, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he felt the House would not tolerate him in addressing them at any great length on the subject of this Bill, nor should he excuse himself if he wasted a moment of the time of the House in any unnecessary observations. He felt it, however, somewhat difficult to determine exactly to what amount of statement he should confine himself. The only Petition against this Bill had been withdrawn, and the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Cohen) had waived his opposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleague (Mr. Thorold Rogers), however, had put a Motion on the Paper stating some objection to the Bill. One of the grounds of his opposition had been supported by the authorities of the House, who had directed the withdrawal of the clause which proposed to transfer the Harbour Works at Dover to the Harbour Board. As to the other objection which he (Mr. Thorold Rogers) raised—namely, that to the constitution of the Harbour Board—he (Mr. Freshfield) believed the hon. Member had been satisfied that the Board to which the Harbour was transferred in 1865 was a Board constituted by Act of Parliament, especially with a view to receive the charge of the Harbour Works, and it was acting in that capacity already. But the hon. Member's reference to the lateness of the period at which this Bill was brought forward seemed to require some notice. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) also had a Notice of opposition on the Paper. That hon. and gallant Gentleman was a severe critic upon measures of this sort. He (Mr. Freshfield) did not quite understand his objections; but he feared that he should not be able to remove them. He did not, however, think that his hon. and gallant Friend would divide the House upon the subject on the second reading. Upon the whole, he thought it would be his duty to offer a short statement upon the measure and its history. Perhaps he might content himself with stating that the scheme contained in the Bill was practically identical with the design contemplated in the Bill brought forward by the Harbour Board in 1874, and the Government in 1875. But the House might expect a little further information from him upon the proceedings which had taken place on this subject. Now, the first measures to which he need refer took place in 1836 and 1839, when, firstly, a Select Committee, and, secondly, a Royal Commission, were appointed to take evidence on the general question of harbours of refuge on the South Coast. These authorities recommended a harbour in the neighbourhood of Dover. In 1843 a Select Committee of this House was appointed "to inquire into the subject of shipwrecks." The proceedings of that Committee were important, because the Duke of Wellington, as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, gave evidence on the subject. To that evidence he should like to refer, but considerations of time did not permit it; and he would, therefore, only give a single answer of His Grace to the question put to him, whether it was not expedient to construct a harbour of refuge between Portsmouth and the Downs. His Grace's answer was—"I think it is so desirable, as to be, in fact, absolutely necessary." In 1844 Sir Robert Peel, as First Lord of the Treasury, followed up the proceedings of that Committee, and, by a Treasury Minute, recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission to enable, as he stated, Her Majesty's Government to form a final and satisfactory judgment, and to inquire into the most eligible site for a harbour of refuge in the Channel. Firstly, where it should be easy of access; secondly, where it should form a station for armed vessels for the purpose of offence and defence; and, thirdly, be capable of its own defence. The Report of that Commission, dated the 7th of August, 1844, gave preference to Dover as the place which, "with a harbour of refuge, would establish a military and naval station." Sir Robert Peel, who never did things by halves, referred that Report to the Departments, with a view to the preparation of designs and plans. The question was accordingly submitted to officers of both Services, and to civil engineers, including Mr. James Walker and Mr. Rennie. They recommended the formation of a harbour at Dover, which should inclose about 520 acres of water, and they recommended that the eastern pier, now known as the Admiralty Pier, should be commenced forthwith. Accordingly, in 1847, the Admiralty Pier was commenced. In the years 1861 and 1865 two Acts of Parliament were passed in reference to the general subject, the one abolishing the passing tolls, and the other vesting the Dover Harbour with others in the Board of Trade. The Admiralty Pier took many years to construct; but as it progressed it was found to be of great advantage in facilitating the postal and other communications with the Continent. Being, however, a single arm running south, it was only partially effective for the purposes proposed, the shipping using it being open to winds from the east and from the west. Before the year 1873 the Admiralty Pier was substantially completed, and a correspondence then ensued between the Government and the Harbour Board, which resulted in the Government determining to complete the eastern pier with the breakwater, and thus to form an inclosed harbour, and a Vote was taken in that House for a grant of £10,000 on account of preliminary expenditure. In the year 1874, the Harbour Board brought in a Bill for completing the harbour on this principle. By the arrangement then made, the Government was to provide a considerable proportion of the funds necessary for the works, and the Harbour Board took power in the Bill to levy tolls and dues. At this time the Government of Mr. Gladstone had been superseded by the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, and when the Bill of the Harbour Board had passed certain stages, the Government requested them to withdraw their Bill on an understanding that they them- selves would take up the scheme. The Harbour Board had, of course, no other object in view but the construction of the Pier, and on payment of their expenses by the Government they withdrew their Bill. In the following year, 1875, in pursuance of this understanding, the Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of undertaking the works which were substantially identical with those proposed in the Bill of the Harbour Board. This Bill, on being read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee, who were specially instructed to report on the advantages that the proposed harbour would afford to the defences of the country, and for the purpose of refuge and Channel communication. The Committee was very ably and influentially composed, numerous witnesses were examined under it, among the rest the Duke of Cambridge, Colonel Nugent, Colonel Collinson, Admiral Sir Alexander Milne, Sir John Hawkshaw, and Mr. W. H. Smith, then First Lord of the Admiralty. That Committee made its Report on the 1st June, 1875. He would like much to read the Report, but it would take too much time. He would content himself with saying that the Report was entirely in favour of the scheme originally proposed by the Harbour Board, and subsequently taken up by the Government for the completion of the harbour at Dover, both on strategical and on general grounds. The Government having received the Report, however, did not proceed with the Bill; and in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords Questions were put to the Government as to their intentions in regard to it. In the House of Commons, in answer to a Question put by him (Mr. Freshfield) on the 13th July 1875, the Government stated, through the present Lord Norton (then Sir Charles Adderley), President of the Board of Trade, that, in consequence of the works they had in hand, the Government were unable to proceed with the Bill that Session, and a like answer was given by the Duke of Richmond to Lord Granville in the House of Lords. Subsequently, Questions were put to the Government by himself to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote), the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were answered in a similar strain; and the result was that, in consequence of the expenditure of the country in foreign wars and other complications, no further proceedings were taken during the Government of Lord Beaconsfield. In 1880 the present Government, as the House knew, came into Office; but, as was well known to the House, its time had been so exclusively occupied by Irish affairs that no attention could be given to such a subject as a harbour at Dover. Towards the latter end of last year, however, it was understood that the works at Portland, which had been carried on for many years by convicts to the number of some 2,000, had nearly come to a close, and it would be necessary to find employment for these convicts. In that state of things the Harbour Board and the Corporation of Dover put themselves in communication with the Government, who appointed a Committee to consider the subject. The proposal, on the part of Dover, to employ these convicts on the harbour works was considered with others, and within the last few weeks it was understood that the Government were favourable to this appropriation of convict labour. During the interval since the withdrawal of the Government Bill, works had been in progress at Calais for the completion of a deep-water harbour there. The two Railway Companies—the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and the South-Eastern Railway Company—who had been opponents of the original scheme, had, in consequence of these works, and on other grounds, come to the conclusion to build and employ larger vessels, and within the last few weeks these two Railway Companies had come to an understanding with the Harbour Board. The matter, therefore, at the present time, stood thus. The Dover Harbour Board had power to raise £500,000. The Railway Companies had agreed to find £150,000 each towards the construction of the harbour. The cost of the harbour was estimated at about the sum of £800,000. The funds, therefore, were forthcoming without any assistance from the Government, and it was in that state of circumstances that this Bill was brought in, all parties considering that no further time should be lost in completing the scheme. The deep-water harbour at Calais was expected to be completed in about two years. It was felt that there ought not to be any delay in carrying out the corresponding works at Dover. It was felt—and he hoped the House would feel—that the opportunity had now come for completing a scheme which had been under consideration for so many years, and which the changes in the circumstances had rendered so increasingly urgent. The harbour contemplated under the Government of the present Prime Minister, and subsequently taken up by the Government of the late Lord Beaconsfield, and recommended by so many authorities after so many inquiries, could now be undertaken without drawing the purse-strings of the country. He could not believe that the House would offer any opposition to the proposal. He had said that the opposition of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was not withdrawn; but he could not help hoping that he would not persevere with it after the explanation he (Mr. Freshfield) had given of the circumstances under which this Bill was now brought forward; and with regard to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour), though he was firm and uncompromising in any position which he took up, he did not think that he would be disposed to divide the House against the Bill. With those few observations he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

, in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, in 1875 this Bill was brought for ward, having been mooted in the House of Commons in 1873. The Government, in that year, moved a grant of £10,000, which was passed in the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning. On the Report, his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) moved its rejection, and, on the division, it was only carried by a majority of 1. If the facts had been fully known, the vote given by himself would have been in opposition and the grant refused. That narrow majority, however, deterred the Government of that day from proceeding with the measure. The Government that succeeded thought it necessary to proceed with the measure, and in 1875 the House of Commons, on his Motion, came to a Resolution to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had, in a brief form, narrated the circumstances connected with the proposal to construct this harbour. His hon. Friend had said that various inquiries had been held in reference to the Dover Harbour; and he (General Sir George Balfour), in a draft Report which he drew up for the Committee in 1875, detailed the inquiries which had been held on the subject. He enumerated no less than nine or ten inquiries within the last 50 years as to whether there should be a harbour in the neighbourhood of Dover; and the 1875 Committee practically rejected the Bill for this Dover Harbour, by criticizing and indicating such serious defects in the plan and estimate as to render the proposal useless. Whilst admitting with his hon. Friend that it was of great importance that a harbour should be constructed somewhere between Portsmouth and the Downs, he denied that Dover was the best spot. He agreed with many high authorities that Dungeness would be a better site for a harbour, because at this point there was a tine bay and a much more extended area. He doubted very much whether such a harbour as was contemplated could be constructed for the sum of money suggested. Indeed, he believed that five times the sum and five times the area would be wholly insufficient for forming a harbour fit for the general and extended use needed.

said, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had opposed the Bill on account of the grant of public money he could have understood his opposition; but, as it was, he was at a loss to understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to prevent Dover having a harbour which the people thought was necessary for the prosperity of their town. He could assure the House that a large majority—indeed, the whole of the inhabitants of Dover—were anxious to have this harbour constructed; and they hailed with pleasure the fact that now, for the first time, the Harbour Board and the two Railway Companies were unanimous in their desire and determination to carry the work out if possible. He therefore hoped the House of Commons would not stand between Dover and the object desired simply because a Gentleman from Scotland thought proper to state that the harbour could not be constructed for the sum of money which was mentioned in the Bill. His hon. and gallant Friend belonged to a Profession more suited to destroy than to build up; and while he had said the sum of money mentioned in the Bill was totally inadequate for the purpose proposed, he had not backed his opinion by one single argument. He (Major Dickson) might inform the House that the promoters of the Bill were advised by many most able members of the Engineering Profession that it was perfectly practicable to construct a harbour such as was contemplated for the sum mentioned. He trusted the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill.

said, he had on the Paper the following Amendment:—

"That, considering the large amount of public money (£734,388) expended on Dover Harbour between the years 1848 and 1875, and that a Private Bill, entitled the Dover Harbour Bill, has been brought very late in the Session into this House, which Bill proposes to vest the Admiralty Pier at Dover in the Harbour Board of that port, it is inexpedient to proceed with this Bill at so late a period of the Session, especially considering the constitution of the Harbour Board."

When he looked through the Bill he found it contained a proposition that the Admiralty Pier, on which he believed something like £1,000,000 of public money had been spent, should be handed over to the Dover Harbour Board; and that was originally the ground on which he objected to the Bill. He had been informed privately, and also publicly, by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), who introduced the Bill, that this proposition had been withdrawn; but he submitted it was a considerable wrong to independent Members of the House that private arrangements should be made between the promoters of Bills and public bodies as to the withdrawal of portions of Bills. If hon. Members took the trouble to go through Bills, it was but reasonable that Notice should be put on the Paper if any particular portions of the Bill were withdrawn. He admitted that he thought the withdrawal of the clause in this Bill respecting the Admiralty Pier had removed his objection; but when he looked more minutely into the Bill he found his objection was not entirely removed. He found that Dover Harbour had been the subject of 20 or more Acts which had been carried through that House as Public Acts. These Acts dated as far back as the Reign of George IV.; and now this ancient harbour was to be handed over to three private Companies—the Harbour Board, the South-Eastern Railway Company, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company.

said, the harbour was managed by the Harbour Board under powers conferred by Act of Parliament.

said, he did not suppose the two Railway Companies would engage in the undertaking without having some consideration for the money they laid out and some control over the harbour. His contention was that it was not to the public interest that a public harbour should be handed over to two Railway Companies and a Harbour Board. He regarded the present Bill with some alarm, for he knew that at the head of one of the Railway Companies was the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), and they never knew what would become of anything the hon. Baronet took in hand. His hon. Friend was engaged in a project very close to Dover for the purpose of connecting England with France.

rose to Order. The Channel Tunnel had nothing whatever to do with the Dover Harbour.

said, he only desired to point out that as the Dover Harbour was very near to the site of the Channel Tunnel the management of the two undertakings would be in the same hands. The Railway Companies would never allow a great portion of their funds to be embarked in the harbour unless they had some control over the harbour, and that was a matter of very grave concern. Very large and comprehensive powers were to be put in the hands of persons whose actions in future required to be watched. Only one word more. It was perfectly true the Harbour Board was a reformed Board; but it was in no proper sense a representative body. It was simply a body of nominees. It was a less representative body than the Harbour Board of Belfast, the constitution of which they had just had under consideration. It was a great deal to ask the House that such large powers as were now proposed should be handed over to the Harbour Board and the Railway Companies who were promoting the Bill. He did not think it wise that the House should surrender an ancient harbour to private Companies; and, therefore, if his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) went to a division, he should certainly vote with him.

said, this question had nothing to do with the Channel Tunnel, of which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had spoken. This proposal was in the nature of a public improvement. As an old promoter of public works, he was bound to admit that most proposals like the present were attacked in the manner adopted by the hon. Member for Southwark. This was a proposal to do that which Parliament had, over and over again, sanctioned in one way and another; it was one which ought to have been made by the Government long ago. Private interests had again been introduced; in short, some hon. Gentlemen could not see that great military advantages could not be given as a matter of private profit, but must have the assistance of the Government. What were the facts? On the other side of the Channel there were works going on between Cherbourg and Dunkirk inclusive, amounting to 3,000 or 4,000 acres, and at Calais and at Boulogne increased deep-water harbour and dock space of more than 1,000 acres in area was being provided. The French Government had voted since 1879 no less than £6,900,000 for the improvement and extension of the harbours opposite Dover, and it was for the English people to consider whether we should give any answer to that enormous extension of French harbours—good for peace and war—which was now taking place. What was the only answer that was being given to the French works? The only answer at present was the construction of a small deepwater space by friends of his at Folkestone. It was now proposed at Dover, with the consent of the Board of Trade and of the Government, and with the co-operation of every interest, to inclose 600 acres of deep-water space, which would be something like an answer to what had been done at Calais and Boulogne. Surely, the proposal was not one which should be ridiculed, and he hoped the House would take that view of the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) had admitted that the best place for a stone harbour was Dungeness; but surely it was not a question of one harbour, when there were 12 on the other side of the Channel? Big ships were now the order of the day; big ships required deep water, and England could not keep her commerce unless she enlarged her harbours. This was a step in the right direction, and he hoped the House would give to it its sanction.

