left to the discretion of the Court. What reasons existed for calling on the limited Administrator to be appointed for the purposes of this clause, as a general rule, to give security? According to the general principles of law, when a limited Administrator was appointed in reference to large estates—for instance, under the Court of Probate, he was not required to give security. Now, in like manner, under this clause, the limited Administrator was the agent to transfer a tenant's estate; and though it was true he received the purchase money, yet the provisions of the Bill did not permit him to retain that money, but directed specially what he had to do—namely—

"Such limited administrator may pay to the landlord, out of the purchase money, any sums due to the landlord in respect to his tenancy, and may pay the residue of the purchase money to a general administrator (if any) or into Court."

The 1st section of the Bill directed that in case of sale—

"Where a tenant sells his tenancy to any person other than the landlord, the landlord may at any time within the prescribed period give notice both to the outgoing tenant and the purchaser of any sums which he may claim from the outgoing tenant for arrears of rent or other-wise,"

and in such case the purchaser to whom notice was given paid the amount to the landlord, unless he received notice that the tenant disputed the landlord's claim, in which case he was bound to pay the amount disputed into Court. Thus the duty of paying money into Court was a nominal duty, imposed without any real significance. It was a statutory duty imposed on the purchaser to see that the amount of rent mentioned in the notice should be paid to the landlord. No doubt, Her Majesty's Attorney General for Ireland was anxious to protect the landlord; but he did not understand that the limited Administrator was to retain the money in his hands for any length of time before he distributed it. What were the express directions of the section? He was to pay the landlord any sums due to the landlord by the deceased tenant; and he was to pay the residue of the purchase money either to the general Administrator or into Court. He felt bound to protest against the costly system of procedure enforced by the Bill in respect of the unfortunate small tenants. They were not dealing in this instance with the case of a large tenant with large interests, but with the ease of some 400,000 small tenants in Ireland, whose entire interest in the farm would, in the gross, not exceed £100. Then, why should the Committee force upon these poor tenants unnecessary costs? First of all, there was the cost of serving the notice on the landlord; then of ascertaining the amount due to the landlord; then of the payment of the sum in dispute into Court; then there was to be the appointment of a limited Administrator, who was to give security. Was this security to be given upon a cumbrous form with a stamp, with two sureties brought in from a distance? and was all this additional cost to be imposed upon the tenant simply for the purpose of warding off the temporary opposition of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock to the passing of this clause? They had further to provide for the additional cost of a general Administrator, and the costs of the proceedings necessary under the Act for giving security in the case of the appointment of a limited Administrator would amount, at the very lowest, to £9, or a deduction of about 15 per cent on the proceeds of the sale which would find their way into the pocket of the tenant. Under these circumstances, he would most certainly enter his protest against the Amendment.

said, he could not understand why the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) should consider it necessary, upon so very small a point, to make so very long a speech. If the same course were pursued in regard to every Amendment they would never get through the Bill at all. He only wished to point out to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that if he thought the matter likely to lead to a prolonged discussion, or to occasion any serious difficulty, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not press the Amendment in its entirety, but would be content with part of it. When he proposed the Amendment yesterday, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) said it was not necessary, because the Administrator had to pay the money into Court. But, under the clause as it stood, the Administrator had not to do anything of the kind. If the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland would insert the word "shall" instead of "may," in line 21, leaving out all the rest, in order that the clause might read—

"Shall pay within the prescribed period the purchase money into Court, and the same shall be subject to such order as the Court shall make, having regard to the claims of the landlord to the purchase money,"

that would be in accordance with sub-section 9 of Clause 1, which gave the same direction. This would be an order to the Court to proceed as the Court of Chancery would proceed. There would not be a limited Administrator holding the money; but the Act would require it to be paid into Court within a week or a month, as the case might be. The sum of money to be handed over might be large, and if the Government would accept this Amendment, and say that the limited Administrator should pay the money into Court, he would withdraw the previous proposal.

