asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the names, residences, and qualifications of the Investigators appointed under the Arrears Act?

The Return asked for by the hon. Member shall be presented immediately.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the attendance of both the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of the Dublin Police at their offices is very irregular; whether the office is sometimes left empty for hours and sometimes not visited at ail in the course of the day; and, whether applicants for licences for arms and other matters are not thus seriously inconvenienced?

During the past five years the Chief Commissioner of Metroplitan Police has not been absent on any day from his office with the exception of a few weeks' leave. He is seldom able to leave it before six o'clock in the evening—often later. Many times he has been on duty day and night. During the last three years especially he has found it very difficult to avail himself of leave, and during his occasional absence he has no reason to believe that there was any irregularity in the attendance of the Assistant Commissioner. With regard to alleged inconveniences to applicants for arms licences, I beg to say that all applications for such licences must be made in writing, and some delay must arise through the necessity of making inquiries with regard to the character of the applicant. Recent deplorable occurrences in Dublin show the absolute necessity for the exercise of the greatest caution in this respect. Personally, when I have forwarded applications from individuals whose character and position did not require examination I have found the request for the licence responded to at once. The other day I got a letter from a friend of the hon. Member thanking me for so promptly procuring him a licence for introducing three scimitars for the illustrating a lecture on the East. I may add that the Chief Commissioner assures me that it is not the case that his office is left empty for hours, and sometimes not visited at all by him and the Assistant Commissioner in the course of the day.

stated that he did not complain of the authorities exercising due precaution in the granting of licences; but he complained of the Commissioner not being in his place. He wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the readiness with which his friend, Mr. O'Donovan, obtained a licence for arms.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have had to retire under the new Act on the ground of being upwards of sixty years of age; how many officers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police are over sixty years of age; and, whether it is intended to apply the same rule to them as to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Seventeen officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have had to retire on the 1st of October, under the Constabulary (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1882, being 60 of age and upwards. There are two officers in the Dublin Metropolitan Police who are over 60. Under the existing law the same rule cannot be applied to them as to the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the announcement in the Dublin Gazette that the parishes of Holycross and Ballycahill, county Tip- perary, are to have an extra force of police, Whether it is true that the parishes are perfectly tranquil, and that the only outrage committed there within the past twelve months was by an emergency man, who smashed with a hatchet the furniture of an evicted tenant, until deprived of his weapon by the Sheriff; and, whether, if extra police are to be quartered in the parishes of Holycross and Ballycahill, the cost of them is to be charged on the peaceful occupiers of that district?

No outrages of importance have lately occurred in the parishes mentioned in this Question; but, owing to the intimidation prevailing, it has been necessary for the last 12 months to keep a protection party with caretakers on a property in the parish of Holycross. This duty has been performed by soldiers, who are now being relieved by the police. In the other parish mentioned—the parish of Ballycahill—there is no special protection given at present; but there are protection posts in the three surrounding parishes—namely, Holycross, Thurles, and Inch—and it has been considered right to include Ballycahill in the proclaimed district. The proportion of the cost of the extra Constabulary to be borne by the district will be a matter for the consideration of the Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that all county officers except coroners are paid when their salaries are due; that the coroners' salaries are always six months in arrear; if this is because all salaries except the coroners' are presented for in advance; and, whether he is aware that the Act of last year, by abolishing fees and substituting a fixed salary, did away with the necessity of the Grand Jury waiting to see the amount to which the coroner is entitled halfyearly; and, if he will, therefore, give instructions that the coroners be put on the same footing in regard to the payment of salaries as the other county officers, by a presentment in advance?

The salaries of county officers in the several counties in Ireland are presented for in advance, and, therefore, can be paid when they become due. In the county of Dublin, I understand, the Coroner's salary is presented for in this way, and there seems no reason why the same course should not be adopted in other counties. It is open to the Coroners to bring the matter under the notice of the several Grand Juries, who have power to deal with it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Hamilton MSS. were offered for sale to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether there is any correspondence or other documents which can be laid upon the Table of the House showing what occurred; whether the German Government have offered to resell any portion of the MSS. to the Government of this Country; and, if so, whether the offer has been or is being considered; and, whether it is true that two MSS. in the collection, viz., an Illustrated Dante and an Illuminated Bible have been valued by experts at a sum representing a large proportion of the purchase-money paid by Germany for the whole Collection?