said, he did not think that, the arguments just addressed to them were conclusive. He was inclined to think they did something to prejudice the case rather than otherwise. He could not help thinking that both the support of this proposal and the opposition to it had been based on some misconception. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had put forward the proposal on the ground of patriotism, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had pointed out that this would be a great military harbour, which would form a sort of answer to the considerable preparations of the same kind being made at Calais and Boulogne. If the harbour was to be regarded in that light it would be totally inadequate. It would be nonsense to suppose that the proposed harbour, which would only give us 600 acres of secured space in which very few of our great ships of war could lay with convenience, would be a set-off to what was being done by France. He did not think that the issue before the House was the construction of a military harbour at Dover. That was a matter upon which the Government would, some day or other, have to come to a decision. Neither was it a question of the construction of a harbour of refuge; at all events, that was not the main point which the House had to consider. It was a question whether the people of Dover should be precluded by the fact that the Government might possibly, some time or another, have further proposals to make, from doing that which they considered absolutely necessary in order to secure the commercial prosperity of the port. This was a commercial harbour, an ordinary private commercial undertaking; and the question was, whether there were such flagrant objections to the Bill as should prevent it being considered by a Committee upstairs? He must say that the position of the Dover people had been rather a hard one. For a considerable number of years they had dwelt over this proposal, and had waited for the decision of the Government and the House of Commons upon the question of a larger scheme. Having had so much patience, they had some sort of claim on the House that now they should not be further interfered with. The opposition of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) was not applicable to this proposal. It was quite true that in the Bill, as originally introduced, there were some clauses which vested the Admiralty Pier in the Harbour Board. There was certain justification for that in the fact that such a proposal had been made to the House by two successive Governments. Certainly, a proposition of that kind to hand over a piece of public property to what, after all, was a private trust, was a question which could not be decided by a Private Bill; for it must come forward in a Public Act, and it must involve a great question of public policy. The Board of Trade immediately communicated with the promoters of the Bill, and told them that the Government would be obliged to oppose the Bill if the proposals respecting the Admiralty Pier were proceeded with. The Board of Trade had received a written assurance from the promoters that all the clauses dealing with that matter would be dropped. The Government must also object to the proposal, although it was a permissive one, to allow the Harbour Board to have the use of convict labour. If convict labour was to be employed at Dover, it must be employed under the control of the Government, and not under that of a private Company. The clause dealing with convict labour would also be dropped, and, under the circumstances, the Bill would be one of an exclusively private nature, and he thought the House would do well to allow it to go to a Committee upstairs. He did not think it likely that any works would be proceeded with until the Government had been able to come to a decision upon the general question of the employment of convict labour. A Departmental Committee had been appointed to consider this matter, altogether, however, apart from the construction of a harbour of refuge or a great military harbour. It had been found necessary to find employment for convicts, and it was very probable that the Committee would recommend that the convicts should be employed in the construction of a harbour somewhere. Whether this would be at Dover he was not able to say; but, of course, when the Report of the Committee was settled, the Government would have to give a decision upon the whole matter. His hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) had spoken of the insufficiency of the estimates, and of other matters of detail. When his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) said the Harbour Board was not a representative body, it was quite as representative as other modern Harbour Trusts. It was fully representative for the protection of all commercial interests; the interests of the Government in connection with the military defence of the country were represented by the Board of Admiralty, and all other interests of the harbour were represented by the Railway Companies. Having explained these matters, he hoped the House would now agree to the second reading of the Bill.

said, the Bill was of great importance, not only to Dover, but to the whole of the country; and he had been much sur- prised to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who said that, although the Government had already laid out nearly £1,000,000 at Dover in order to make a Government harbour of Dover, they were now going to allow a private Company to make a private harbour, and, to inclose a certain amount of it, some 600 acres, which would not be sufficient for a harbour of refuge, for the general purposes of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that it might be presently necessary to make another harbour for the country, and that Dover might be selected. He wanted to know in what position the present trustees of Dover Harbour would be if another harbour were made and the accommodation at Dover were increased? The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that there was no harbour of refuge for military purposes between Sheerness and Portsmouth. There were, no doubt, the Downs; but there was no harbour for military purposes between Sheerness and Portsmouth, and there ought to be a harbour not only for such purposes, but for the protection of our merchant shipping. He was one of those who had no great faith in the Government carrying out the necessary works properly. Let them look at the work which had been done at Alderney and Jersey, and see now grudgingly the money had been voted for works there, and how the only result had been the formation of inconvenient, insufficient, and ill-constructed harbours. Here they had a grand opportunity for making something that should be worthy of the country. It was evident from all that had been said that the harbour should be made for men of war. The hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) stated that that was one of the great purposes for which the harbour was intended; but they were now told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that at present the Government could not decide whether this was to be a sufficient harbour, or whether they might not have to increase it hereafter. He asked the House to look at page 5 of the Bill, from which it would appear that the Government were going to allow their own pier to be included within the harbour.

said, he had already stated that all clauses interfering in any way with the Government property would be withdrawn, or so amended as to prevent such interference.

said, the House, in that case, would have a right to ask how the harbour was to be constructed, because, unless the existing pier was to be carried out to the eastward for some 500 or 600 yards, as proposed in the Bill, he failed to see how a secure harbour was to be constructed. He should like to have some information as to what was going to be done. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Board of Trade, knew, and he had been in hopes when the right hon. Gentleman got up he would have stated what the intentions of the Government were. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers), sitting by the side of the President of the Board of Trade, would not for one moment deny that Dover was an important strategic place, which it was necessary to defend at all hazards. He was, however, glad for one thing that a harbour was to be made, because he ventured to hope now that we should be able to secure decent vessels for the passage between Dover and Calais, and Dover and Belgium, so that people who suffered so much at present from the employment of small boats might hereafter be protected from that suffering. He was not satisfied, however, with the answer which had been given by the President of the Board of Trade; and he asked the Government to explain more fully their intentions in regard to the future construction of a harbour at Dover or elsewhere.

said, he was perfectly certain that when the Bill went before a Committee it would be found altogether impossible to carry out the scheme for a harbour in the manner proposed by the Bill, and for the extended purposes set forth in the Petition on which leave was given to deposit this Bill at this late period of the Session. He was, therefore, willing to allow it to go before a Committee, in order that they might decide as to the sufficiency of the proposal as to its area and cost. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill; but there was one point in regard to the measure upon which he should like to have the opinion of the Government. This was, strictly speaking, an Ionian bank. Of that there was no doubt whatever, and there could be no objection to the provisions of its Charter so long as it carried on the business of banking; but hitherto these Charters had been renewed from time to time in order to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering the terms on which they were granted. It was quite true, as he had said, that this was an Ionian bank; but it was also true that banks of this character did business in England as well as elsewhere, and if their Charters were indefinitely renewed a principle would be introduced which would be very prejudicial to the public interests. He did not intend to oppose the second reading; but he asked for some undertaking that the Charters of these banks should be subject to the pleasure of Her Majesty's Government, so that they might be considered from time to time if the necessity arose. His reason for making this request was that the Charter of the Greek Bank had been renewed for a period of 25 years.

said, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), who had charge of the Bill, was not in his place to explain the Bill, and therefore it might be better to postpone the consideration of it until Thursday, when the questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) could be answered. The Government were quite alive to the importance of the point which had been raised by the hon. Baronet.

wished to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact that this very bank was included in the Bill brought in in 1879—the Chartered Colonial Banks Bill. That Bill, one of the objects of which was to allow Charters to be con- tinued permanently, was withdrawn. If this Bill was to be allowed to pass, he should like to know the grounds for the change of opinion since 1879, seeing that this was one of the scheduled banks in the Bill of that year. He desired to know whether there were any special circumstances which distinguished this bank from the others in the Schedule?

asked the Postmaster General, What prospect there is of the completion of arrangements for the acceleration of the Mails between London and Dublin?

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the great importance of the subject, he will postpone any final decision on the proposed new contract for the conveyance of the mails between England and Ireland until after an opportunity is given for discussing the question on the Post Office Vote, or otherwise?

I am very anxious that the public should have the advantage, with the least possible delay, of any improvement that may be found practicable in the Mail Service to Ireland. If, however, the hon. Member and Irish Members generally desire that the decision should be postponed in reference to the contract for the conveyance of the mails until after the Post Office Votes have been taken, I shall have no objection to accede to their wishes on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Guardians of the Oughterard Union, County Galway, have refused relief to the family of Mr. Michael Flynn, who has been confined in Kilmainham for the last seven months; whether it is the fact that the family are destitute, and in need of relief; and, if the Local Government Board will therefore compel the Guardians to administer it?

It is the case, Sir, that the Guardians of Oughterard Union have declined to give relief to the family of Mr. Michael Flynn. The relieving officer of the district has made two special visits to this family, the last visit being on the 11th instant, and has reported that they are in no way destitute, or in want of any assistance from the Guardians. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere in any individual ease for the purpose of ordering relief.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the district of Cappard, Peter's Dell, county Galway, on the property of a landlord named James Galbraith, there are at present, and have been for some time past, a police barrack occupied by ten men, and four huts containing a further force of twenty men; whether the said Mr. Galbraith is a gentleman who has been in the habit of obliging his tenantry to labour for him at a wage of eightpence a day; whether he applied for this extraordinary force of extra police in consequence of the refusal of his tenants to so labour for him unless upon increase of wages; whether the district in question is comparatively quiet, the most serious outrage committed there being the burning of some turf; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the force of thirty men in occupation, and to charge any part of the cost of the force upon the poor occupiers of the district?

There are eight men—five of whom are soldiers—in a hut at Cappard for the protection of Mr. Galbraith. There are six men in another hut in the vicinity for the protection of other persons; and there is a third hut on another part of the property containing five men, which has been erected for the purpose of putting down crime and outrage. Mr. Galbraith has not been in the habit of obliging his tenants to work for him for 8d. a-day. Since October last he has paid them 1s. 6d. a-day, and prior to that he paid 1s. a-day. He applied for police protection in consequence of his having refused terms dictated to him by his tenants relative to the payment of their rents. Up to a very recent period he had been subjected to a system of "Boycotting." The sub-district has been comparatively quiet since May; but in the few months previous there had been a large number of outrages. There is no present intention of withdrawing any of the men from the district, and the question of charging any portion of the costs on the locality has not yet been decided upon.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of Mrs. Margaret O'Grady, tenant to Major General T. C. Crowe, who applied, on the 27th ultimo, to Mr. Charles Kelly, Q.C., the county court judge of Clare, to have a fair rent fixed, the tenant's valuer estimated the fair rent at £55 10s., the landlord's valuer, Mr. William Studdert, J.P., estimated the fair rent at £65 18s., and the county court judge fixed the fair rent at £70, or nearly five pounds in excess of the sum estimated by the landlord's valuator; and, whether the Government will take any notice of the conduct of the judge?

This is a serious question, Sir. I have got a letter from Mr. Kelly, and his explanation appears to me thorough and complete. Mr. Kelly says—

"The following are in substance the facts of the case to which your letter alludes. The valuers of both landlord and tenant valued the land in its present deteriorated condition. It clearly appeared in evidence that the land had been considerably reduced in value by the illegal conduct of the tenants, who by cutting- turf down to the gravel had rendered from 12 to 15 acres utterly unfit for cultivation, contrary to law and the custom of the country. It was doubtful whether the tenant had any right to cut turf; but whether he had or not, he certainly was not at liberty to cut away or destroy the mould under the turf. The valuers submitted that if the turf had been fairly and properly cut the land would have been worth considerably more than their valuations. I am of opinion that, according to the true construction of the Land Act, the rent ought not to be reduced if the reduction in value is owing to the default of the tenant, and on that principle I accordingly left the rent where it stood."

I hope the hon. Member for Sligo will excuse me if I now read a sentence or two, not with special reference to him, but in consequence of the number of Questions put to me lately by hon. Mem- bers in different parts of the House with regard to the decisions of officers sitting judicially to administer the Land Act. Mr. Kelly says—

"I think it prejudicial to the administration of justice and an undue interference with the independence of Judges that a Member of Parliament should be permitted by asking a Question to insinuate that a Judge is deserving of censure. Such a question cannot properly be inquired into by Question and Answer in the House of Commons. If a party feels aggrieved by any decision a remedy is provided for him by appeal to a higher Court, where the merits of the case can be fully investigated."

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether William Russell is still detained in custody at Kilkenny on the charge of intimidation, under warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, although the state of his native district is orderly and peaceful, and though all the other suspects from Tipperary have been released; whether Arthur Moloney, arrested on the 3rd of January last, is still detained in custody; whether he is the only suspect from the county of Kildare who has not been set at liberty; whether, considering that he is only charged with inciting to intimidation, and that his district is quite peaceful, there exists any special reason in the case for his continued detention; whether Patrick Neilan, of Gurtermone, county Sligo, and James M'Donagh, of Geevah, county Sligo, have now been several months in prison on suspicion of inciting to intimidation; whether the other suspects from that county have been released, and their families are in need of their help for harvest work; and, whether, in compliance with the assurances given by the First Lord of the Treasury upon the 2nd of May, the Government will now release them?

, in reply, said, the Lord Lieutenant was still continuing his inquiries with reference to William Russell. As to the prisoner Neilan, he had been released; and M'Donagh he could not decide to release at present.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been arrived at with reference to the Memorials of the letter-carriers?

Sir, I am glad to be able to state, in reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, that a decision has now been arrived at on the subject of letter-carriers' wages. Without troubling the House with details, I may state generally that the effect of that decision will be, as regards the majority of the letter-carriers employed in London, to raise their scale at the maximum by 2s. a-week, and to substitute an annual increment for a triennial one. In the country the scales will be reduced from 27 in number to seven, and these are in every case higher than those which they supersede. The system of good conduct stripes, carrying with them a special allowance of 1s., 2s., and 3s. a-week, will be extended to the country, and in this matter the country and the suburbs of London will be placed on the same footing as London proper is now. In the case of the auxiliaries in London, whose time is only partially occupied by their official duties, their pay for the early morning delivery will be raised from 10d. to 1s. a-morning, and after they have served five years as auxiliaries, it is my intention, provided they fulfil the conditions prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners and are considered eligible in other respects, to promote them to the establishment as opportunity offers. The revision will also affect the wages of lobby-porters, porters, stampers, and labourers, whose work, so far as regards hours of employment, is determined by that of the letter-carriers.

At what date will the new scheme come into operation?

From the time when the decision was arrived at—that is, from the end of last week.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Porte has accepted the invitation of the Conference to send troops to Egypt as mandatory of Europe; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government has definitely arranged with any, and which, of the Powers to co-operate with the British forces in any further Military operations in that country?

Sir, the Porte has not yet replied to the invitation of the Conference. The matter referred to in the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question has, of course, received the attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the Powers; but I am unable to make any statement upon the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can now state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour on the 11th of June to protect British life and property at Alexandria: and, whether Her Majesty's Government have approved his proceedings in not carrying out the instructions addressed to him on the 15th of May directing him to land force, if required, "to support Khedive and protect British subjects and Europeans?"

Sir, the hon. Member in his Question imputes to Sir Beauchamp Seymour a failure in duty in not carrying out the instructions he had received. Her Majesty's Government have entirely approved of the conduct of Sir Beauchamp Seymour on the 11th of June in every particular; and if the hon. Member wishes to call in question the conduct either of the Admiral or of the Government, I would submit to the House that it ought to be done by direct Motion, and not by such a Question as he has now put.

said, he would call the conduct of the Government in question by a direct Motion, and would conclude with a Motion on this occasion. They had had enough of the reticence, concealment, and arrogance of the Government. He did not for a moment say that the Government had intentionally deceived the House; but he did say that the House had been deceived by the information the Government had given on several occasions, and if there was one proof more than another of the manner in which——

The hon. Member is out of Order in imputing intentional deceit on the part of the Government.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken him. He did not intend to attribute intentional deceit to the Government. He specially guarded himself against that, and what he said was that the Government had unintentionally de- ceived the House by the information they had given. He would ask the House to reflect upon what was done yesterday. Twice the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had informed them that Germany approved the conduct of the Government in bombarding Alexandria, and that Austria and Germany had declared that their conduct was legitimate. The Question was asked a second time, and the hon. Baronet said he had nothing to correct in his former answer. But yesterday his hon. Friend came forward and said he was not justified in saying that Germany had assented. He did not assert that his hon. Friend had intentionally deceived the House, but that the House was deceived. They had had nothing but misleading information—not intentional deception—ever since the question of Egypt came before the country. He would prove it. On the 11th of May he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asked what stops had been taken to protect life and property in Alexandria, and the hon. Baronet said—

"It is impossible for me to make any statement at present on the question of policy."