, in expressing a hope that the Amendment would be withdrawn, said, the proposal now made by the noble Lord was well worthy of consideration and adoption. It was ren- dered more necessary by the insertion of the words proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend, which, after all, were innocent words, leaving full discretion to the Court; and he could not yet understand why this should be opposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. P. Martin).

said, he was accused of having accepted, in the spirit, the Amendment of the noble Lord, and then of having made it worse. He had thought the noble Lord was right in the suggestion he had made. It was quite true, as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) said, that the money was directed to be paid to the general Administrator or to the Court; but it was obvious that before payment to either one or the other could be made the limited Administrator must get the money. And if the limited Administrator got the money which belonged to the family of the deceased tenant, he did not see that any damage would be done if the Court had power to require proper and sufficient security to be given by the man who thus got possession of it. It ought, however, to be a simple obligation, and ought not to be costly. The clause provided for a case where the tenant of any holding within the jurisdiction of the Court died, and the Court was satisfied that the tenancy ought to be sold. There was a corresponding clause in the Land Act, which provided that the Court might appoint a proper person to act as limited Administrator, and when the limited Administrator paid the landlord his rent he might dispose of the residue either by paying it to the general Administrator, if there happened to be one, or into Court. A limited Administrator was to be appointed by the Court for the purpose of aiding the work of the Court; but, in the meantime, the family might proceed to have a regular administration taken out, and then the necessity for a limited Administrator would be at an end, and his only duty would be to hand over the money to the general Administrator, who would, no doubt, have given security for the property.

certainly thought that the Administrator ought to give security; and he considered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had, to a certain extent, broken faith with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). ["No!"] It certainly appeared to him (Colonel Barne) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had. He was present at the discussion when the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock brought on his Amendment requiring the limited Administrator to give adequate security; and the Attorney General said that if the noble Lord would withdraw that Amendment he would bring in another in the same sense. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): In an enlarged sense.] There was not a word in the Amendment about security at all; and there was no reason, according to this Amendment, why the Administrator should be called upon to give security at all. He maintained that the Court ought to insist upon the limited Administrator giving security; and he should like to add, after the words "any person," these words—"other than a lawyer." This was a Bill that would give a great deal of work to the lawyers of Ireland, and they all know what dangerous work it was to have any communication with the lawyers. The Court would probably appoint some lawyer as Administrator, who would run up a long bill which would have to be paid either by the landlord or by the tenant, or by both. He did not know whether the Committee would support the Amendment he suggested—namely, the addition of the words "other than a lawyer;" but if he thought it would meet with support he would certainly move it. He wished to hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say with regard to leaving out from the Amendment any obligation to take security.

said, he had inserted words which were larger than those suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, and would provide better terms of security.

moved, in page 11, line 14, after the word "any," to insert the word "proper."

moved, in page 11, line 14, to leave out the words "Whom they think fit."

moved, in page 11, line 21, to leave out the word "may," and insert "shall." The object of this Amendment was to compel the Administrator to pay the money into Court within a prescribed period. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he did not want to force the tenant to go into Court, but the whole thing was already under the jurisdiction of the Court; and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, it was possible that the Administrator might have to hold the residue for some time. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not believe there was any precedent for such an arrangement. In all money transactions under the Court of Chancery, the money was always lodged in Court, and the Court gave a guarantee to the parties interested. The Administrator might hold the money for some time, perhaps six or 12 months, until it was ordered by the Court to be given up; but it would be much better that the Administrator should be compelled to pay the money into Court within a prescribed period. He therefore proposed to insert the word "shall," instead of "may."

remarked, that if there was a general Administrator, giving security in the ordinary way to the Court, and who was competent to receive the custody of the estate of the deceased, he saw no reason why it should not be handed over. He quite admitted that there ought to be an obligation upon the man who received the money to pay it into Court or to the person entitled to it; and if the noble Lord would slightly modify the Amendment, so as to bring in the general Administrator, that would obviate his objection.

asked if the Attorney General for Ireland would take it in this way—that the limited Administrator should pay the money to the landlord within a prescribed period, and should pay the residue to the general Administrator within a prescribed period? He took it that that would protect both the interests of the landlord and the tenant.

said, the Court might impound the grant of administration, so that no one else would be able to do anything with it, just as the Court of Probate at the present often impounded letters of general administration.

said, the 1st clause of the Bill gave power to sell, and he presumed that any sale would take place subject to the conditions prescribed in the 1st clause. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes.] The condition under the 1st clause was that the purchaser should pay the sum due, not to any Administrator, but into Court. How could they compel the purchaser to pay it to an Administrator and also to pay it into Court? Who was to pay the landlord, who might get nothing at all?

pointed out that if "shall" were not inserted the Administrator might or might not pay the money. It would be purely a permissive clause, by which, if the Administrator did not choose to pay the money, there would be no legal power to compel him to pay the landlord his share, or the other people their share. He considered that the Amendment was absolutely necessary.