Sir, neither the whole nor any portion of the Hamilton Collection of Manuscripts was offered for sale to the Trustees of the British Museum. The German Government has not made any offer to resell to the Trustees any portion of the Manuscripts, nor has any communication passed between it and. the Trustees. With reference to the rumours referred to in the last part of the Question, I learn that the Trustees have no information of the price at which the two Manuscripts referred to have been valued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to a recent case where two boys charged with a petty offence of malicious mischief were taken a distance of over twenty miles for trial at Forfar, and, being there convicted and sentenced to six stripes with a birchen rod, were sent to Perth, a further distance of twenty-five miles, for infliction of the punishment; and, whether simpler arrangements might not be made for the administration of justice?

said, this Question had only been put down last night, and he had asked the Lord Advocate to inquire into it.

The punishment of whipping is subject to strict regulations issued in 1862, under which it must be inflicted in prison in presence of the surgeon of the prison and of the keeper or Governor. The prison at Forfar was discontinued on the 15th of August last, under the Act of 1877; and the prison at Perth is now the prison for convicted Forfarshire prisoners, so that it was necessary to send the boys there. If the local authorities at Forfar had cells legalized for prisoners it would be proper that the punishment of whipping should be carried out there, and I would consider whether any alteration would be required upon the terms of the existing Rules in order to authorize this.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the trial and conviction, on the 9th instant, of two clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, for fraud; whether the clerks so convicted were, along with the clerk, Bryce, whose name occurs repeatedly in the Report of the trial, the only clerks in the office implicated in the frauds; whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken for the apprehension of Bryce; and, whether the loss arising from the fraud will fall upon the Exchequer, or who is responsible for it?

This painful matter has been for some time under my notice; and I consider it so serious that I have directed a special inquiry to be made into it on the spot. Pending the result of that inquiry, it would not be for the public advantage that I should express any opinion on the conduct of anyone besides the two persons convicted, and the man Bryce who has absconded. A warrant has been more than two months out for the arrest of Bryce. I am afraid that the burden of the sums improperly paid will fall upon the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that, in the case of Mr. Belam, late Assistant Paymaster of Her Majesty's Ship "Blanche," who was sentenced by Court Martial to be dismissed his ship on 22nd December 1881, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have increased the punishment awarded by the Court Martial to that of dismissal from Her Majesty's Service, by ordering his name to be removed from the Navy List; whether such increase of sentence is contrary to Section 53, Sub-section 1, of the Naval Discipline Act of 1866; whether it was declared illegal in the case of Captain Coffin, R.N. v. Reg.; and, whether officers of the civilian branch of the Navy ranking with Lieutenants, although not entitled to half pay, are, for this reason, liable to removal from Her Majesty's Service, when, in the case of a Lieutenant, such removal would be inapplicable?

It is not the case, as implied in my hon. Friend's Question, that the Board of Admiralty increased the punishment awarded by court martial to Mr. Belam, late Assistant Paymaster of the Blanche, for the offence for which he was tried. The Court sentenced him for that offence to be dismissed his ship. The Board of Admiralty found that this was only the last of a series of occasions, extending over some years, on which this officer's conduct had been the subject either of Courts of Inquiry or of complaints from his commanding officer; and, on a review of all the circumstances, they resolved that he could not be employed in Her Majesty's Service again. This decision was arrived at and put in force under the general powers of the Admiralty to remove the name of any officer from the list of Her Majesty's Navy. The case of Captain Coffin, alluded to by my hon. Friend, was altogether different. In that case, which occurred in 1878, the court martial imposed a punishment which it had no legal right to impose; the Admiralty interfered to correct the error; and the Judges, on appeal, reported against the whole proceeding.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state whether any change has been made in the programme for ironclad ship-building and repair since the last Return; if so, if he will state it, and also the names of the ironclad ships to be repaired at the Home Dockyards and at Malta respectively, with the dates at which they are likely to be out of hand?

Sir, it would not be convenient to the House, nor would it be possible, without a very serious inroad on its time and practice, for me to give, in answer to this Question, full particulars of the prospect of the iron-clad shipbuilding programme of the year; and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to wait until the Navy Estimates are moved, when there will be the usual opportunity of reviewing the matter. I may say, however, generally, that, although the Egyptian operations have necessarily' caused some disturbance of our arrangements, the programme both for the building and the repair of ironclad ships will, I believe, be fairly fulfilled, although there are a few instances of delay, chiefly on account of armament fittings. The ships belonging to the Mediterranean Squadron which require repair will have the work done in the Dockyard at Malta.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can give any assurance that territorial changes which are said to be contemplated on the Congo river will leave unimpaired the freedom of Commercial intercourse which has hitherto existed between this Country and that part of Africa?

Her Majesty's Government are most desirous that there should be complete liberty of navigation and commerce on all the great rivers of Africa, and the matter is having their most careful consideration at the present time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received respecting an agreement between the Governments of France and Portugal for procuring and conveying (so called) free labourers, to be shipped from the Portuguese Territory in East Africa to some of the French Islands; and, whether any communication has been made to the Governments of France or Portugal in regard to a traffic differing only in name from a revival of the slave trade?

Communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and those of France and Portugal respecting the recruitment of labour from Ibo, on the East Coast of Africa, to Mayotte, Nossi Bé, and Réunion; it being pointed out that such recruiting threatens a revival of the Slave Trade. The Portuguese Government have rejected a scheme for extending the emigration to Réunion; and with regard to Mayotte, and Nossi Bé, Her Majesty's Government are informed that instructions will be sent to the Mozambique authorities to give the scheme their most careful consideration, and not to put it into execution if they have reason to believe that it will give fresh impetus to the Slave Trade.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by the inspectors, in the inquiry into the case of eight children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination at Norwich, as to four of the cases which terminated fatally—

"We cannot divest our minds of the strong impression that the lymph used in vaccinating those children must have carried with it the elements of the disease which they subsequently developed;"

My hon. and learned Friend asks me four Questions. As to the first Question, I must point out that the quoted words have reference, not to four of the cases, which terminated fatally as the Question implies, but to four cases vaccinated from one child, and of which two did not get erysipelas. As to the second Question, the public vaccinator was recommended for award from the Parliamentary grant in 1874, but not in 1876 or 1878, and he was again recommended in 1880; but the objectionable practice previously discovered by the Inspector appeared to have been then discontinued. As to the third Question, my answer is that, although Dr. Buchanan does charge Dr. Guy with using dirty instruments in 1876, he does not affirm that Dr. Guy did so at a later time. My answer to the fourth Question is that it is no legal defence to a summons under the Vaccination Acts for parents of children attacked with erysipelatous disease after vaccination, to urge their fear of similar risk to their other children; and I am not prepared to assent to the view that, because one child may have happened to suffer, owing to mala praxis or some accidental circumstance, all the other children should be deprived of the protection which vaccination affords. At the same time, I may add that it is open to the Justices in any such case to impose a nominal fine, or decline to make an order for the vaccination of the child; and I should hope that whenever any such case occurs it will be considerately and tenderly dealt with.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of recent occurrences in Dublin, and the character of speeches delivered by ex-suspects and others in different parts of Ireland, he will vigilantly watch and use efficient means and safeguards against the further tendency to and development of incitement to sedition and violence?

The Executive Government in Ireland will continue to do its best to discharge its duty in the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that persons living in the parish of Cloone, in the county of Leitrim, who desired to take the benefit of the Arrears Act, have to appear before the Investigator at Mohill, five miles from the village of Cloone, and eight or nine miles from the homes of many of the Cloone tenants; whether he is aware that there are several hundred applications from the parish of Cloone, nearly all from persons in a very poor condition in life; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will take steps to have these applications dealt with in the village of Cloone?

The facts are correctly stated in the Question. The Commissioners hold sittings in as many places as possible, and, in the ordinary course of business, it is probable that the cases referred to would have been listed for investigation at Cloone; but in their anxiety to inquire into as many cases as possible before the end of this month—and I am glad to be able to say that they believe they will be able to inquire into all contested cases, with the exception of an extremely small and minute percentage—they have been obliged for the time to extend the area of the district where the inquiry is held. In the present case, the Land Commissioners do not think it a hardship that tenants should, under the circumstances, be obliged to travel five miles further than if the sitting had been fixed at Cloone.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House when the trial of Arabi Pasha will commence; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, having handed him over for trial to that of the Khedive, and interfered in the procedure of the Court, has incurred any pecuniary responsibility for his defence?

We are not aware when the trial will commence, although we have received a good deal of information lately from Lord Dufferin regarding the trial itself. With regard to the second part of the Question, the answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the suggestions of the Justices Clerks Society for the revision of the form of proceedings in Petty Sessional Courts under the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and, whether he can undertake to give effect to the same at an early date.

A regrettable delay has arisen in this matter, owing to the departure for India of the gentlemen who originally drew up these injunctions. The Lord Chancellor has now issued instructions for the forms to be settled as soon as possible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that thirty-four applications to fix fair rents on the estate of Julius Casement, recorded previous to 12th November 1881, eleven on the estate of William C. Mann, twenty-two on the estate of John McMeekin, five on the estate of Robert William Newton, five on the estate of William Hutchison, five on the estate of Reverend Hall Stewart, seven on the estate of Jane Smith, making altogether ninety-six cases in county Derry, none of which have been yet listed for hearing, and that the tenants are still paying the old rents; if any and what steps are being taken to get these and other tenants the benefit of the Land Act; is he aware that in some instances cases have been heard and disposed of which were listed long after the 12th of November 1881, leaving other tenants whose applications were recorded previous thereto still unheard; and, if he will direct these cases to be at once listed for hearing?