The hon. Baronet then went on to say—

"I have already stated…that the protection of both life and property was the most pressing matter in connection with the present state of things in Egypt, and that it had engaged the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that no delay in regard to it had been caused by the French Government, although communications had taken place."—[3 Hansard, cclxix. 460.]

On the 15th of May he again asked what steps had been taken, and he was informed that—

"The English and French Fleets have gone to Suda Bay on their way to Alexandria."—[Ibid. 670.]

That was the day on which the instructions to which his Question referred were given to Sir Beauchamp Seymour. And here he might say at once that he never had any intention of attacking Sir Beauchamp Seymour. ["Oh, oh !"] The Secretary to the Admiralty, who cried "Oh !" had better learn to be as courteous in his answers as the right hen. Gentleman who was sitting next to him (Mr. Fawcett). On the 22nd of May the Under Secretary stated that he could make no further declarations on the subject, as he had already stated that Her Majesty's Government entertained the belief that the measures they proposed would be satisfactory to the Porte. It was almost impossible for him to go on with all the instances of information given by the Under Secretary which had, unintentionally on his part, misled the House; but he would call attention to a particular statement, not made in that House, but "elsewhere." On the 1st of June the Marquess of Salisbury stated on good authority that he had heard there were 6,000 soldiers in Alexandria, who for four days were erecting formidable earthworks, and that the English and French Governments would not allow the Fleets to stop them. On the very same day the Under Secretary told the House that England and France were now in absolute accord as to the steps to be taken in certain eventualities, and that the two Governments felt confident that the course agreed upon would meet with the assent of the other Great Powers and of the Porte. The Under Secretary then went on to say—

"With regard to the statements which were made in Parliament as to the 'perfect accord' which existed between the Governments of England and France, I may repeat that these statements at the time were perfectly true. Circumstances, however, subsequently occurred, as shown in the Papers about to be laid on the Table, which, although they in no way changed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, may have an influence in other quarters."—[Ibid. 1786.]

Again, on the 2nd of June, the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) asked the hon. Baronet whether any communication had been made to the Egyptian Government on the subject of the earthworks, to which Question the hon. Baronet replied—

"No, Sir, not at present. It is desirable that I should state in advance that I do not think it would be proper for mo to answer any Questions that might be addressed to mo next week on the subject of those earthworks, because there might be matters passing in respect of them on which it would be undesirable to speak. I can only say that the matter has not escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government."—[Ibid. 1938.]

asked if the hon. Gentleman would kindly read the reply which he made a few days later, and in which he gave the whole of the facts with regard to the earthworks?

said, he would be happy to do so if the hon. Baronet would give him the date of the reply to which he referred.

said, that he could not give the date, as he was unprepared for this discussion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government was not altogether free from this habit of misinforming the House on these subjects. On the 1st of June he had placed upon the Notice Paper a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman as to the truth of the rumour that Indian troops were about to be brought to Suez with the view of protecting British interests, and to that Question the right hon. Gentleman gave the following answer:—

"Perhaps I may take this opportunity of taking notice of the Question of the hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), who asks me whether there is any truth in the rumour that Indian troops are about to be brought to Suez, with the view of protecting British interests, and asserting the Sovereignty of the Sultan in Egypt? I could not undertake to answer a prospective Question as to particular measures to he adopted in a great political contingency of this kind; but under the circumstances, and as the case as to the Indian troops is peculiar, I may say that no plan of that kind has been adopted, nor is it at present contemplated."—[Ibid. 1783–4.]

[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman had different tones in his cheering, which might be interpreted in different ways. He contended that his answer was misleading to the House, because it inferred either that the Government was ignorant of the existence of the earthworks at Alexandria, or else that they did not contemplate using the Indian troops in Egypt. On the 11th of June the massacre at Alexandria took place, and he had frequently sought to obtain information as to what steps had been taken for the purpose of protecting life and property at that place, but had never obtained anything that approached a satisfactory answer to his Questions on the subject. When he had again pressed for information on the matter, the Secretary to the Admiralty, new in his Office, rode off on the plea that he had been passing imputations upon Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour—a plea that was utterly groundless. On the 12th of June, in reply to a Question, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said—

"Sir Beauchamp Seymour has power to land seamen and marines if he thinks it advisable to do so."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 822.]

On the 13th of June the hon. Baronet said—

"The present state of anarchy will not be allowed to continue. I cannot go into any details of the measures which will be adopted."

On the 14th of June the hon. Baronet said that—

"He had only to inform the hon. Member that the Government had the most perfect confidence in the tact, discretion, and courage of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had power to land seamen and marines to any extent he pleased from the Fleet under his command."

He should like to know what other instructions Sir Beauchamp Seymour had at that time. The Under Secretary went on to say—

"There were four ships cruising off the coast, three of which were able to go into the harbour of Alexandria whenever they pleased. Sir Beauchamp Seymour was in possession now of a very large force. There was also a large French force, and a considerable force belonging to the other Powers, who would be sure to land troops and Marines if we did so for the protection of their subjects. The Government were content to leave the question whether a force should be landed or not to Sir Beauchamp Seymour. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had spoken of our relations with the Porte as though we were in quarrel with the Porte at the present moment. All he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could say was that our relations with the Porte were friendly in the extreme; and the language which had been used by the Sultan himself personally to Lord Dufferin showed an absolute agreement with this country in regard to the steps to be taken in Egypt."—[Ibid. 1134–5.]

On the following day the hon. Baronet said that—

"The total European population of Egypt was, of course, very large indeed. There were 30,000 Greeks, 15,000 French, 15,000 Italians, 4,000 British (including Maltese), and 4,000 Austrian and German subjects."

Later he said that—

"Up to the present Sir Edward Malet had not called upon British subjects to leave the country, nor had any other foreign Consuls called upon their fellow subjects to do so."—[Ibid. 1257–8.]

Later again, he says—

"The meeting which took place between the European Consuls was a meeting between the Representatives of Germany, Austria, Italy, Russia, France, and England. There were present at that meeting the Khedive, Dervish Pasha, and the whole of his suite from Constantinople, and Arabi Pasha also. The object of that meeting was to receive an answer to a demand that had been made on Dervish Pasha by the Representatives of the Powers in regard to steps which should be satisfactory to the Great Powers to insure the safety of Europeans in Egypt. Dervish Pasha stated that Arabi had informed him that he would implicitly obey the orders given by the Khedive. The Khedive immediately issued orders for restoring the public tranquility. These are the words to which I alluded yesterday—'Dervish Pasha said that under the urgent circumstances of the case he would assume joint responsibility with Arabi Pasha for the execution of the orders of the Khedive. The European Consuls then said that the danger to the security of Europeans took precedence over all other questions for the moment, and that the political situation did not enter into the discussion. They also said to the Khedive and the Imperial Commissioners that they thought the discussion that had taken place with regard to the Europeans had nothing to do with the objects of Dervish Pasha's mission in Egypt."—(Ibid. 1259–60.]

On the same date the hon. Baronet said—

"He had already stated that there was a largo force of men-of-war at Alexandria, and that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had a large force, which he was empowered to land. No doubt, instructions had been given to some of the foreign admirals to a like effect. It was also probable that seamen and marines would also be Landed…Five ships, the Minotaur, the Achilles, the Agincourt, the Northumberland, and the Sultan, left Gibraltar for Malta at 7 o'clock that morning under Sir Beauchamp Seymour's orders."—[Ibid. 1277.]

The fact was, that the House was referred to the Greek Kalends for information on the subject. The production of the Papers had been postponed week after week, and the Government would neither let the House know what had happened in the past nor what was being done in the present, and Heaven only knew what would happen in the future. On the 16th of June the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—

"Sufficient vessels are chartered and at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour to provide for the removal of all British subjects who wish to leave."—[Ibid. 1410.]

On the same day, as to the earthworks, he said—

"The construction of earthworks appears to have begun at daylight on the 29th ultimo. On the 4th of June the Admiral reported by telegraph that two guns had been mounted that morning. Very brief telegraphic communications on the subject of the earthworks were received between those dates."—[Ibid. 1412.]

The same day the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asked of the Prime Minister—

"Whether a sufficient force was now ready to land, so as to insure that protection, which was naturally looked for, considering our paramount interests in Egypt?"—[Ibid. 1420.]

[Cries of "Oh !"and interruption.] He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to the conduct of some of the new Baronets opposite. On the same day the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in one of those equivocal statements with which he was accustomed to delight the House, said—

"As to whether a sufficient force was ready to land for the purpose of protecting British life and property, I do not think it would be expedient, considering the risks that are run…by the prevalence of unauthorized rumours…to enter in any manner into that subject."—[Ibid. 1420–21.]

[Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the bombardment of Alexandria and the slaughter of British subjects were matters for laughter. On the 19th, he had asked the hon. Baronet—

"What steps had been taken…last Sunday (the 11th) for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourished the belief that the repetition of such steps would be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of hostilities?"

To which he replied—

"Sir, the despatch of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which will answer the first part of the Question, is on its way home. With regard to the second, instructions have been sent, which, we believe, will meet the exigencies of the case."—[Ibid. 1606.]

On the 20th he repeated the Question as to the stops taken on the 11th, to which the Secretary to the Admiralty replied—

"Sir, the hon. Member yesterday addressed this identical Question to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have nothing to add to the answer then given by my hon. Friend."—[Ibid. 1758.]

Thus, on the 20th, the Secretary to the Admiralty refused to give any further reply to Questions on the subject. It was impossible to get any information on the question, although he was informed that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not land troops because he had been forbidden to do so by the Government. [Sir JOHN HAY: There were none to land.] Undoubtedly that was true; but the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that there was a large force under the Admiral to land. It was difficult to reconcile these statements. If it was necessary for the credit of this country that there should be hostilities in Egypt, he was sure on that side of the House no difficulty would be thrown in the way of Her Majesty's Government; but the House had a right to know what was about to be done. How was it that, after bombarding Alexandria, we had left it to be looted and burnt? Did we intend to allow Arabi to consolidate his forces, and to treat Cairo and the rest of Egypt as he had done Alexandria? The Government appeared to be leaving everything to the Conference, which did not appear to be able to come to any conclusion—a Conference which was sitting when the massacre took place, which was sitting when the bombardment took place, which was sitting when Alexandria was sacked and burnt, and which was now sitting while Arabi, perhaps, was preparing to devastate the rest of Egypt. He had asked whether Her Majesty's Government had approved the conduct of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in not carrying out their original orders, and to that Question he could get no answer. In putting the Question, he did not intend to cast the slightest imputation upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour; but he wished to know who was answerable for the loss of life and property that had occurred at Alexandria? He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) repudiated the statement of the Secretary to the Admiralty.

Read the words of the Question.

The hon. Gentleman interpreted the words in such a way as to avoid answering straightforwardly.

I objected to answer the Question, because it imputed to Sir Beauchamp Seymour a failure of duty in not carrying out his instructions. The words are whether the Government "approve of his conduct in not carrying out his instructions."

said, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say where, in his Question, the words "failure of duty" occurred. Sir Beau- champ Seymour appeared to be approved in not carrying out his instructions of the 15th of May, which were that, if necessary, he was to land forces to protect the Khedive and British life and property. He did not land forces for that purpose. He asked whether his non-compliance with these instructions—which were the only instructions laid before the House—was approved by the Government? He wished to ask the Government to tell them what position they were in. Were they drifting into war? Were troops being made ready in order to go to Egypt? Were the transports taken up? Were the Indian troops ordered to Egypt? Were they on the verge of war without the Vote or the approbation of that House? If the Government thought it necessary to go to war, no doubt they would be supported; but he did not think it fair that during week after week and month after month information should be withheld until they found themselves launched into hostilities incurring great expense. The country was in great anxiety, and really did not know what the chances of tomorrow were. They might find themselves embarked in a war, perhaps not only with Egypt, but also with some other Power, who had not considered the bombardment of Alexandria legitimate. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for a considerable time, and I really must say that I am quite at a loss to understand the purpose or utility of such a speech as that just delivered. I cannot see what his object is. It appears to me that he rambled on from point to point in order to lay before the House an immense number of quotations, with what end I do not know. He has proved no point—he has not even stated any. He has accused the Government largely, and my hon. Friend near me in particular, of having misled him by the answers given to Questions; but he has not shown in what way he has been misled. He rose in answer to the challenge, or apparent challenge, of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty; but he has not met the challenge in the slightest degree. The challenge of my hon. Friend was, in fact, that if the hon. Gentleman wished to impugn the con-duct of the Admiral he should do it by a direct Motion; but he has made no direct Motion of that kind, nor, indeed, any one upon which any issue can possibly be raised. He has occupied a good deal of the time of the House, as if he thought that commodity of so little value that the more it was thrown away the better, but he has made no direct Motion, nor raised any direct issue upon the subject, which would serve to collect the scattered members of his speech into a whole. One thing he has said, and upon that, which appears to be the only intelligible portion of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I shall say one word. He says that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not carried into effect the instructions given to him on the 15th of May; and, founding himself on that allegation of his own, if I understand him correctly, he insinuates that there have been counter-instructions conveyed by the Government. He makes the insinuation on no other basis than a mere allegation of his own, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry into effect his instructions. That is a most wanton and wilful assertion of dishonourable conduct against Her Majesty's Government for which he has not the smallest shadow of ground. Those who, without the smallest shadow of ground, make these wanton and wilful assertions come within a measurable distance of the act of calumny. There is a distinction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wilfully calumniate anyone; but this rash statement is, at any rate, in some degree culpable. But I do not admit that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry into effect the instructions given on the 15th of May. He was directed to land a force if required to support the Khedive. They were not absolute, but conditional instructions. [Sir JOHN HAY: He had no force to land.] Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suffer me to pursue one line of thought before I come to another? Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not said he had no forces to land. That is the opinion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but Sir Beauchamp Seymour has not stated that; and he does not found his justification, and we do not found our justification, upon it. Sir Beauchamp Sey- mour did not land the force which he had at his command. I say that in defiance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; because Admiral Seymour did not deem it necessary, politic, or expedient; and in that judgment he has been approved by the Government, who make themselves responsible for the action of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth has any knowledge of secret counter-instructions, in contradiction to public instructions, let him produce them, and we will deal with them. He has produced nothing of the kind, and he has founded himself, in the insinuation he has made, upon an allegation that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry his instructions into effect—in reference to which the hon. Gentleman is wholly mistaken. Sir Beauchamp Seymour's offence appears to be that, instead of taking the hon. Gentleman's opinion, with which probably he was not acquainted, he formed his own judgment and acted upon it.

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asks what are the grounds upon which my hon. Friend has put his Question and made the observation he has made, and he charges my hon. Friend with putting a Question winch expresses something within measurable distance of a calumny.

That observation of mine referred, not to the Question, but to the speech of the hon. Gentleman.