said, he thought they were wasting a great deal of time about a very small matter of this kind. He thought they might safely trust, in legal matters, to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.

said, he was always inclined to defer to any legal opinion that might be expressed by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland; but he declined to accept the rebuke of the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who, because hon. Members on that side of the House thought they had discovered a legal flaw in the Bill, charged them with disrespect to the Attorney General. He had seen the hon. Member frequently take up a much longer time with a speech of his own, and it would better become him in future if he would confine his attention to making his own remarks as concise as he could without interfering with hon. Members on that side. For the present he (Lord Randolph Churchill) withdrew the Amendment.

said, he proposed to move, in line 25, after the word "holding," to omit the words "in respect of which," and insert "the estate of;" also to leave out the words from "being" to "otherwise;" and then, in line 27, after "tenancy," to insert "from year to year, whether subject or not subject to statutory conditions." The clause would then stand thus—

"If in the case of any holding the estate of the immediate landlord for the time being is determined during the continuance of any tenancy from year to year, whether subject or not subject to statutory conditions, the next superior landlord for the time being shall, for the purposes of this Act, during the continuance of such tenancy, stand in the relation of immediate landlord to the tenant of the tenancy, and have the rights and be subject to the obligations of an immediate landlord."

could not say that, as far as he had followed them, he objected to the words of the first Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he must really protest strongly against the way in which Amendments were placed suddenly in manuscript before the Committee. His right hon. and learned Friend would remember that very early, in fact upon the first night of the debate upon the Bill, he (Mr. Gibson) had drawn particular attention to this clause, and had pointed out its obvious and grotesque effects which rendered it unreadable and unworkable. In this case, Amendments had been put down in regard to the clause by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Sir John Holker). The Government knew all the points raised by those Amendments, yet, nevertheless, they waited until they came to the clause, and now proposed to re-cast it by means of manuscript Amendments across the Table. He protested strongly against such a course. Something very like it occurred yesterday. An important modification was proposed, which called upon them to consider at once the bearing of important legal changes. It was most unusual to require the Committee to decide upon Amendments of this nature without an opportunity being afforded for considering their real effect. They were now asked to consider the withdrawal of certain proposals contained in the clause, and the substitution of what practically amounted to a new clause, introduced by his right hon. and learned Friend. The proper course to take was to postpone the consideration of the clause, which would not take up much time when they came to it at the end of the Bill. He had no desire to protract or delay the progress of the Bill; but he should like to have time to consider what the effect of the words proposed to be substituted would be. He had no desire to question in a captious spirit any of the Amendments submitted by his right hon. and learned Friend; but he certainly would like to understand what they meant.

said, he would at once accept the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend and postpone the clause.

said, that in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) it was necessary that he should move the Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend had placed upon the Paper. It was a very short one on a very short clause, although it dealt with a very important principle. The clause consisted of two paragraphs, each dealing with an entirely distinct and independent topic. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham dealt with the first paragraph, which was to the following effect:—

"A tenancy for a year certain shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a tenancy from year to year."

The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend proposed to strike out this section altogether. He ventured to think that it would have been wiser not to have complicated the Bill with all the various considerations and difficulties that must arise by putting this clause in at all. Neither of the paragraphs dealt with a very wide class of tenants; but the principle involved in both of them was large, and might lead to substantial difficulties, especially in regard to this paragraph, which proposed to give the benefit of the statutory term and all the other equities of the Bill to a class even more narrow than tenancies from year to year—namely, to a man who went into possession for a year certain with the exact term indicated—namely, that it was only to last for a year. Was it not unreasonable, under such circumstances, to say that a man who was allowed to take possession of a farm for 12 months certain, the tenancy commencing perhaps last year, and from the very necessity of the case expiring this year—was it not unreasonable to say that in dealing with an existing tenancy for a year certain, they were to find at the middle of the year certain that, by the operation of this Bill, the year certain was turned into 15 years' certain, with the certainty of a renewal at the end of those 15 years? Was such a provision reasonable or necessary? Tenancies from year to year implied by the very term duration and continuance, and the history of this country showed that that was the principle taken. But, on the other hand, the Government now proposed, practically, to place on the same basis the tenant who might have been in the occupation of his farm for 100 years with the tenant whose tenancy implied not duration, but an absolute certainty of termination. Was that reasonable? He ventured to think, whatever they might do with regard to the poorer tenants, that they ought not, at all events, to break the contracts deliberately entered into for 12 months, which were now current, and say to the tenant that he was to be subject to ex post facto legislation now, which would deprive him of the status and conditions in which he entered upon the farm. He might give an instance. Suppose a man desired to go on the Continent, and he let the tenancy of his farm for a year certain, was it not unjust and unreason- able to say to the landlord without warning, who had not before him the slightest idea that such a Bill as this was coming, that he must now accept the man he had taken for a year certain, as a tenant in perpetuity? It would be unjust to include in the Bill tenants in future for a year certain; but there could scarcely be two opinions as to the unfairness of thus dealing with the existing tenants for a year certain. It came to this—that such tenants whose terms were, according to arrangement and stipulation, to expire within a given time, would be able, when the time came, to apply to the Court for a statutory term. He ventured to hope that when his right hon. and learned Friend considered the matter he would see his way towards dealing with the question in a more reasonable manner.