Well, the hon. Gentleman puts a Question and receives an answer, which appears to him and to many others to be far from satisfactory; and he then makes observations and suggests, as the one reason for the nature of the answer which he received, not that secret instructions were given to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, but that it may very well be, and that it probably is, the case, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour has received instructions since those given on the l5th of May, which justify him in the action he took, or in his abstinence from action, on the occasion of the bombardment, or of the proceedings of the 11th of June; and that we have not yet got from the Government that information which will enable us to say whether any such instructions were given or not. Well, then, it is rather hard that my hon. Friend should be charged with something coming within measurable distance of calumny when he wishes to know whether that is or is not the case. There may be nothing at all worthy of blame in the communications made by the Government from time to time to Sir Beauchamp Seymour; but one must be, at any rate, struck with this fact—that on a critical occasion like this steps were not taken such as would appear to many persons to be necessary for the purpose of endeavouring to protect life and property. We say that, as far as we are permitted to know of the communications that have been made between the Government and the Admiral, his instructions of a previous date would not only have authorized, but rather have suggested to him that he ought to have taken steps of a different character from those which were taken, and my hon. Friend asks whether he abstained from taking those steps on his own authority, or in consequence of subsequent instructions received? I cannot conceive of a more legitimate question to put under such anxious circumstances, and I must say it appears to me but natural that he should have made some observations on the want of fulness in the answer received. One or two things must be borne in mind. In the first place, very grave events have taken place at Alexandria, involving questions of the honour of Great Britain, involving questions of the interests of Great Britain, and involving questions as to the protection of the lives and property of British subjects. These events are patent to all the world. They have taken place in view of English men-of-war, sent there, as we understood, for the express purpose of protecting these interests. The whole mission, as far as we can understand, was one of self-defence, and we want to know—and naturally everybody wants to know—how it is that the mission so sent ended so unsatisfactorily with respect to the protection of life and property as it has done? Yet we have no Papers on this matter. We are told that we cannot have the Papers which will explain the whole case until the latest date. We are told that Papers are presented up to the end of May, and that there will be other Papers given which will bring us to the beginning of the Conference; but these will, as regards this matter, hardly bring us within measurable distance of understanding it. And, therefore, we feel that we have a right to know from the Government what the real state of the case is. My hon. Friend has observed—and it has occurred to many of us—that it is really rather remarkable that the Government upon this occasion do not propose to bring forward any Vote or ask for any sum of money, which would naturally lead to their explaining the nature of the proposal they have in contemplation. They tell us, on the imperfect Papers laid before us, that if we have anything to censure in their conduct, we have a right to bring forward a Vote of Censure. We have that right, of course; but we know that we cannot get the Papers which will give us information down to the time of which we are speaking. And we are entitled, therefore, I think, to ask, without raising any question as to a Vote of Censure, for full explanation of the course which has been pursued, and is now being pursued, and of the conduct, not only of our own ships, but also of those of the other Powers with whom we have always been told we were in entire accord. Of course, I do not feel that moving the adjournment of the House at Question time is the best way of obtaining the information; yet I should like to know what other ways are open to us? For my part, I think my hon. Friend has put a very natural Question, and that he has not justly earned the censure which has been applied to him by the Prime Minister. I remember there was a very remarkable answer given even yesterday by the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). He said—

"Our distinct judgment is this—that preparations adequate to cope with that army would most certainly not have been allowable under the instrument which is called the 'Self-denying' Protocol."

If that is so, it raises and confirms the view of my hon. Friend that there was something to cause instructions to be given, or something which stood in the way of landing the troops for the purpose of preventing those evils which we see have taken place, and which, we believe, might have been prevented. But all that is matter on which we have the most imperfect information—information which is only given in answer to Questions—and I cannot but think the House will feel that my hon. Friend was within his right in putting the Question and in moving the adjournment.

I rise to explain, and not to comment on what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman. I must explain what I said myself, for there was a little confusion in the Question put by the hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday which I did not actually clear up. The hon. Member spoke of the "Self-denying" Protocol, and so I recognized it; but, in truth, he ought to have referred to the understanding established with reference to sole action which was a totally different matter. I never should have said a word to the hon. Gentleman had I understood the Question. I never heard him put it. I understood him and his Friends near him most distinctly to recognize the accusation which I considered was implied. But, Sir, as regards that Question, the right hon. Baronet has put it in a perfectly clear form, and I can say in answer that there are no instructions whatever, subsequently to the 15th of May, which in any manner bear on this subject. There is nothing in the answer given by mo yesterday which has the slightest counection with it.

said, he thought independent Members had great reason to complain of the manner in which they were treated by Her Majesty's Government. When the adjournment of the House was some time ago moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), the Prime Minister was extremely severe upon him because he had not shaped his accusation against the Government in the form of a definite Motion; and the Secretary to the Admiralty, following the lead of the right hon. Gentleman, challenged his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) to bring forward a Motion if he wished to censure the Government or the Admiralty. He (Mr. Gorst) always followed as far he could the advice of the Prime Minister, and accordingly he gave Notice of a definite Motion yesterday. But when a Notice was given of a definite Motion the Government treated independent Members with contempt. He appealed to hon. Members below the Gangway, to those who had been independent Members, whether, in trying to do their duty to their constituents, it was not an awkward dilemma, to say the least, to have either to incur the mockery or the contempt of Her Majesty's Government? At the present moment he desired to remind the Prime Minister and his Colleagues what the charge against Her Majesty's Government was. The act of the bombardment of Alexandria had horrified the whole civilized world, and the Government had studiously taken away from the House all power of discussing that event. They had, however, had dark hints and dark deliverances from the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. It was intimated the other day, in the course of an irregular debate, that the bombardment of Alexandria was a revenge for the massacre—a sentiment which he confessed filled him with horror. Yesterday there was an interesting conversation, in which the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) and the Prime Minister vied with one another in their admiration of the moral law; but it seemed to him that a little explanation was required before that profound veneration for the moral law could MR reconciled with the act by which so many hundreds of our fellow-creatures were put to death. The whole civilized world, he thought he might say, had charged upon Her Majesty's Government that they were to blame for that massacre, because they did not provide their Admiral with a sufficient force to land and check the scenes of horror which were certain to follow. So far, the accusation against the Government had not been properly heard in that House; but their defence had been sketched out in the answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms). He understood the Prime Minister to say that the Government could not have been reasonably expected to foresee that consequences such as those which did ensue would ensue from the bombardment. He should like to remind the Prime Minister of a statement which appeared in The Standard of July 7, four or five days before the bombardment occurred. It was as follows:—

"The Arab population of the town are more excited than I have yet seen them, and it is only the attitude of the troops which preserves order."

He thought that statement ought to have attracted some attention from Her Majesty's Government, because, as far as he was able to observe, the Corre- spondent of The Standard was usually much, better informed of the state of affairs than Her Majesty's Government, and certainly far better than Members of that House. The Correspondent continued—

"In the event of a formal notice being given of intended action being taken, there is little doubt that, in accordance with Arabi's previous declaration to myself, the troops will be withdrawn from their work of keeping order in the streets, and the city will then become the scene of riot and plunder."

That was the statement made by the Correspondent of a newspaper, on the authority of Arabi himself. How would the Government reconcile that public declaration of what would happen in the event of a bombardment with their own assertion that they could not be expected to have foreseen that such disastrous consequences would follow? There was another point which would be cleared up if the House were allowed to debate this matter—namely, whether the Admiral had sufficient forces to land for the protection of the lives and property of the people of Alexandria. On this matter the Government would be on the horns of a dilemma, for if the Admiral had not sufficient forces, the Government were to blame, and their conduct was tainted with all the cruelty of a man who destroyed game which he could not possibly retrieve. If, on the other hand, the Admiral had sufficient forces to land, by whose order was he prevented from landing them? Was it by the Government at home, or by the imprudent Protocol which they had signed and agreed to beforehand? The position of those who desired to challenge the conduct of the Government was extremely embarrassing, because if they acted as his hon. Friend near him and an hon. Friend opposite had done, and moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to these dreadful events, they were met with the mockery of the Prime Minister, who said—"If you have an opinion of this kind, why don't you formulate it in the shape of a Resolution, and take the sense of the House? "If, entrapped by that advice of the Prime Minister, any Member of the House was so foolish as to formulate a Motion on the subject, the Prime Minister said—"Oh, you are only a private Member; we cannot give you a day for such a dis- cussion," and the right hon Gentleman sat down in indifference, and would not allow the sense of the House to be taken. He (Mr. Gorst) believed that if the Prime Minister dared take the sense of the House as to whether the Government were to blame for the terrible pillage and destruction of Alexandria, he believed that even in that House, in which they professed to have so enormous a majority, and in which they possessed, no doubt, a strong and solid phalanx of Friends, they could, if not defeated, only save themselves from a Vote of Censure by a very narrow majority.

said, he was sorry the Prime Minister had left, as he desired to say one word of apology to him and to the House for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman during his speech, but not at all to withdraw what he had said at the time. He thought it was but fair to the gallant Admiral, who had done his work so admirably with the means at his disposal, to state that which he himself knew, and which he felt sure his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Derbyshire (Admiral Egerton) would confirm—namely, that the force at the disposal of Sir Beauchamp Seymour was totally insufficient to enable him to land any forces to protect life and property in the City of Alexandria on the 15th of May. He had at that time seven ships, from which he could not have landed more than 700 men. The measure of what he could have done then was to be seen from the force which he landed after the engagement. The men he lauded after the bombardment for the purpose of extinguishing the fire numbered under 900, and by landing these he disabled his ships from further action. After that there arrived the Tamar, with 1,000 Marines, and troops also came from Limasol, in Cyprus, making a force altogether of 5,800 men. If it was necessary at this moment, when Arabi's Army had withdrawn to some considerable distance from the town, to land 5,800 men for the maintenance of order and the protection of the Khedive, how was it possible that when Arabi was in the town the Admiral could be expected to land 700 men on the 11th of June to be there and then sacrificed to the fury of the mob? As had been pointed out, the Government threw the blame on the Admiral, by asserting that he had instruc- tions to land men for the defence of life and property, when he had only now received a sufficient number of men to perform that duty. It was only fair and just to the gallant officer, who had carried out so accurately and so well the orders of the Government, that the House should know that he had not at his disposal those men whom the Government said he had, and that he had not one tithe of the number necessary to perform the duty he was ordered to perform. He hoped the House would forgive him for defending a gallant officer whose conduct was brought in question. ["No, no !"and "Yes, yes!"] The Admiral had received instructions which he had not the means to carry out. It was only right it should be shown what number of men seven ships would be able to land, and the House could judge whether the number was sufficient to perform the duty which it was suggested was to be performed by the gallant Admiral. There was one other point to which he would refer. A month ago, the Secretary to the Admiralty had told them, what he had ventured to challenge, that the ships sent to Alexandria would be able to enter the harbour. Why did they not enter the harbour? Because they drew too much water. Why did they engage the forts at a distance of 3,000 or 4,000 yards, so that their shells fell occasionally into the town? Why did not the Admiralty send light-draught iron-clads in addition to the Penelope, so that they might have attacked these forts from the inner harbour, and not have fired the town? He supposed the Government did not think they were going to make war. They sent vague instructions to the Admiral, and did not give him men to perform the duty they said he ought to have performed; and they did not send him the kind of ships that were necessary. With the means at his disposal, he had performed all that the country could expect of him; but the Government were to blame for not putting proper means at his disposal, and they were still more to blame for throwing dust in the eyes of the country, and saying that the gallant Admiral had sufficient forces at his disposal, an assertion that the course of events had disproved.

said, he was sorry to take up any part of the time of the House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) had made two statements which ought to be immediately corrected. One was a small matter with reference to himself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had asserted that the ships at Alexandria could enter the harbour. If any fault were to be found with him, it should have been that he declined to give any information as to the draught of the ships. He never said that they could all enter the harbour of Alexandria; and he should be sorry that it should be thought he had given wrong information. But there was a more important matter. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman waxed indignant in defence of the character of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, suggesting that he had been held up to the world as being to blame because he did not carry out his instructions on the 11th of June. The fact was that no such feeling had ever entered into the minds of the Government. He had repeatedly said in the House—and he had said so that day in answer to a Question—that the Government approved the conduct of the Admiral in every particular. If any blame was to be laid upon anyone for what had happened on the 11th of June, it was upon Her Majesty's Government. Blame had been laid upon the Admiral that day, not by him, but by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway.

I give to the hon. Gentleman's statement a most emphatic contradiction.

said, that no denial, however emphatic, could get over the litera scripta; the hon. Gentleman stated that Sir Beauchamp Seymour did not carry out the instructions addressed to him. He would again say, as he had said before, on more occasions than one, that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had throughout the whole of these transactions received the full approval of the Government.

said, the Question of the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House suggested an imputation upon the Admiral, and he was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's repudiation of any such intention. He believed the Admiral had done everything he could, and would do so in the future. With regard to one of the observations of his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay), he thought they might admit that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had not a sufficient force with him on the 4th June. It was impossible for the commander of any man-of-war, or any number of men-of-war, under any circumstances, lying before a own with a great number of inhabitants and containing a great many narrow and tortuous streets, to have a sufficient number of men to land in the face of a very formidable force of at least 10 or 20 times that which he would have under his command. The mention of the fact that a large force had gone from Limasol, in Cyprus, attracted the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. For himself, he still looked upon Cyprus as imparting more of weakness than strength; and, after all, as a matter of fact, the number of troops that came from Limasol only touched there and never landed.

said, there were two remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth that had not been noticed by the Prime Minister, and it would be convenient if the Under Secretary would clear up the points before the debate closed. His hon. Friend said that the Under Secretary had in one answer told the House that the English and French Governments were prepared for any eventualities that might take place at Alexandria.

I never said in Alexandria.

Then the Prime Minister said so.

No; it was an answer of mine to which the right hon. Gentleman refers; but he has added the words, "in Alexandria." My hon. Friend was speaking about intervention in Egypt, and what I said had nothing to do with Alexandria.

Alexandria, surely, is in Egypt.

My right hon. Friend has added the words "at Alexandria." The question upon which the hon. Gentleman was speaking in that portion of his speech had reference to general intervention to prevent anarchy in Egypt, with regard to which he was quoting my declaration at that time.

said, the point of his hon. Friend's observation was that we had been informed that the English and the French Governments were prepared for any eventuality, and were in perfect accord with respect to the steps to be taken in any eventuality.

Not in any eventuality.

said, that, under those circumstances, it was a very extraordinary thing that the French Fleet had not taken part in the operations which the English Fleet had engaged in. That was the point, and he hoped it would be cleared up. The other point that had not been noticed was that the Forte was said by the Government to be in perfect accord with Her Majesty's Government as to the events which had taken place in Alexandria.

No, Sir.

I certainly understood my hon. Friend to make the observation.

No, Sir; I did not say that.

The words were these—

"Our relations with the Porte were friendly in the extreme; and the language which had been used by the Sultan himself personally to Lord Dufferin showed an absolute agreement with this country in regard to the steps to be taken in Egypt."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1135.]

What is the date of that?

June 14th.

said, that was some time before the bombardment.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is better that I should reply to the two Questions put to me by my right hon. Friend, although my right hon. Friend on neither occasion appears very accurately to have followed what fell from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, who correctly quoted my words. With regard to the first Question, he refers to a statement which I made in the middle of May, that the English and French Governments, though certain differences had previously occurred between them, as I had stated to the House, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, were then in complete accord in view of future eventualities. Those are the words I used, and the Papers now before the House show the meaning of this statement, which was made two days after the receipt from the French Government of its consent to eventual Turkish intervention; that was received on the Saturday, and the statement was made on the Monday. The second Question is with regard to the perfect accord which I stated prevailed on a certain day in June between the Turkish and the English Governments with regard to the condition of things in Egypt. It had no reference to any particular proceedings at any one particular point—such, for instance, as at Alexandria; but it referred to general accord on the Egyptian Question. I went on to say, in answer to those who said that we were not on friendly terms with the Porte, that the language of the Sultan to Lord Dufferin was in complete accord with the views of Her Majesty's Government. That was so. My right hon. Friend now asks if anything has happened since that time to break through that accord. I have already informed the House that the Porte protested against the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria before the bombardment took place, and that the Porte protested while the bombardment was going on. We have received no further communications from them since the bombardment was concluded, and I have twice stated the character of the protest they have made. I have pointed out to the House that they were made under some misapprehension, as it was stated that the tire of the British Fleet would not be returned by the forts, although the House knows that, as a matter of fact, our fire was returned. I think I have now answered the two Questions of my right hon. Friend.

said, he would not have taken part in the discussion but for the answer given to him yesterday by the Prime Minister to the Question whether the Government, by signing the self-denying Protocol, precluded themselves from landing at Alexandria, immediately after the bombardment, sufficient troops to prevent the terrible events that followed. He ventured to say that the answer of the Prime Minister was susceptible of only one interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman replied thus—

"Our distinct judgment is this—and this is, I think, a substantial answer to the Question—that preparations adequate to cope with that Army would most certainly not have been allowable under the Protocol called the' Self-denying' Protocol, or the Protocole de Désintéressement."