said, the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin showed the desirability of leaving the clause as it stood. The word "certain" was a purely technical term. If he took a farm for one year certain he should imagine it meant that the tenancy would not be less than a year, and that it would be impossible to put an end to it in the course of six months. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had scarcely stated the case fairly when he said that the tenant who took a farm now would be converted into a present tenant, and would have the same privileges as another tenant who had been in the occupation of his farm for 50 years. [Mr. GIBSON: He would become a present tenant.] He (Mr. Biggar) did not see how that could be so after the passing of the Act; and he thought that the interpretation put upon the clause by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was altogether fallacious. It proved very clearly the difficulty of understanding the legal phraseology of an Act of Parliament when it was declared by a very high authority that the words of a clause meant something very different from the construc- tion an ordinary layman would place upon them. Certainly, in any other place than an Act of Parliament they would mean something very different.

said, the 69th section of the Land Act provided that any tenant, after the passing of the Act, should be entitled to compensation if the landlord resumed the holding. He presumed that the two lines which constituted the first paragraph' of the clause were introduced in order to prevent the landlord from evading the Act by making an agreement to let the farm for a year certain. It would be easy to evade the Act by making the tenancy a tenacy for a year certain; and yet it was a curious fact that if a tenant executed an agreement making his tenancy less than a tenancy from year to year, he would not thereby be excluded from the benefit of the Act of 1870. As he understood the words now under consideration, their object was to prevent an evasion of the Act.

wished to point out that Section 69 of the Act of 1870, referred to by the hon. Member, only related to tenancies created after the passing of that Act.

said, he thought there might be some force in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if it were not for the 69th section of the Act of 1870, which turned all tenancies at will, and tenancies less than tenancies from year to year, into tenancies from year to year. It was hardly possible that there could now be any tenancies existing for a year certain; and, therefore, the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no application, and were wholly unnecessary. So far as the retrospective action of the clause was concerned, it was highly improbable that there were any tenancies existing at this moment to which it could apply; but the effect would be that, in regard to all future tenancies, the landlord would insist upon making them for a year certain.

said, that under the Act of 1870 landlords had been able to make contracts with their tenants for a year certain, and then to keep such tenants under an indefinite series of contracts of the same nature. It had, therefore, been deemed advisable to insert the present clause, which would prevent the continuance of this practice, adopted to defeat the Land Act. The question of what was the precise character of a tenancy for a year certain arose in a curious form a few years ago. The question raised was, whether a tenancy for a year certain was less than a tenancy from year to year? It was regarded as a very knotty point, and the Court to which it was submitted—the Court of Common Pleas—was divided in opinion upon it; but the majority held that it was not less than a tenancy from year to year. Eventually, the case went to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and there five Judges against three again held that a tenancy for a year certain was not less than a tenancy from year to year. This decision drew attention to the operation of the Land Act, and it was found that tenancies for a year certain were thus withdrawn from the operation of the 69th clause of that Act, although tenancies for nine months or for two months, or three months, or any other definite portion of time, would fall within it. A tenancy of six or nine months was less than a tenancy from year to year, and, therefore, came under the purposes of the Act; but a tenancy for a year certain was not less than a year by tenancy, and, therefore, was not under the Act. That was a very anomalous state of things, and it was desirable to remedy it. In deference to what had been urged by his right hon. and learned Friend, he did not think it would be reasonable to extend the retrospective operation of the Bill to tenancies for a year certain, because there could be no existing tenancies for a year certain before the present year. Such tenancies would now be covered, and he thought the Committee might adopt the phraseology of the Act of 1870. He was not opposed, therefore, to the spirit of the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend; but he thought the object would be better effected by introducing, after "certain," in line 32, the words "created after the passing of this Act." Such an alteration would provide that tenancies for a year certain for the purposes of the Act would be tenancies from year to year, and by that means all difficulty would be obviated.

said, he would frankly confess that he preferred his own Amendment; but he would, nevertheless, withdraw it in favour of the propo- sition of his right hon. and learned Friend.

moved, after the word "shall," in line 32, to insert the words "be created after the passing of this Act."

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit the second paragraph of the clause, said, the discussion which had just taken place rendered it unnecessary that he should press the Amendment.

said, he had an Amendment to propose.

The words of the clause have now been gone through, and the hon. Member is too late.

said, the first Amendment stood in his name; but he would not move it.

said, he desired to amend the clause, which limited or rather stated the amount at which it might be possible for a poor tenant to contract himself out of the Act. His object was to make the words of the clause correspond with those of Clause 12 of the Act of 1870. As the clause stood at present it read, "A tenant of a holding or holdings." He desired to change those words into "a tenant whose holding or the aggregate of whose holdings."

said, he would not object to the Amendment, as the words proposed to be substituted were those which appeared in the Act of 1870.

moved, in page 11, line 39, after the word "holdings," to insert the word "is."

moved, in page 11, line 41, to leave out the words "one hundred and." He said the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper was one of considerable importance, and he confessed that he had some hesitation in moving it. At one time he had withdrawn it, and he had only restored it when he found that the Attorney General for Ireland said that there would still be the power to tenants of £50 and upwards to contract out of the right to compensation given by the Act of 1870. He thought it would be inconvenient to fix two limits—one as regarded compensation for disturbance, and the other to the provisions of this Act. The Act of 1870 had fixed the limit of £50, and the people of Ireland had now become used to that limit, many contracts having been entered into under it. It would be perhaps preferable, therefore, to retain that limit for the future, though he would not object to a compromise at £100. As regarded the provisions of the present Bill, any tenant above £50 and under £150 who contracted himself out of the provisions of the Act of 1870 remained subject to certain conditions, although he waived the right of compensation for disturbance. By this Bill a present tenant was placed in a very strong position, and was given a durable tenancy, which would render him very independent. It might be necessary to protect very small tenants; but as regarded tenants of £50 and upwards, aided by the provisions of this Bill, they would be pretty independent people, and quite as likely to coerce the landlord as the landlord was to coerce them. Therefore, this provision in regard to present tenants was really of very little importance; but, as regarded future tenants, they would hold under the provisions of the Act of 1870, somewhat amended by the provisions of this Bill; and it was very important to them to know under what limit they would be able to contract themselves out of the Bill. As regarded the right of compensation for disturbance, it was regulated by the Act of 1870, which fixed the limit of contract at £50; but as he understood the position of future tenants under this Bill—although he would admit that he found a good many of his hon. Friends near him did not agree with him—if the landlords desired to evict them they would have no protection or security except under the compensation for disturbance clauses. He took it that the landlord, the day after the passing of the Bill, might give a future £100 tenant notice to quit, and such future tenant would be obliged to leave the farm, subject only to a claim to compensation for disturbance. It was quite true that if the landlord, instead of desiring to get rid of him, retained him, he would have protection under the Bill; but, without increasing his rent, it would be in the power of the landlord to turn him out the moment the Act passed. With regard to future tenants, he wished the greatest freedom of contract to prevail; but he wanted to know what would be the position of such tenants, or what security they would have if they contracted themselves out of the compensation for disturbance clauses? Therefore it seemed to him, as regarded future tenants, this clause would really afford no protection to them. He would like to see some arrangement under which there would be but one limit. As the Bill stood, and as he understood the matter, future tenants, if their landlord evicted them, would be entitled to compensation for improvements, and also to compensation for disturbance. He wished to draw the broadest distinction possible between present and future tenants, and he desired to see the position of the present tenant modified, so that, after being converted into copyholders, they might some day become proprietors. There was no reason why the English system should not be applied in the case of future tenancies, where the landlord had bought up the tenant right. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