It should have been called the Protocol of sole action.

was not aware that there were two Protocols; but, however that might be theoretically as a matter of fact there was only one, and that was the self-denying Protocol which he had already mentioned. Some weeks ago, when he had asked whether that Protocol might not, in certain contingencies, so bind the hands of the Government that they could not act on an emergency, he had been met by the answer that such Protocols had been signed both in 1840 and in 1880. But the Protocol signed in 1840 to settle the Syrian Question had nothing to do with the special interests of England; and the Conference which met then, as in 1880, had to decide questions in which all the Powers were equally interested. The present Conference was totally different, and bore no resemblance to the other two, as one Power—England—had a special and paramount interest in its proceedings. The answer of the Prime Minister, if it meant anything, meant this—that though the Government were allowed to bombard Alexandria, the self-denying Protocol so bound their hands as to prevent them from landing troops to protect those who had suffered from the bombardment. That Protocol reflected little credit on those who, by accepting its self-denying conditions, had paralyzed the action of England. But now the right hon. Gentleman tried to explain that it was not the Protocole de Désintéresement but some other instrument, which had caused this disastrous result. The House, however, was entitled to know, if the Protocole de Désintéressement, which had unquestionably been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, prevented the Admiral from landing troops, how it was that it did not prevent the ships from bombarding the forts of Alexandria? It appeared that a large body of troops, under Arabi, were now between Alexandria and Cairo, and in command of the railway—would that Protocol so fetter the Government as to preclude them from taking steps to prevent atrocities in Cairo such as had occurred in Alexandria? It seemed to him that, both inside and outside of the House, it would be very difficult to satisfy the people of the country that the Government had done their duty, if to- morrow brought news of such, an event, and the Prime Minister sheltered himself under some extraordinary instrument which debarred England from acting without the consent of the Conference. If that was to happen, the Government ought never to have entered the Conference. He trusted that the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion of the conduct of the Government, which, after producing anarchy in Alexandria, found itself, by its own act, unable to protect those who were injured by its policy. He would not occupy the time of the House further; but he believed that when such an opportunity occurred, the opinion of the House on this question would be given with no uncertain sound, and would be echoed and re-echoed throughout the length and breadth of the land.

Sir, I only wish to make one remark, and that is in answer to the very plaintive speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who expressed himself as embarrassed at the want of an opportunity for discussing a subject in which he takes the greatest possible interest. I think we know the reason why the hon. and learned Member for Chatham and his Friends are unable to find the opportunity which they wish, and that is this. Whether they have the sanction of their Party or not—whether their action is approved by the Leaders of their Party or not—I do not say whether it is the interest of the country or not, that they have done so, but they have tried, in season and out of season, to force on a discussion for which the House of Commons was not prepared. In the absence of the means of discussion a policy has been pursued which I think most detrimental to the interests of the country—most detrimental to the good name of the country—and most detrimental to the Forces of Her Majesty. They have pursued a policy of attack by insinuations in Questions—a policy of reading from anonymous reports in regard to points at which our troops and ships might be engaged—in order to give the prominence of a Parliamentary discussion to reports which were not authenticated, and in regard to which it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to reply. The Leaders of the Opposition have not thought fit, either because it does not suit their purposes, or because they think it inconvenient, and not in the interests of the country, that these questions should at the present moment be discussed. The Leaders of the Opposition, I say, have not thought fit to support these proceedings; but what does it matter to the small knot of independent Gentlemen who mostly sit below the Gangway opposite? A more unsatisfactory discussion than that which has taken place to-day it is impossible to conceive—a discussion misleading to the Continent—because those who are responsible, the Front Opposition Bench, have not taken part in it with a form of speech or attack, but have left it to the hon. Members below the Gangway, who are less responsible. [Cries of "No !"] There has been no speech of attack on the Government from the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did throw his cloak for a moment over the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and I remember it, because I thought at the moment if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished to raise questions and ask for information from the Government he would have done so himself, or through one of those with whom he acts, and would not have selected the hon. Member for Portsmouth. The right hon. Gentleman defended the hon. Member for Portsmouth in regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister as to the charge of secret instructions, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the words were "subsequent instructions;" but, if my ears did not entirely deceive me, the hon. Member for Portsmouth did not speak of "subsequent instructions," but distinctly formulated the charge against the Government that there were "secret instructions" which were purposely kept from the House. When the Prime Minister repudiated the charge, the hon. Member for Portsmouth did not withdraw it, and the protection which the Leader of the Opposition extended to the hon. Member was scarcely needed, because the hon. Member had not retracted the charge he had made. I have no wish to intervene further in this debate, because it is not the least likely that any words from hon. Members on this side of the House will have any effect on hon. Members who will not fall in with the general policy of their own Leaders; but I think it is important that it should be understood out-of-doors that if these debates raised on the adjournment of the House are one-sided and only conducted by a small knot of Members, it is because these occasions are generally viewed by the House as inconvenient for the discussion of the serious questions for which the adjournments are moved, and unsatisfactory in every possible respect.

said, that the object of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was to discredit the action of what he called a small knot of independent Members who did not act with their Leaders. But if there was anyone to whom that observation applied in the strongest manner it was the right hon. Gentleman himself. For in so far as the right hon. Gentleman had made himself prominent in the House since this Parliament assembled, it had been as the Leader of a small knot of Members, who had acted independently of their Leaders. The right hon. Gentleman said that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), in the Motion of which he had given Notice, acted as the mouthpiece of a small knot of Members. Now, so far as his knowledge went, his hon. and learned Friend had acted entirely for himself; and, if without concert with the Leaders of the Party, equally without concert with anybody else in the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was to discredit the action of the Fleet. He did not think that was the effect of his hon. Friend's speech. What his hon. Friend wanted to attack was, not the action of the Fleet, but the inaction of the Government. What his hon. Friend wanted to impress on the House was that, if proper steps had not been taken to preserve life and property in Alexandria, it was because the Government refused to give sufficient powers to Sir Beauchamp Seymour to act in such a manner as they ought to have known would be necessary if the bombardment was undertaken. His hon. Friend said that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had only 700 men at his disposal, and the Government replied that they had no reason to believe that more would be necessary, because they did not believe the Egyptian Army would burn and pillage the town. But he had in his hand a despatch from Mr. Cookson to Lord Granville, dated May 30, which gave the Government ample warning, and which foreshadowed with fatal accuracy the evils which had subsequently occurred. In this despatch it was stated that the English residents in Alexandria thought the crisis was only suspended, that all the elements of danger remained, that their perils would be renewed, and that with the disablement of the forts a period of great danger to Europeans would commence, as they would be at the mercy of exasperated soldiers. They said also that the whole available force for shore operations did not exceed 300 men, although the Squadron had been sent out to safeguard European life and property. He was not sure whether the Squadron since that date had not been increased; but it had not, at all events, been increased at the time of the bombardment to a sufficient amount to allow the Admiral to land men. Therefore, their case against, not the Admiral or the Fleet, but the Government, was that they engaged in a course of action without having taken sufficient precautions to obviate perils which were foreseen by others, and should have been foreseen by them.

, who spoke amid continued interruptions, said, that what the country was most anxious about at present was the steps Her Majesty's Government were taking to prevent occurrences at Cairo similar to those which had happened at Alexandria. He observed that the absolute accord which was taken on the 15th of May to exist between France and England had been shown, he supposed, in the withdrawal of the French Fleet. In a telegram sent by the Government to the Admiral on Friday last, they said—

"Opposition having ceased, do not dismantle the forts or disable the guns; endeavour to open friendly communications with the Khedive, and invite him to assert his authority."

That was to say, that those forts which had proved so formidable and required such a prolonged bombardment to silence were not to be dismantled, and those guns which had given such proof of their metal were not to be disabled. The next phrase was still more remarkable. "Endeavour to open friendly communications with the Khedive." Why friendly? We were not at war with the Khedive. The Admiral had been humiliated by the fetters that had been imposed upon him. He wished to know what steps the Government were going to take to save Cairo and the rest of Egypt from the fate of Alexandria? [Interruption.] The Correspondent of The Times, whose information was generally more accurate than that furnished to the House by the Government, had said that morning that if any disaster did occur it would be the fault, not of the Admiral, but of the Government. [Interruption.] The bombardment had been rendered necessary through the neglect of the Government. Her Majesty's Government, having once taken this matter up, were bound to restore order in Egypt. [Interruption.] He regretted that the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was, as usual, continuing his unmannerly interruptions.

rose to Order. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was issuing a succession of sounds that were unearthly, but were not heavenly.

said, that the hon. Member for Eye had possession of the House.

wished to know why, on the 11th of June, instructions had not been sent to the Admiral to land a force. In his opinion, the blame for the loss of life and property that occurred was due to the want of proper instructions being sent to the Admiral. If there was a joint action at all, let it be with the Sovereign of Egypt, whose rights could not be denied. Let the Government follow out the policy which would have been adopted by a Palmerston or a Beaconsfield—a kind yet resolute and determined policy—in dealing with the Sovereign of Egypt. If, after every opportunity offered, that Sovereign declined to act with them, let them have recourse to isolated—at all events to determined—British action. The Government had laid Alexandria in ruins, had destroyed many lives and millions of property, and had injured the interests of the bondholders. They had destroyed Egypt and thrown her back 20 years. Let them take the step needed promptly, and let them at once send a sufficient force to be effective and at the same time merciful. Let them at once ask the Commander at Alexandria to state exactly how many sailors and marines were available for landing on the 11th of July.

rose to Order, and asked whether the remaining Questions would now be taken?

Under the special circumstances of the case I think those Questions should be dropped.

stated that he had been unable to induce the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to remove his block from this Bill, and consequently would introduce it in "another place." He hoped the Bill would reach the House of Commons and become law this Session.

said, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause, which he hoped the Government would find no difficulty in accepting. A man might be nominally possessed of two holdings— that is to say, his name might be entered on the rate-book as possessor of them, while they were actually in the occupation of his sons as assignees. The object of the Amendment was to enable the assignees of the holding to apply for the benefit of the Act.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The person primarily responsible to the landlord, although he might put his son in occupation of the farm, would be the person to whom the Act applied; and it would be impossible for the Government to make the distinction indicated in the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said, he thought the Government could not have considered his point sufficiently, because they had already given way upon it in the Bill. They had agreed to bring up on Report an Amendment extending the benefit of the Act to two persons, each paying £25 a-year for a farm entered in the rate-book at £50, and it seemed very hard that they refused to accept this Amendment, which contained the same principle. It would seem that the Government, by taking advantage of a technicality, wished to oust parties entitled to the benefit of the Act. Let the Committee take the by no means uncommon case of a man parcelling out his holding valued at £50 per annum between his two sons. The operation might have taken place 20 years ago; and yet, according to the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland, those sons would not be entitled to the benefit of the Act. He should be quite with the Government in regard to cases in which the possession was divided for colourable reasons, in order to get relief from arrears since the introduction of the Bill. But he contended that the Act ought to apply in the case of a holding in the occupation of two sons for 15, 10, five, or even one year before the Bill was brought in. For these reasons he trusted that the Government, who had already admitted this principle in an earlier section, would see the justice of adopting a similar principle in the present instance.

said, the statement he made was that, where the landlord recognized it as a fact that there were two distinct holdings rented at £30 or under, the tenants should not suffer, although the farm might stand in the rate-book as one holding at £50 or £60 per annum.

agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the case. The whole point lay in the word "possessed," which, as he understood it, meant possession in law. He was willing that the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should be extended to his Amendment.

said, the question of rating had nothing to do with the subject that had been raised. If a person were the tenant of two different holdings, jointly valued at not more than. £30 a-year, and if he were the person responsible for the rent to the landlord, he would be the person to obtain the benefit of the Act, even if he had put his sons in possession of the holdings. An arrangement of that kind on the part of the tenant was made for his own convenience; it made no difference to the landlord how he disposed of the occupation of the farm. But if a person responsible for the rent of two holdings, jointly exceeding in value £30 a-year, gave them up to his sons or herds, he would not come under the Bill so long as he remained in legal possession of the holdings. Again, if a man placed his son on one of the farms with the assent of the landlord, and the landlord looked upon him as being the tenant, and received from him the rent of one of the holdings, that son would be the tenant, and, as such, would be entitled to the benefit of the Act.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Wexford was under the impression that the word "possessed" implied some technical right. According to the way in which the hon. Member had put his Amendment, a man might be in occupation of a holding, but not as tenant. He suggested that the Solicitor General for Ireland might meet the object of the hon. Member by agreeing to insert after the proposed Amendment the words "as tenant thereof."

said, he hoped the Government would not admit the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Wexford. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), it appeared to him inconsistent with the words at the beginning of the section.

said, no doubt, the inquiry into cases of this kind would be very stringent. He asked what would be the status with regard to the Bill of persons who, as was frequently the case in Ireland, were in the rate-book and in the books of the landlord as the "Representative" of persons deceased or absent? In many parts of the country rents were being received, and receipts given, from year to year in the name of Mr. So-and-So, the representative of—say Mr. John M'Carthy. The explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were, no doubt, for the moment, well understood in that House; but it was not what was said or understood there now that would rule hereafter; they had to consider the way in which the Act would be interpreted by the Court.

said, he was always ready to accept the expositions of the law made by the Government lawyers in that House; but he often thought that Mr. Law, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, must have bitterly regretted, when he stood alone, so to speak, in the Court of Appeal, some of the readings of the law which he gave during the passage through the House of the Land Bill of last year. In view of the experience they had of the hard way in which every line of that Act had been construed, he asked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he was still determined to adhere to the word "possessed" in this clause? He believed the words "in occupation," which he proposed to substitute for it, would make the matter much clearer.

said, the question was whether the person was possessed of the holding or not. A man might be in occupation of a holding, but not possessed of it.

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment; but he should do so with the feeling that when he and his hon. Friends were proved to be right and the Law Officers of the Crown wrong in their interpretation of the words, the Government ought to bring in a Bill to meet the case of the unfortunate tenants who might be ousted of their rights by this section in the circumstances he had indicated.

said, the Amendment he was about to move involved a point which was raised in connection with the Land Act of last year. The object was to provide that a tenant who held a holding, say, at £25, under one landlord, and a second holding at £10 under another landlord, should not be deprived of the benefit of this Act. He trusted the Government would accede to this proposal.

said, there was one reason for supporting the Amendment. He believed it would facilitate the working of the Act. It must be remembered that the landlord had to make an affidavit with regard to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in the 1st clause; and it would be impossible for him to know whether a man held under another landlord or not. Again, a man might have one holding at a fair rent, either settled by the Land Court or originally agreed upon; and he might also hold another farm, for, say, three or four years, for grazing purposes at a competition rent under another landlord. He thought cases of that kind ought to be taken into consideration by the Government, with a view to their not being excluded from the operation of the Act. As the Amendment appeared to him to satisfy the point he should give it his support.

said, he could hardly accept the argument of the hon. and gallant Member that the working of the Bill would be facilitated, because if the Government were to begin to admit considerations of the kind suggested by the Amendment, a great deal more difficulty would arise than would be the case if the clause remained as at present.

said, he would urge the Committee to reject the Amendment, which would be an inducement to "land grabbing," the very thing which had caused so much difficulty by placing exorbitant prices on farms, and, in consequence, depriving people of the chance of getting a living from them.

said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he put the case of a tenant who, having taken two farms together, valued at less than £30 a-year, afterwards by the labour of his hands, and the expenditure of his own money, built a dwelling-house, which brought up the rateable value of the property to more than the limit fixed by the Bill. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government that a tenant so situated should be ousted from the benefit of the Act? In order to have that point cleared up, he begged to move the Amendment next standing in his name.

said, he trusted the Government would give their favourabe attention to this Amendment. It had to be borne in mind, after all, that if a tenant built a good house for himself, and by so doing raised the valuation of his holding above £30, he did not thereby place himself in a better position, or render himself more able to pay his rent than a tenant who did not do so, and who was contented to live in a hovel. Of course, when the tenant had improved his land, and raised the value of it over £30, it would be just to allow the Bill, as it stood, to operate, because the tenant would be necessarily in a better position to pay his rent than if he had not made the improvement. But in the case suggested by the hon. Member for Wexford, it would be a great hardship that the tenant who had consumed his capital in building a good house for himself should find himself excluded from the benefit of this Bill. To exclude such a man would be equivalent to fining him for being industrious and endeavouring to live in a more decent way than the majority of his neighbours.

said, the argument of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was that a man who could afford to build a good house for himself was no more able to pay the rent of his holding than the man who could not afford to build one. He hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), which required that in every case, without regard to the conditions under which such buildings might have been erected, the tenement value of such buildings should be excluded from the valuation of the holding.

said, the Government could not possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. Member. They must deal with the holding as a whole, and not distinguish between portions of it, which would amount to a complete departure from the principle which had been all along established. He would also observe that the Amendment embraced all buildings whatever, whereas the arguments in support of it had been entirely confined to dwelling-houses.

said, that the Prime Minister, at an earlier stage of the Bill, convoyed to the House that they were willing to exclude the tenant's improvements from the valuation. He understood that the Government had made up their minds that it was possible for a tenant, without some reservation in his favour, to improve himself out of the benefit of the Bill. However that might be, if the Government were now disposed to put a premium on unimproving tenants, Irish Members could do nothing but divide against the principle.

said, he understood the hon. Member had referred in his speech to the ease of a man having an agricultural holding valued at £25, and another holding not agricultural valued at £10. He also understood him to say that one holding should not be counted against the tenant so as to exclude his other holding. He believed that was in the Bill as it then stood.

said, in that case the whole of his argument as to the grazing holding and agricultural holding held by one tenant was admitted. He trusted this would be made perfectly clear on Report, if it were not already in the Bill.

said, everyone knew that dwelling-houses were separately valued from the rest of the holding. But the farm was none the less one holding on that account. The effect of the Amendment would be that a man valued at £30 for his farm, who had also a house upon it valued at £6, would be entitled to come under this Act. It was, in fact, an attempt to slide up the scale from £30 to £36.

in rising to move the following New Clause:—

said, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the clause being read a second time. He would merely point out that it made a considerable change in the Bill. It was, in fact, a Bill in itself, because it proposed to deal with all tenancies, without distinction, which were held at the valuation of £50 and under. He did not wish to criticize the policy of a clause resting on the basis of loan; but he could not forget that the provision in the Land Act of last year, which was essentially on the same lines as this clause, had practically failed. Undoubtedly, there were some operations under it; but, broadly speaking, it was a failure. There was a substantial difference which distinguished this clause from the Arrears Clause in the Bill of last year—namely, the extension of the period for the repayment of the loan from 15 to 35 years, which, of course, mitigated the pressure exercised on the party who had to repay the money, and this was a fact entitled to have great weight in their consideration of the clause. But the clause also retained one of the provisions of the Arrears Clause of last year which mainly contributed to its failure—namely, that the landlord was the person liable for the repayment of the loan. Now, although the landlord might get a certain amount of benefit from the loan, the person who would be materially benefited was the tenant. He ventured to say that every landlord whoso pecuniary circumstances raised him above absolute penury and distress refused to avail himself of the Act of last year for the reason he had mentioned. Therefore, he saw every reason for anxiety with reference to the working of the present clause. It said that an advance was to be made for high State purposes to keep the tenant in possession of his holding, but then the landlord must repay the advance within the period of 35 years. He was bound to say that, in his opinion, many landlords would hesitate largely before they rendered themselves liable in the way proposed by the clause. He did not think that the tenant could reasonably object to pay a moderate sum for the period of 35 years for the benefit he received when it was considered that the loan was made for his own convenience. At any rate, in dealing with a wide clause like this, it was well to consider whether it was likely to have an extensive operation, or to be killed like the clause of last year for the reason indicated. This clause would be regarded with great jealousy by tenants in Ireland who were excluded from its provisions, because there was no suggestion, from beginning to end, of any condition what- ever to be satisfied by the tenant as to his property. Any tenant who was in arrear, whether rich or poor, was entitled to come in, if he could get the landlord to join him, and so get the benefit of public money on these particularly easy terms. But when a tenant above £50 valuation in Ireland, or any tenant in England, saw these easy terms given for the asking, without proof of poverty, great soreness would be created. So far as he knew, there was at present in Ireland a vast difference of opinion on all sides in relation to this Bill. Tenants who had honestly paid their rents and striven to meet their obligations and to resist dangerous criminal teaching, felt soreness at being left out in the cold, while other tenants, many of whom had made no effort to pay their debts and had submitted to terrorism or habits of improvidence, were to have all the benefits of the Bill. The discussion which took place last night brought before the Committee again the difference between the structure of this clause and that of the general clauses of the Bill. The conditions imposed under the previous clause of the Bill were essentially most complicated. He merely asked the Government to bear in mind, before putting down Amendments on Report, the comparative simplicity with which they would call upon the tenant to show that he had paid a year's rent in 1881, leaving it to the landlord and tenant to appropriate the payment for another year, as compared with the immensely complicated way in which they dealt with the tenant under the Gift Clause. On a previous occasion he had pointed out, as plainly as he could, his own great difficulty in the matter; and opinions which he had received from Ireland had strengthened his view, and led him to think that clause was at present a mass of confusion.

said, he was convinced that the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to allow a loan to be made on the security of a tenant's land would be a great benefit. If it was made necessary for the landlord to give security for the repayment, the clause would have very little effect. He did not think the State would run any risk by being content with the tenant's security. The security might be on the holding as well as on the tenant's interest, if that were necessary; but he was sure it would be of the greatest advantage and would do away with the chief difficulty of joint application, because there would be no difficulty in getting the landlord's consent when he was not to be made responsible. He hoped the Government would consider that point, coming as it did from one whose suggestions were as well worthy of consideration as those of his hon. Friend were.

said, he must express his alarm and concern lest this clause should prove to be the embryo of an Arrears of Rent Act of 1883. It bore a suspicious resemblance to the Arrears Clause of the Act of last year, which was introduced as a final measure. The strongest denunciations were made by Ministers of the immorality which would result from gift instead of loan. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the denunciation which might have been applied to that clause if it had provided gift instead of loan; and it was then prophesied that the clause would fail. Nobody, at that time, suspected that it would be made the foundation of the Arrears Act of 1882; but now this clause was proposed. It was true that the tenants were to have £50 valuation instead of £30; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin had anticipated the failure of the clause; and what security was there that the Government would not come forward in 1883 and, saying that the system of loan had failed and they must make the thing compulsory, propose another Arrears Bill?

said, he was rather at a loss to know how the proposal of the Prime Minister would place hon. Members opposite. Although he had not always agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson), he thoroughly agreed with the objection he had made to this new clause in regard to the advance being made on the security of the landlord's interest. With the failure of the Loan Clause of last year's Act before them, was the House to follow the same course, and run the same danger? They must expect that the landlords in Ireland would refuse to join with the tenants in making applications, and it would be dangerous for them to do so; for what landlord in Ireland, or elsewhere, would now under- take to charge his property for 35 years with a loan which was to be advanced by the State for the relief of the ten-ant? Numerous difficulties presented themselves to his mind, and the matter bristled with objections. There might be cases in which the mortgagees had barely security for their interest; by the framework of this Bill, and this new clause, the loan to the tenant would have priority over the mortgage. Suppose a tenant wished to sell his land, there would be this incumbrance, which could not be disposed of except by liquidation of the debt. Suppose a landlord wished to sell to his tenant, the estate been already charged with the advance to the tenant; how was the matter to be arranged then? The tenant was bound to pay these instalments for 35 years; but the moment they ceased, where was the money then? He would not make it imperative on the Commissioners to make advances to every tenant unless they were satisfied that he had sufficient margin on the holding to make the advance safe. Although the Prime Minister intended to extend to tenants above £30 benefits from which they would be shut out as the Bill stood, he was afraid this would be a complete failure if the advance was charged on the landlord's interest.

The House and the Committee have had the most distinct intimation from the Government of the proposal they would undertake to make, and they were informed in the clearest manner that that proposal must be a proposal under which the State was to be exempted from the great political mischief of becoming the creditor of possibly a large number of tenants on the basis of their tenant right. Nothing could be clearer than that, and although I made that declaration, and said we could not have agreed to propose a clause upon any other basis, we were encouraged to go on to make that proposal; and now hon. Members say there is nothing to be looked for but a complete failure if this restriction is maintained. I wish I had been made acquainted with their objection, in order that I might have prejudged the matter. I went distinctly into the change we proposed to make, and left the clause of 1881 as it is in respect of security. The whole financial aspect of the matter, I explained, would be changed, and the question of the £500,000 is no test at all of the amount to be charged; but I am prepared to be responsible for the clause we have changed. To adopt indiscriminately the principle that the State is to become the creditor of these persons is a provision which I think open to political danger far greater than any benefit arising from the clause. It is said that the landlords will stand in relation to this clause in the same position as under the clause of last year. I do not agree in that; not only because of the great difficulty in regard to the annual payments to be made, but likewise because, under the Act of last year, it was intended to be the basis of the whole operation, and it was a serious matter indeed for a landlord, who might have many hundreds of tenants in arrear, to have no option before him except that of becoming responsible for the whole of the sum advanced to them; but now he is required to undergo no responsibility whatever with regard to the bulk of his tenants. But there is a kind of margin which, quite unaware of the reception to be accorded to it, we agreed to add to the measure for the sake of touching a case of an intermediate class. This is a case of a limited addition to be made to a number of tenants in arrear; and it does not follow that the landlord must object to incur a very small liability for the sake of clearing off the arrears on holdings under £50, although he is unwilling, or perhaps unable, to incur very large liabilities for the sake of dealing with the whole of the cases. I think there is some inconvenience in having this discussion on the second reading; but certainly I should be glad to hear something more after the discouraging prospect held out by the hon. Member behind me.

said, before this clause was passed the Committee should be distinctly informed whether it was to be persevered in or whether it was to be withdrawn. He would assume that the right hon. Gentleman, having after due consideration placed this clause on the Paper, it would be persevered in.

We shall persevere with it as it is.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a clause which was practically a new Bill. Under cover of this clause it was proposed to add a serious item, charged on the Consolidated Fund. That might be right or wrong; but at any rate it was a serious proposition which must be regarded by the House in the light of a clear addition to the burden imposed on the taxation of the country. Some reference had been made to the desirability of making this charge on the tenant and not on the landlord. He had several times been taken to task for having emphatically declined, in connection with advances made some two years ago, to allow advances to be made to the tenant. Proposals were made with regard to the financial proposals of the late Government in connection with the distress in 1880, to the effect that the tenant should be allowed to borrow money. He had distinctly declined to be a party to that, because the tenants had at that time no tangible security to offer. Now, however, a considerable portion of the landlords' property had been arbitrarily, and unceremoniously, and without compensation handed over to the tenants. It had been taken away from the landlords without a farthing of compensation and handed over to the tenants who did not pay a farthing for it, and now was available if required as security for money advanced to the Irish tenants. He would remind the Committee that the objection which could be justly advanced two years ago to any attempt to lend money to the Irish tenant who had no security to offer was now entirely altered. When they took a third of the property belonging to the landlord and handed it over to the tenant without payment, it was no longer the case that the tenant could not offer any security. He had not objected to similar proposals in 1880 because the persons designated were tenant farmers, but because they had at that time no tangible security to offer. Therefore, he did not see why the tenants under their altered circumstances should, not be entitled to have loans. When the Committee came to discuss this clause in detail, he hoped the Prime Minister would explain why he proposed to subject unfortunate mortgagees, who he fancied were in a nervous state of mind, to this further obligation—the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the mortgagees, who had very poor security, if any at all, for present advances, should make way for the loans. He hoped that would be explained.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he reconsidered this Bill, would take into consideration this point—the arrear of rent to be advanced under this clause was to spread over 35 years, but under the Bill of last year the tenant had a right to sell his tenant right, and it seemed to him that a considerable addition was made by the money due having a duration of 35 years. However that might he, there was the difficulty that when the tenant who purchased the tenant right came before the Land Commission to have a judicial rent again fixed for 15 years, he would expect to have his rent reduced to what he considered fair, minus a 35th part of the arrears. Why should such a tenant have accumulated on him the arrears of a previous tenant? He was quite sure that this extension of the arrears would cause a great difficulty both as to selling the tenant right and as to fixing a judicial rent.

said, he might remind the Committee that the late Chief Secretary last year said, with reference to a remark of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to this being a demoralizing principle, that he could not see anything demoralizing in it, but that it would doubtless be very demoralizing if the parties were forced to accept the proposal.

said, the object of his Amendment was that the Arrears Clause and the Arrears Bill should really reach the tenant farmers of Ulster. So far as he could see by the Bill, according to the definition given by the Prime Minister of the tenant right, a great many of the tenant farmers of Ulster would be excluded from the benefits. No doubt, the Prime Minister proposed to arrange that tenants of over £50 should have the benefit of the Bill; but the conditions were that the applications must be joint applications by the landlord and the tenant. His Amendment simply proposed that, on the application of either the landlord or the tenant, the benefit of the Bill should be allowed. That would enable the tenant to apply for a loan. With regard to the Arrears Clause of the Act of 1881, the fatal defect of that was that the landlord and tenant had jointly to apply in connection with a loan for the discharge of arrears, and the advance was to be generally charged on the property. Under the present condition of matters in Ulster, it was perfectly impossible that the landlords would join the tenants in any arrangements in connection with this Bill, and the result would be that many deserving tenants in Ulster would be left out in the cold, because their tenant right would come in as a barrier to their obtaining a loan. They would be unable to obtain advances from the banks or money-lenders on their tenant right, and if something was not done for the tenants of Ulster, a great many tenant farmers would be excluded from the benefit of this Act. He was quite aware that the Prime Minister in the new clause brought in the condition of extending the time from 15 to 35 years; but he very much doubted whether that was a valuable concession. He would rather see the time limited to 15 years, so that it should expire with the terms of the judicial rent in the Land Act of 1881. Fifteen years was the term named, and he considered that quite sufficient for any duration under this Arrears Bill, for his experience in connection with loans was that where a tenant borrowed for 35 years the interest became a permanent charge on the holding, and he thought the Prime Minister would do well to yield to the representations of Irish Members sitting on this side of the House, and to allow tenants to apply for a loan on their own security, the loan not to extend beyond 15 years. Unless some concession was made by which the tenant could borrow on the security of his tenant right, apart from the landlord, the Arrears Bill would be inoperative all over Ulster. He believed that £300,000 would cover the entire sum required in the North of Ireland for both gift and loan; and, taking into consideration the disastrous state of agriculture at present, he thought the Prime Minister should consider the condition of the tenants in the North of Ireland, by assenting to the proposal to allow them to borrow on their own security, especially when the security offered was equal to the fee-simple of the landlord, and that the law-abiding-tenant farmers of the North of Ireland, who had suffered so much in the past seasons, should be entitled to obtain loans when they could not acquire gift. In Ulster there were as many, if not more, evictions than in any other Province of Ireland, and yet there was neither crime nor outrage, and he certainly felt that the tenant farmers of Ireland should be entitled to obtain loans. As to the failure of the Arrears Clause in the Laud Act, that was shown by the fact that in his own county, notwithstanding all the pressure in connection with rents, only £68 were granted under the Act in connection with arrears.