said, he was opposed, not only to the Amendment, but to the limit of £150 set down in the clause itself. As far as present tenants were concerned, he thought the provision perfectly nugatory, because, if the present tenant had power to go to the Court to revise his title, he was not bound to contract himself out of this Act. The limit, therefore, as far as the £150 was concerned, would only apply to future tenants. But this would result in great inconsistency. With respect to the present Bill, it required a £150 limit to contract, so far as the future tenant was concerned, out of the beneficial operation and provisions of the Bill. Of course, as far as the Bill was concerned, the future tenant could only apply the power of sale. But, taking the case of a tenant under the provision for compensation for disturbance in the Act of 1870, it would be found that a tenant at £50 could be contracted out of the benefit of' compensation for disturbance, even upon the enlarged scale in this Bill. Whatever, therefore, the compensation for disturbance might be under this Bill, a £50 tenant could be compelled to contract himself out of the benefit of that compensation. He could understand the Government proposing to apply the £150 limit to the Act of 1870, as well as to this Bill, so that no tenant would be obliged to contract himself out of compensation for disturbance upon the enlarged scale in this Bill who was not rated at £150; and unless the limit of £150 was applied both to this Bill and the Act of 1870 a great injustice would be done to the tenants of Ireland, who might seek for compensation for disturbance.

said, it would be a great inconsistency to place the limit of £150 in this Act, while the limit of £50 was left in the Act of 1870. He hoped that the Government would see their way to extend the limit contained in the Act of 1870.

said, the Government looked upon the limit of £150 as being the fairest limit. The limit of £50 in the Act of 1870 they regarded as materially too low, considerable pressure having been brought to bear upon small tenants to cause them to contract themselves out of that Act. He was bound to confess, having regard to the working of the limit of the Act of 1870, that the Government had been guilty of a mistake in the preparation of the words of the clause.

submitted that some ground should be stated for departing from the limit of £50 contained in the Act of 1870. As far as he could see there was no reason for extending that limit. He would like to know whether there was any evidence upon the subject in the Report of the Royal Commission.

said, the Report of the Bessborough Commission did not enter into details in connection with this subject.

understood the Prime Minister to say that it was proposed to rescind the provision of the 12th clause of the Act of 1870, which enabled a tenant at £50 to contract himself out of that Act. He must say that the proposed change, together with the provisions introduced into this Bill in favour of the tenant, would make freedom of contract almost impossible. Unless freedom of contract was to be regarded as something that ought to be discouraged in every possible way; unless a man's independence was a thing that ought to be taken away from him, it did scorn that the old limitation was one which it was desirable to maintain. It appeared to him that the extension of the limit contained in the Act of 1870 was entirely unnecessary if there was ever to be freedom of contract in Ireland.

regarded the limit of £150, contained in the clause, as of great use. There was no doubt that the greatest pressure had been brought to bear upon tenants to get them to contract themselves out of the Act of 1870. It would be a decided advantage to take away from the landlord everything like an inducement to get tenants to contract themselves out of this Act.

understood the Prime Minister to quote the Bessborough Commission as an authority for the £150 limit. He should have thought that it was hardly worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman to quote this Report, after time way in which it had been handled by one of his late Colleagues.

said, he had been rather too cautious in his reference to the Bessborough Commission, which recommended nothing of this kind. The Commissioners recommended that certain descriptions of holdings should be excluded from the operation of the Act; but they did not recommend the introduction of any provision whatever for enabling parties to contract themselves out of the Act.

regretted that the Government had not taken a middle course between the Act of 1870 and the present proposal—that was to say, to admit a limit of £100. He did not, however, attach much importance to these contract clauses one way or the other. He believed that the Irish tenants were acute enough to calculate what advantages they could get under the Bill. They would see they were placed in a strong position, and would naturally ask themselves why they should contract themselves out of the Bill at all. The landlord had hardly anything left that he could offer to the tenant as a valuable consideration to induce him to contract himself out of the Bill. Assuming, as he did, that it was desirable that free contract tenures should exist, the only way in which these could be created was by leaving the larger tenants out of the Bill. He did not, however, wish to reopen that question, which had been discussed at length on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage); but he wished to point out that, unless he had misread the paragraph in the Report of the Bessborough Commission, the Prime Minister was possibly mistaken. He thought the plain English of the paragraph, although ho admitted it was not quite clear, was that grazing farms, and also farms which were above £50 rental, whether grazing farms or not, should be left to free contract.