said, he had never spoken on this Bill; but he had voted two or three times on principle, and against his Party, for the Bill, because he believed it was brought in to relieve the extremely poor and utterly helpless tenants in Ireland, and would not have any application elsewhere. If, as the hon. Member had just said, the Government was bound to come to the support of those who could give security, then he thought a good many people in Essex desired relief quite as much as those in Ulster. For that reason simply he thought the Prime Minister was absolutely right, when he brought in what was practically a new Bill, to adhere to the terms he had placed on the Paper; and he certainly opposed the Amendment.

said, he failed to see in what manner it would be possible to meet the suggestion of the hon. Member; on the present occasion the Committee had to deal with a specific Amendment, and they should clearly understand what the effect of that Amendment would be. The proposal of the hon. Member was to insert "on the application either of landlord or tenant," so that the application of this section would not take place where the tenant and landlord were agreed, but where the landlord wished to put the clause in operation in spite of the tenant or where the tenant wished to put it in operation in spite of the landlord. What would be the effect of that? What the hon. Member proposed was, that if a landlord wished to accept from the Government arrears of rent in discharge of arrears due to him by the tenant, he should be able to do so, and to burden the tenant's interest in spite of the tenant himself; that was to say, that the tenant would have to submit to a burden upon his interest simply because a landlord desired to get a year's rent. That, he ventured to say, would do an infinite amount of mischief. But the hon. Member, on the other hand, thought, although the landlord should not wish to come to such an arrangement, nevertheless the tenant might force the landlord to accept a year's rent in lieu of his arrears; and although the landlord might know the tenant was able to pay, nevertheless he was bound in such a ease to accept a year's rent, and to have that rent charged during a certain period on the estate. Either of these provisions—to either force the landlord to accept from a solvent tenant a year's rent, or for the landlord to be able to force on the tenant a charge on the holding against his will, even though the mortgagee should be the State—would raise such objections that the clause would be absolutely unworkable. That was irrespective of the general principle of the hon. Member that where it could be done without difference between the parties the State might, in certain cases, take the security of the landlord. When they came to that question, the Government would be prepared to discuss it; but the present Amendment would be entirely unworkable. Therefore, he hoped it would not be accepted.

said, he was inclined to think it would be prudent for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and concentrate his force on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), which, he thought, to a great extent, would carry out his object and make the clause, if the Government saw their way to accept it, a practical and workable clause. He still adhered to the opinion that it would have been better to have left the clause to work on the same conditions as the Gift Clause; to have it compulsory on the landlord, but to have included the condition of inability to pay, and not to take into account the value of the tenant right as a portion of the means by which the tenant might be able to pay. However, the Government had decided to adopt the other principle, and to leave the question of inability out of the case altogether; and, under the circumstances, he thought the hon. Member would see that it would be asking rather too much that the loan should be granted on the application of one person only. After all, the hon. Member would recollect that this was one of the most important conditions of the whole matter. He thought the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Monaghan would get over the indisposition of the landlord to agree in all reasonable cases to an application, and that it would be found that one of the chief causes which rendered the clause of the Land Act inoperative would be avoided if the Government agreed to that Amendment. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) that it would be well to proceed as soon as possible with the subsequent Amendment.

said, his impression was that the Government might safely accept either this Amendment or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), in combination with that of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), and then to reduce the term from 35 to 15 years. The combination of these Amendments would allow the tenant to put the Act into force, but would compel him to place a charge on his holding, and be responsible for it, and would shorten the time from 35 to 15 years.

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, and wait for that of the hon. Member for Monaghan.

said, he rose to propose that the limit of valuation should be £100 instead of £50. He said his object was that the Government, having gone the length of relieving by gift or loan the greater part of the tenants in Ireland, should not leave out a comparatively small class. The total number of tenants in Ireland of £100 valuation was very small, and they constituted an independent class, who were the least likely to put forward unfounded claims on the State. Bat there was certainly a number of holders over £50 who had had their interests injuriously affected by bad seasons; and when the State undertook to assist others, he could not see why they should stop at £50, especially as ample security for repayment of the loan was provided. What was wanted was to give general assistance with, safety to the State, and there was no danger to the State in extending the limit beyond that of £50 valuation.

I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment. Condition has been the main capital element in the Bill all along, and it is not possible to apply that principle to persons paying from £70 to £100 a-year. It would seriously prejudice the Bill, and I hope it will not be pressed.

said, the Prime Minister had stated that it was not to be any obligation on the part of an applicant for a loan to show poverty. The same argument would apply to holders of £100as to those of £50.

The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "poverty;" but he is not accurate.

said, he thought inability to pay and poverty were so near that they need not split hairs. The Prime Minister objected to the tenant at £100 having the same facilities as the tenant at £50. He could not understand whore the line was drawn. He did not wish to increase the charge on the Consolidated Fund; but if the Prime Minister intended to assist tenants at £50, he could not see why those at £100 should not be assisted. He did not see why there should be any limit at all, because the Government were stereotyping the worst class of tenants who were absolutely insolvent, and denying assistance to numbers of most deserving tenants in the country—the tenants whom it was most desirable, on the ground of public interest, to retain in their holdings. In his opinion, the great mass of the existing small holders of land would bo far better as labourers; and to make them farmers was an injurious proceeding. He could not but admit that the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had conclusively proved his case. He was sorry that the hon. Member put the limit at £100, for he thought he should have proposed an unlimited amount. If the Bill had been left as it was drawn, and it was provided that the tenant applying must be a small tenant, and must prove inability to pay, then the Prime Minister would have stood upon firm ground; but, having departed from that position, he could not understand why he refused this Amendment.

said, there wore some people who the more they got the more they wanted. With regard to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), it seemed to him that there was a distinct difference between £100 and £50. If the line was fixed at £50, it would be drawn at the occupying tenant who worked his own land; but if it was drawn at the higher point, then it brought in the men who employed capital and labour, and did not work their own land themselves. If the whole community was to be relieved, then it was essential that there should be some relief for the communities of Scotland and England, where there were great numbers who could not pay their rents. In Ireland there was a certain tenant right, and he differed from the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the present proposal would perpetuate a bad system. On the contrary, it seemed to him that the policy of the Government and the House was to preserve the class of peasant tenants.

said, he thought the practical defence for this provision was that it met the practical necessities of the case. It was fixed upon in order to give the Land Act of last year a practical chance of working, and the line must be drawn somewhere. Tenants under £50 were in a very different position from those at £100, and the same necessity could not be said to exist for the latter as for the former.

proposed to leave out lines 4, 5, and 6, to the word "and," and also the words "not exceeding half the antecedent arrears." It appeared to him that, on coming to deal with the class of tenants under this clause who were now to be put in the position of receiving loans from the State on very favourable terms, there was a totally new consideration introduced. The Committee were dealing, first of all, with a number of persons in a much more independent position in life, who were capable of making contracts, and who, under ordinary circumstances, were fully capable of meeting the whole amount of their debts. These persons, during a course of years, came to owe a considerable amount of money. In favourable years they could be made to pay the whole sum due by the ordinary process of law; but it was implied in this clause that, owing to the special circumstances of the last three or four years, it was necessary for the State to come forward and lend them public money on more favourable terms than they could borrow at in the open market, for the purpose of paying their landlords the arrears due to them. The landlords to whom this money was owing were themselves in a most serious and critical position, not only as to their own means of support, but with regard to the large number they had depending upon them. In fact, they were dealing with a class of people whom it was desirable to maintain in a state of solvency, in order that they, in turn, might meet the obligations they were under to other persons who had claims upon them in regard to mortgages, jointures, settlements, and so forth, and to the large class of poor people depending upon them, such as labourers, farm servants, and so on. The landowners, in fact, were themselves held strictly responsible for paying 20s. in the pound, while the State sought, by this clause, to compel them to take half, or less, of what was due to them by those to whom public loans were made on the easiest possible terms. If the landlords were not paid, there was a very large and important class indirectly belonging to the landed interest who would be left in a position of absolute ruin. The distress experienced by the upper and middle-class owners, and others who were dependent upon rents for their income, was at the present moment extreme, and it was running to a pitch at which it would soon become intolerable. It was imperatively necessary that relief should be given in one way or another to these classes. There could be no doubt, in another point of view, that the most serious results would follow, unless the landed interest were put in a position of solvency at this particular time—he referred to the employment of permanent labourers. In point of principle, he could not see, when public money was lent on the easiest terms, what objection there could be to extending the period of indebtedness beyond one year; but it was a question whether the extension should be to two or three years, and upon that question he was open to give careful consideration to any proposal that might be made. He warned the Commitee that if resident owners, who had, in many instances, cut down their personal and family expenses to the smallest possible scale rather than discharge their permanent hands, were pauperized, hundreds of thousands of unemployed labourers would be found in Ireland during the coming winter; and such a condition of things, he need not remind them, would be most serious. [Cries of "Question !"] Surely, this was the question. There were 70,000 owners of land in Ireland, and if these were left in an impecunious condition, it would be impossible for them to pay the labourers to whom they had been hitherto giving continuous employment. This alone, at the low average of two per head, would represent 140,000 labourers and their families—at the lowest computation, nearly 500,000 of men, women, and children. So that the gravity of the problem could not be over-stated.

said, he must confess that he found himself in a position which he had not anticipated when he undertook to meet what he considered to be the general wish of the Committee by proposing the extension contained in this clause. Instead of finding his proposal satisfactory, he found that since he had brought it forward there had arisen up on every side of him proposals for encouraging and transforming the whole of the scheme, which materially increased the difficulties of the position they were placed in. He did not know how to extricate himself from these difficulties; and he certainly should not have undertaken to deal with this matter if he had had the least idea that he would have to encounter these numerous proposals for extension, amounting, as he had said, almost to a transformation of his proposal. He did not think the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) could be serious in what he now proposed.

begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he was perfectly serious in making this proposal; and he had shown the feasibility of meeting the whole case fully, without drawing one shilling from the Public Exchequer, by moneys raised from purely Irish, sources.

said, it was not the case that they were on entirely new ground, because they had the legislation of last year before them, and in that legislation the question of the application of the principle of loan to arrears was considered. All along it was felt that it was necessary to retain a moral check upon the working of this Bill, and consequently they required the tenant to pay one year's rent. The hon. Member (Dr. Lyons) proposed absolutely to dispense with this check in recommending that they should enlarge the boon so as to make it apply to three years instead of one. The hon. Member had a further Amendment, to the effect that if there were 10 years' arrears the State should advance payment for seven years. It seemed to him (Mr. Gladstone) that the barest description of the hon. Member's proposals was quite sufficient to condemn them in the mind of the Committee.

said, he wished to ask the Government to take into consideration the desirability of including words to the effect that the ton-ant had obtained a receipt in full for such rent. The reason he proposed these words now was not because this part of the Bill was actually the right place where the Amendment should be moved, but because this was a clause analogous to the clause on which it appeared to him necessary to move the Amendment, as he had not been able to move it at the time the original clause was being considered before the Committee, because the attention of the Committee had not at that time been called to what appeared now to be the necessity for the insertion of these words. The reason he wished to press on the Committee the necessity for the insertion of these words was on account of a sentence which the Committee would remember was inadvertently let drop by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant last night, when speaking of an Amendment moved by an hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House, the object of which Amendment was the curtailment of the period during which this Act should be in operation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that—"Tho Committee must remember that a certain amount of time was necessary for the making of preliminary arrangements." Well, these preliminary arrangements the right hon. Gentleman had specified as the payment of the rent in full, the payment of the rent in part, or the abrogation of the total amount of rent, or, as he had said, in some cases the promise of the tenant to pay the rent at some future time. Could the right hon. Gentleman accept these words, or some such words, in the 1st clause, Sub-section (a)?

said, the object of the noble Lord was to ascertain if the protection contained in the Bill was a real and not a delusive one. Words might be brought up on Report to effect the object of the noble Lord the Member for South Wiltshire.

Does the noble Lord move anything?

The right hon. Gentleman has promised to put words in on Report.

No; I did not promise.

Then I will move, in line 6, after "aforesaid," insert the words "the tenant has obtained a receipt in full for such rent."

said, he did not intend to occupy much of the time of the Committee, inasmuch as the Amendment in his name had already been partly discussed. He regretted that the Prime Minister had looked at that Amendment in such a serious light, because he (Mr. Givan) had thought the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister who, amongst all other Ministers who had occupied his position, was the most anxious to conform to the wishes of the country. This clause was an instance of the truth of this statement, because, seeing that there was a wish that the provisions of this Bill should be extended in some way to tenants whose valuation was above £30, the right hon. Gentleman generously and most willingly framed this clause. But he (Mr. Givan) did not understand the Prime Minister, and he did not think the Committee understood him, to be bound by any words in the Bill, or by any distinct principle in the Bill, if anyone could manage to convince him that that principle or those words were unworkable. He (Mr. Givan) certainly did not understand that the clauses of the Bill of last year, which had so conspicuously failed, were to be introduced into the Bill of this year in the shape of new clauses; and if he had thought so, he should not, for one, have urged the Prime Minister to bring forward the clause. He (Mr. Givan) might point out that in Ulster, and he hoped also in the South and West Ireland of Ireland, the tenant's interest was of substantial value—was a thing that was valuable and real in the holding. Very often, indeed, the value of the tenant right was equal to the landlord's interest in the holding; and it was to be hoped that by the fixing of judicial rents the tenants in the South and West of Ireland would obtain, if they had it not already, as substantial an interest as the tenants of Ulster had. If they took a tenant's holding in Ulster at a rent of £ 10, the least the interest would be worth would be £100, and probably the value would be £200. He would point out to the Committee that the Church Commissioners always collected, and the Land Commission was now actually collecting, the advances made for the purpose of purchases from the tenants with the greatest facility. All it did was to enclose an order to them, and the money was paid into the bank. His suggestion was that the matter should be taken before one or two magistrates to enforce payment in a summary way. He did not think there was any apprehension on the ground stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he thought it was unjust to give a loan to the tenant and charge it upon the landlord. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would accept his Amendment.

said, it did seem to him that if the clause was to stand and to be really operative at all, it was necessary that some Amendment should be inserted on Report, either that of his hon. Friend sitting next him (Mr. Givan) or that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). The real point seemed to be this. In Ulster, and in a large part of Leinster, the tenant right, before the passing of the Land Act of 1881, amounted to a very large sum—in some cases almost to the fee-simple of the land. The result of the passing of the Act of last year had been to give increased security to the tenant, and practically to cause the tenant right to increase proportionately in value, both where it had only existed previously to a limited extent, and also where it already amounted to an appreciable and considerable value. Wherever tenant right existed in a substantial shape, arrears of rent were practically, in consequence of the legislation of free sale by the Act of last year, secured to the landlord, and, therefore, the effect would be, unless some Amendment were introduced declaring that it was not the landlord's interest that was to be charged, that the landlord would never come into Court in this matter, and the clause would practically not work at all. He did not wish to state any opinion as to the necessity of the clause; but if it was to stand and be operative, he would suggest to the Prime Minister that he should see his way to the introduction of some such Amendment as he pointed to.