reminded the Committee that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had withdrawn an Amendment relating to cases in which tenancies under the Ulster Custom had been bought up by the landlord prior to the passing of this Act. The hon. Member having pointed out that it would be very hard upon the landlord, having such holdings in his hand, that they should be subject, when let, to the 1st section of the Bill, had withdrawn his Amendment on the understanding that a clause should be brought up to enable the parties to contract themselves out of that section. He therefore begged to move the Amendment now standing on the Paper in his name.

said, he accepted the Amendment as far as it went; but he was bound to say that it interfered with the Government definition of a tenancy. Because how could a landlord be prevented buying up the tenant right in a present tenancy, entering into occupation, and re-letting the farm subject to no tenant right? The Government contention had been that the tenant had the right of assignment in law fortified by the Act of 1870; that this right adhered to the tenancy and could not be got rid of. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had never entirely admitted that; but if the proposed clause were added, that definition with regard to tenant right would be destroyed. He did not see how they could draw a distinction between the case where the landlord, before the passing of the Act, bought up the tenant right, occupied the holding, and re-let it, and therefore cleared the land of the tenant right, and the case where the landlord who, after the passing of this Act, bought up the tenant right, entered into occupation, and re-let the holding.

said, that one object of the provision was to liberate land for the purpose of being let, which otherwise might remain in the hands of the owner.

considered the Amendment mischievous in character, because, although the number of cases to which it would apply was small, it really had the effect of putting a certain number of persons outside the provisions of the Bill. He was quite unable to see why a tenant who took land from a landlord in occupation of it at the time of the passing this Bill should not, at the end of 5, 10, or 20 years, get compensation for disturbance. No doubt, the number of cases to which the Amendment would apply was extremely small; but he could not regard it as in logical sequence with other parts of the Bill.

pointed out that the Amendment only applied to cases where the tenant contracted with the landlord that the tenancy should be excluded from the operation of the 1st section of the Act. It left the right to compensation for disturbance untouched.

said, that made very little difference, because the right of compensation only arose when the tenant was turned out. The point was that the tenant could not sell. He did not assume that his interest would be very great; but there was no reason why he should be placed in a different position to other tenants, because the landlord happened to have bought up the tenant right. The sale might have been more or less compulsory, or not bonâ fide at all.

asked whether a tenant, in the circumstances defined in the Amendment, would have anything to sell when he went out?

said, the Amendment was intended to meet the case where a landlord had bought the tenant right, and would not let the holding except on certain conditions. A tenant could not be prevented taking the farm on these conditions, and if he chose to contract that he was not to sell, of course he could not do so. He would, however, have the right to compensation for disturbance.

asked whether the Government would also except holdings reclaimed and occupied by the owner himself, which had never, in consequence, been subject to the Ulster tenant right?

asked if the tenant might sell that security in his occupation which was given by the Act of 1870?

said, the hon. Member opposite was right in saying that the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland did not entirely meet the case which, on a former occasion, he had submitted to the Committee; but he had not understood at the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman committed himself to the extent of assenting to all that he had asked. When he moved the Amendment in question, he (Mr. Brand) pointed out to the Committee that there were three eases in which it was desirable to limit the right of free sale. First, where land was unlet at the time of the passing of this Act; secondly, where the landlord had bought up the tenant right previously to the passing of this Act and had it in his occupation at the time of the passing of this Act; and, thirdly, where the landlord had exercised his right of pre-emption and bought up the tenant right. He understood the Amendment to meet the case where the landlord had bought up the tenant right previous to the passing of the Act; and he believed, also, that the Attorney General was about to deal with the demesne lands in another clause. It therefore appeared that the only case which remained open was that mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).

said, the Government adopted such Protean forms of definition that one did not know where to catch them. A few days ago they were speaking of the interest in a tenancy as the value of the holding; and when he ventured to submit that these were two separate things, he was told that no distinction was to be drawn between the Common Law right and the tenant right of Ulster. In the case to which he now drew the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, he understood that the land would be clear of any tenant right at all. But it appeared that the tenant in that case still possessed a valuable interest—that was to say, the interest recognized in the 1st clause of the Bill destroyed under its old name of tenant right, but revived under the new name of "reasonable expectation of continuance."

said, the proposal was to enable the tenant to contract himself out of the 1st section of the Act; but, so far as his Common Law right was concerned, it was not touched by the Bill.