said, he regretted very much to find, from the Prime Minister's statement, that hon. Members were arguing against a preconceived opinion. He might say that he had been in negotiation on behalf of two landlords, one in his own county, and one in Queen's County, both of whom had declined to have anything to do with this clause if it passed, and the primary liability were cast upon the landlord. If this liability remained, the clause should be withdrawn. The section would be inoperative, and might as well not be insisted on if the principle he had referred to were adhered to. He would suggest, in order to overcome any difficulty in this matter, that the collection of money should be left to the county cess officer. If it were not collected within six months, then the liability might fall upon the landlord.

said, that the hon. Member did not seem quite to appreciate the object of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had used the words "the primary liability" of the landlords; but the liability did not primarily rest upon the landlord, but upon the tenant, who would be bound to pay the additional sum representing the interest and principal to the landlord, and, having paid that sum to the landlord, the latter would repay it to the Government, so that really the primary liability was with the tenant. The hon. Member had said that he saw no objection to a public officer receiving the amount, and that if within six months he failed to obtain it, then the liability should fall upon the landlord. That was a matter for the Committee to decide hereafter. All that the Government wanted now to secure was that the money should be paid, and the question of how the payment was to be enforced was a mere matter of detail.

said, he wished to relieve the landlord of all liability. Under the clause, as it stood, the landlord was bound, first of all, to collect the instalment of the tenant and pay it to the Land Commission, and, whether the tenant paid or not, the landlord was bound to do so, even if he could not collect his rent. In the next place, it was the first charge upon a landlord's estate, and he questioned very much whether it was a charge upon the tenant's interest at all. He should think not.

said, that, as the clause stood, it was illusory, for it came to this—that the landlord and tenant might jointly apply to be allowed, in consideration of the payment of rent, to cancel some other rent that was duo. The tenant was supposed to have a valuable tenant right in his property. If this tenant right existed, and if it was an asset over and above the liability of the landlord, the landlord would be more foolish than one would suppose him to be if he concurred in an application to the State for an advance to cancel arrears, and made himself liable for the payment of that advance during a cer- tain period. It was quite certain that the landlord would not, under these circumstances, concur in the advance. He had a right to call upon the tenant to sell the tenant right and pay the debt that was due. The landlord would not concur with the tenant, if there was a balance in his favour, in asking for an advance from the State, for which he—the landlord—was liable, to be repaid in 15 or 35 years. As he had already said, it appeared to him that this clause, as it was drawn, was wholly illusory. The landlord would not join with the tenant in an application for an advance; the tenant would not get the advance, and the landlord would then say—"You must sell." This was a position the landlord would have a perfect right to take up under this clause.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) to make a proposal which, he thought, would wholly meet this difficulty. ["No, no !"] Well, he bowed to the opinion of his hon. Friends, but that had been his view. As to the Arrears Clauses of the Land Act, he was acquainted with a great many landlords and tenants, and had discussed the subject with them, and he could undertake to say that there were very few Members of the House who had had his experience on the subject. He could say this, that the reason the landlords would object to being security for this money was, roughly, because they objected to subsequently levying the interest on the tenant. If they allowed a public officer to make a tenant liable, it was only when the tenant's interest was exhausted that the money would be recoverable from the land. In such a case as that the landlord would concur. The clause would work then; but he did not think it would in its present shape.

said, there could be no doubt that the primary liability was thrown upon the holding. It would not only take effect upon the holding, but have priority to every incumbrance upon the holding—all mortgages, annuities, or other charges.

said, he did not wonder much at the Government wishing to have as much security as they could, and, if they could, to have the landlord between them and the tenant. He had had a large amount of experience as to the anxiety of the tenant farmers of Ireland to discharge their liabilities, and he was sure that any money they borrowed in that way they would be most anxious to pay. It struck him that the proposal of the hon. Member opposite would meet the clause, and, as he understood it, the Government were disposed to accept some such proposal. The landlord would really undertake no liability. If some public officer was bound to exhaust the assets of the tenant before the landlord was applied to, he could not see how the landlord could suffer at all. The Government had made up their minds not to change the substance of the clause, and he thought it would be a great pity if they passed it without amending it in the way pointed out.

said, that in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no difficulty in getting money out of the tenants; but why, in the hundredth case, the liability should be thrown on the landlord, he could not see. Who was mainly responsible? Why, the person whose security was given for the money. It was the person whose security was given for the money—that was to say, the landlord whose estate was charged with the payment of the debt. He hoped that the Committee would look at this question from the point of view of justice and common sense, and would remember what took place last year. Last year a certain interest in the land was given to the tenant. No doubt, that interest varied from an equivalent, in value of the holding to somewhat less than the value of the holding, and it did not seem to him, therefore, to be just that they should come upon the landlord for the arrears of rent. It did not seem to him to be just to relieve this valuable property from all charge, in consideration of the landlord having a small moiety.

said, this was a matter of considerable difficulty, and the Government had attended very carefully to all that had been said upon it. He thought the suggestions more or less which had been contained in the speeches—first, of the hon. Member opposite, and further, in that of his right hon. Friend, and in those of two hon. Members below the Gangway, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) and the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw)—would afford a basis on which the Government might consent to frame their clause. But the clause could not be amended in that sense at present. The Government could not undertake to amend the clause in the rapid process of passing it through Committee; but they could undertake to introduce the necessary Amendments on Report. He did not think, after what had been said, that there could be any mistake as to the basis on which the Government intended to frame the Amendment, The application would be made to the tenant, and the public officer, who would be the best suited for making the application, was, as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Marum) had pointed out, to exhaust the tenant's interest before any liability came upon the holding itself—that was to say, upon the landlord. On that basis the Government would undertake to frame the clause; but, undoubtedly, it would be better to allow the section to pass now. The Government might withdraw it; but it would be advantageous to pass it now, the hon. Member opposite, seeing that the substance of his object was sufficiently gained, withdrawing his Amendment.

asked whether the Prime Minister was willing to say that when the advance was made it should be charged, in the first place, on the tenant's interest?

No doubt, that will be so.

said, that when the tenant's interest was exhausted the charge would come upon the landlord. But would not a question arise in a case where the tenant might be sold up, and in which, as a consequence, he could not continue upon his holding?

said, that that would apply to any mercantile operation.

said, that he was quite sure that what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister desired was to give every relief he could by this clause. He thought the suggestion which had been made a very good one; and, therefore, he should be very happy to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he did not see that there was any great difference between the one proposal and the other. If they made the landlord liable in the first place, he would have to pay and recover from the tenant. If they made the tenant liable, and then, if he did not pay, imposed the liability on the landlord, they would give the tenant an incentive not to pay, because he would know that in his default the landlord would have to discharge the debt. This was the reason of the failure of the clause of last year, and he did not see that the change introduced into the present measure was so remarkable that it carried out the idea of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan). A tenant, after having his arrears paid under this clause might, a couple of years afterwards, put up his holding for sale, and it would be made known to the public that the holding, in addition to rent, was subject to the repayment of a certain amount to the State. But the auctioneer, in putting up the holding, would say—"The liability for the repayment of this sum to the State falls in the first place on the tenant; but, after all, the landlord is liable—you need not mind it." The result would be that the incoming tenant would consider himself justified in refusing to pay, and the onus would fall on the landlord. If the tenant really had an interest it ought to be charged, otherwise the landlord might be defeated in the recovery of his rent from the tenant by the statement that he—the tenant—was unable to pay. The State was not expected to have any bowels of compassion; but the landlord was always supposed to have, and if he did not show it, he was threatened in such a manner as to make him forego his just claim.

asked whether they were to understand that in the Amendment on Report this charge would not be added to the half-year's rent, but that the charge would be a distinct one calculated by the local authority?

No doubt.

said, he had now to ask the Government to substitute for the period of 35 years mentioned in the clause, the period of 15 years. The reason he moved the Amendment was this. The clause, as he understood it, was intended to be a boon to the tenant in consequence of a calamity he—the tenant—had sustained from bad seasons; the gift was made solely in consequence of the misfortunes of the past two or three years; but there was no reason to doubt that within the next 35 years the same state of things would occur again. He wished to put into the clause the same period as was introduced into the Bill of last year by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and which was held to be a sufficient period during which a personal liability incurred by the tenant should be discharged. It would be a great misfortune if the tenants of Ireland were led to suppose that the State was to come to their aid in every period of drought or run of bad seasons. This Bill ought to be considered a peculiarly exceptional one; and unless a reasonable period were fixed as a limit for the discharge of the liability, there would be repetitions of application for the dole it was now proposed to serve out to the Irish tenants, and great demoralization would be the result.

said, that this and the subject of the next Amendment, which was to substitute "£8 10s." for "£5" had been carefully considered. It was felt that "£8 10.s." would be too serious a burden—they had been so impressed with that argument that they had decided upon the more moderate sum and longer period.

said, the Government had assented to the principle that the tenant should be primarily liable, and they would, therefore, he thought, see the reasonableness of not exceeding, to any considerable extent at any rate, this term of 15 years during which the loan should be held by the tenant. After that period, reductions of rent might take place, and the whole of the conditions under which the land was held might become altered. That was an element in the consideration of the matter which the Government could hardly have considered. Of course, a tenant would rather pay 5 per cent than 8½ per cent of the advance; but now that they were making this advance, they must be careful that they were not unduly burdening future tenants for the benefit of the tenants of the moment. The money would, perhaps, have to be paid back by a tenant of the future. He hoped the Government would reconsider this point.

said, the matter was one requiring nice consideration.

said, the Government had better withdraw their proposal.

said, there was no connection between this point and the judicial rent, and the Government could not accept the Amendment. There might be no judicial rents on some of the farms if the tenants were satisfied with the position of the landlords—as some of them seemed to be. But, even if there was a judicial rent, there was no connection between the levying of the rent and this clause. If the Amendment were adopted, the sum might be larger than the tenant would be able to stand—especially the smaller tenant. The Government were satisfied with the security as it existed in the Bill.

asked whether in the case of every failure of crops there was to be a tribunal of this kind appealed to to pay a tenant's arrears of rent? He could not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could propose that a man who had received a loan from the State should be allowed 35 years to repay it. This was one of the most extraordinary financial proposals he (Mr. W. H. Smith) had ever heard.

said, the right hon. Gentleman was making one of the most extraordinary financial objections that could be submitted from the other side of the House, seeing that they were proposing that the charge should be put upon the tenant instead of upon the landlord.

opposed the Amendment.

said, this Bill was supposed to be a cure for the serious evils existing in Ireland; but he failed to see the policy, in making a cure, of keeping the sore open longer than was necessary. If the measure was to do good, they must avoid, as much as possible, making future generations look back at what was now done. It would be well, as far as possible, to teach future generations to forget the calamitous times of the present.

said, the difficulty he felt in the matter was this—that the advance might be made to a perfectly solvent tenant. As the clause stood, there was nothing to guide the Land Commission as to the class of persons to whom the advance of 35 years should be made; and, so far as they could see, the advance might be made to a perfectly solvent tenant. He would suggest that, if the clause was to be agreed to, there should be instructions given to the Commissioners that the advance should only be made in cases of necessity, and when it appeared to them that the tenant right was a sufficient security.

said, that it must be manifest to the Government that the clause had not been received with enthusiasm in any part of the House. On the contrary, some of the Supporters of the Government had taken serious objection to its most cardinal provisions. The manner in which it dealt with the tenant right had been severely criticized by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, moreover, serious objection had been taken in other quarters to the forced period of 35 years prescribed for the repayment of the loans in the interests of the British taxpayers. On the whole, views had been expressed with regard to the clause which he thought must have left on the minds of the Government the impression that it had been hastily drawn. The Prime Minister himself had said more than once in the course of the discussion that if he had had any idea of the objections that would be urged against it he would never have proposed it to the Committee. For these reasons, and seeing that there were other matters to be dealt with before the present stage of the Bill was closed, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would obviate the further consumption of time by withdrawing this ill-digested clause.

said, he hoped the Committee would not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The clause only took effect in cases where the landlord and tenant agreed to make application to the Commission for a loan. It was difficult to understand the objection to an arrangement of that kind; but it must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman objected to the whole Bill. He thought the Government had met the discussion of the clause very fairly, and he trusted the proposal would be agreed to by the Committee.

said, he should vote for the Amendment. He thought the period of 35 years was one that was likely to induce landlords and tenants to agree to take the loans, because it involved them in no very heavy personal liability. If the period were 15 years, they would probably think three times before they applied for the money. As guardians of the public purse, he said the Committee were justified in making the terms so hard that the loans would not be availed of except where there was the strongest reason for it.

was understood to say that the small instalments required for the repayment of the loan would make it positively to the interest of the landlord and tenant to conspire to obtain an advance.

said, he could see no objection to the adoption of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The matter involved was one that he thought should be cleared up finally when the opportunity was offered by the sale of the tenant right. The only liberty, however, which the Government wished to reserve to themselves was to consider what would be the best wording for the Amendment, between that time and the Report.

said, the Amendment was incorrectly worded. Instead of "in any transfer of the holding," the Amendment should run—"in any transfer of the tenant's interest in the holding," &c.

suggested that the Amendment should express that the amount uncovered by the sale remained a charge on the land.

said, he hoped the Government would leave a discretion with the Commissioners in this matter. Unless they were empowered to make concessions, the unfortunate tenants would, in some cases, find themselves tied to their holdings.

said, he had an Amendment to propose, the object of which was to place the tenant who was sold up, with the assent of the landlord, in the same position as the tenant who was evicted, so far as the benefit of the clause was concerned.

said, the Committee would recollect that upon the Compulsory Clause the Government had agreed to accept an Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and to bring up a section on Report. That section, he believed, would meet the wishes of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny County. He supposed the Government had no objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend?

said, that part of the question involved in the proposal of the hon. Member had already been discussed in Committee, and considered by Her Majesty's Government. As had been correctly stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Sir. Parnell), they had promised that a clause should be brought up on Report, in which the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford would be embodied. It would be to the effect that if the landlord expressly agreed to reinstate a tenant who had been sold up for debt, then the tenant should be in the same position as if he had been sold up for rent. But the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) now proposed to extend that principle to tenants of holdings valued at £50, which was quite a different thing. The effect of this would be that the tenant would go back to his tenancy with a load of debt round his neck, or, at any rate, that he would be encouraged to remain in a state of debt. The Government could not, therefore, accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal, which was entirely different from that which, on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford, they had agreed to in principle.

said, he could not see on what grounds the Government objected to this Amendment. If it was right that the tenant who had not been sold out should, if the landlord consented, have the benefit of this clause, why should it not be right that the tenant who had been sold out should receive the same benefit? There ought to be no difference between the tenant who had been sold out and the tenant who had not been sold out. The matter simply stood in this way—that if a landlord agreed to reinstate a tenant who had been sold out, the State should pay a year's rent as in the case of any other tenant. That was all his hon. Friend asked, and he (Mr. Parnell) thought the request was a very reasonable one.

said, that in the case of gift they freed the tenant and started him a free man; in the case of loan they brought him back and started him with a weight round his neck. The conditions were entirely different, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.

said, with great respect to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he saw no difference whatever whether the ad- vance be by way of loan or gift. When the landlord and tenant stipulated with the Government that the tenant should be put back and that the loan should be a charge upon the holding, the State was in the same position as if the advance had been a gift. With respect to the weight round a man's neck, surely the landlord was the best judge. The State was as safe in the one case as in the other; the landlord would take the weight and the responsibility, and the Government would have as much security as they would have in the case of gift. The tenant would be just as free in the one case as in the other. The landlord took a year's rent; took a loan from the Government, and stipulated to pay it back. He (Mr. Synan) was at a loss to understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a distinction between the one case and the other so far as the State was concerned. The State would simply get back its money, and would have ample security.

said, it was now nearly 1 o'clock in the morning, and as the Speaker was to be in the Chair at 12 o'clock that day, and as, moreover, there was some very important Business to transact before they separated, he begged leave to move that the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.