said, he thought the words "in actual occupation," a little too strong. The landlord might possibly have some person occupying the holding for him, but not as a tenant; and, therefore, he suggested that some words should be added to the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland to provide for such cases.

said, that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport were quite unnecessary, inasmuch as any person in occupation on behalf of the landlord would be in the position of servant.

said, in the absence of the right hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), he begged to move the Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of that right hon. Member. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the clause applying in such a way as to violate existing leases which might be proved to be contrary to the provisions of this Bill.

drew the attention of the noble Lord opposite to an Amendment on the Paper, which would provide for the case of existing leases perhaps a little more distinctly than the Amendment just moved by him.

said, he had understood the last Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, inasmuch as it was upon the Paper; but as it appeared he was now moving an Amendment from manuscript, he reserved to himself full liberty of considering the matter on Report. The statement that he wished to assimilate the restriction in the Act of 1870 to the restriction in this Bill was made for the first time by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that evening.

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to provide a larger definition of the term "limited owner" than was given in the 26th clause of the Act of 1870. According to that Act, the term "limited owner" meant any person entitled under any existing or future settlement at law or in equity, for his own benefit and for the term of his own life, to the possession or receipt of the rents and profits of land, and so on. His object was to include persons who held estates for the benefit and for the life of others.

said, he had been requested to ask the Government to enable trustees for collegiate institutions and other corporate bodies in Ireland to sell to the tenant in occupation under this Act as trustees.

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. The word "foregoing" was applicable only to the clauses which had been passed; it had no application to the remaining clauses of the Bill.

said, he believed the clause as it stood had been framed to meet some special cases. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the Amendment, and if there was no objection to the insertion of the words they could be added on Report.

said, he was about to move a technical Amendment to insure that the interest of those who claimed after the life of a limited owner should be protected.

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to propose was the removal of all unnecessary obstacles in the way of creating fixed tenancies. The clause relating to fixed tenancies had been unanimously approved at meetings of tenant farmers in Ireland; but it appeared to him that the usefulness of the clause would be seriously curtailed by requiring the limited owner to obtain the sanction of the Court for the creation of a fixed tenancy. No doubt, the object of the provision was to protect the interest of the remainder men; but, in his opinion, that would be equally well protected by the simple giving of notice and the payment of the money into Court.

pointed out that for the purpose of the clause the giving of a notice would not be of the smallest value.

pointed out that the 40th section of the Act gave power to the Land Commission to refer any matter to the. Land Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court.

said, as the matter was connected with the administration of the Act he would not press the Amendment.

said, the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was beyond the purpose of the clause, and could not be considered at that place. It was a proposition of a distinct kind, and should be brought up as a separate clause.

said, he did not wish the important question relating to the purchase of land for the benefit of labourers to be put off, and if it were possible he would prefer to move the Amendment at that place.

said, he had consulted the authorities of the House, who were of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was clearly inconsistent with the clause, and could not be put.

moved, in page 12, line 30, leave out from "purchase" to "three-fourths" in line 31, and insert—

"The whole of said principal sum, or in case the Land Commission shall be satisfied that the tenant is unable to give sufficient security for the whole of the said principal sum, then to advance to the tenant any sum not less than four-fifths."

If the Government would yield to the unanimous feeling that seemed to be entertained in favour of an advance of four-fifths, he would ask leave not to move the earlier part of the Amendment, and would simply move that the words "four-fifths" be substituted for the words "three-fourths" in lines 30 and 31. He begged to move that those words be inserted.

said, he did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite justified in leaving out the first part of the Amendment and moving only the second, because it would be seen that there were on the Paper Amendments by several hon. Members, among others one by the hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Greer), who represented a population partly urban and partly rural; and one by the noble Lord the Member for County Down (Lord Arthur Hill), who had a very large rural constituency; while there were several Conservative Members from the North of Ireland who had given Notice of Amendments; and if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) were altered as suggested by him it would stand in the way of the rest. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would do better to put the Amendment as it originally stood, and thus give to other hon. Members the opportunity of dealing with the subject.

said, he thought there was some force in what was said by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and therefore he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment he had just moved so that he might move it in its original form.

said, he would point out that no damage would be done by leaving it as it stood, because if the Committee decided on leaving out three-fourths, and any other Amendments were made, the words could be inserted before the Committee affirmed the words "three-fourths."

said, he thought the original Amendment, of which Notice was given by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), was one that took in most of the other Amendments.