The first paragraph of the Question gives the number of applications with tolerable accuracy. There were 400 applications lodged before the date mentioned, and all are sent for trial in the order of their receipt in the Land Commission Office. None lodged after have been tried, with the exception of two cases in which evictions had taken place, and which, according to the Commissioner's practice, were listed for hearing out of their regular course, so that the tenants might not, by being evicted, lose the benefit of the Land Law Act. A special Sub-Commission has been appointed for Londonderry, with a view of disposing, as rapidly as possible, of the large number of cases awaiting trial in that county.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Land Commission proposes to dispense with the services of the Court Valuators at the expiry of the three months period for which they were engaged?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I will state with brevity the course the Government propose to adopt, and their reasons for it. Towards the end of last summer a conviction, which began quite early in the year, that there was a block in the business of the Land Courts, had become quite universal, and all parties were agreed that a remedy for that block would have to be found—I think that is not a controverted statement—and that it was desirable such a remedy should be found. The Government, after taking the advice of the Land Commissioners, sanctioned the appointment of valuers, with a view to increasing despatch of business and diminishing the number of appeals. One valuer was attached to each Sub-Commission. To the best of the judgment which the Government can form, the Courts so re-constituted have, taking Ireland as a whole, given judgments of very much the same character as before the re-constitution of the Courts. ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Benches.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not hold that opinion; but I am obliged to state the views of the Government. But the hopes of the Government as to the increase in the despatch of business, and the decrease in the number of appeals, have been disappointed. The number of decisions has hardly shown any increase at all. The number of appeals, if anything, has shown the reverse of a decrease. Other means will, therefore, have to be sought to grapple with the great task that is still before the Commission. It has been determined to attach to each Court four lay Sub-Commissioners instead of two, so that one pair of Sub-Commissioners may be inspecting the farms, while the other pair is occupied in Court, and so on, turn and turn about. By this means the Government hope that the time of the legal Sub-Commissioner will be fully occupied, which was not the case before the recent appointment of valuers, and has not been the case since that appointment. They anticipate a very great acceleration in the number of cases decided; while the certainty that the lay Sub-Commissioners will have abundant time to spend on the inspection of the farms will give a confidence to both landlord and tenant, which they hope will largely diminish the number of appeals, though the Government think that that confidence had every reason to be given in the past. The Government believe that, in order to increase the rapidity of the working of the Land Act, public money cannot, than in this way, be more effectually and economically spent.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he passes from this subject, whether it is the intention of the Commission to employ many of the present valuers as new Sub-Commissioners?

The appointment of the valuers I may explain, as the House may be ignorant of the matter, lies entirely with the Land Commissioners. The appointment of Sub-Commissioners lies entirely with the Government, and it is for the Government to make appointments to the best of their judgment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether that is the statement he promised yesterday as to the decision of the Government, to be announced to-day, with regard to the continuance of the employment of the Court valuers; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to how far the Land Commissioners have presented their views in any official form whatever which can be laid before Parliament?

It is extremely difficult to answer some of the Questions the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me; but I boldly say that I was anxious to present the Papers which the Commissioners, with their greater experience, and for reasons with which I sympathize, did not feel inclined to have presented. The Land Commissioners have objected hitherto—and I suppose will continue to object—to laying their reasons for recommending the appointment of valuers before the House. With regard to the change which the Government now propose, I may say this—that the Commissioners, though, perhaps, divided among themselves in their predilection for what they considered the best course, are unanimous in thinking that if the alteration is made the constitution of the Courts I have just mentioned to the House is a well-advised constitution.

I again ask, is the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the "full and complete" statement we were told would be made to the House on this subject; and I desire to know have the Land Commissioners unanimously approved of the termination of the employment of Court official valuers next month; or is this the idea of the four lay Commissioners and the idea of the Irish Executive?

The statement I have laid before the House contains the sum and substance of the reasons that have influenced the Government in making this change, and also the essential part of the change itself. If there is any particular point on which information is desired, I shall be glad to explain it. I have to state again that I will not assert that all the Land Commissioners prefer these Courts constituted as I have described; but what I do say is, that if this change is made it is a change which they all approve.

One more Question, because this matter requires explanation. My Question was plain, and requires a categorical answer. Have the Land Commissioners approved of the change now proposed by the Irish Government?

I have answered two or three times, and my intention is quite clear. I will not vouch for some of the Commissioners not preferring the present constitution of the Courts. I have always endeavoured to be frank; and I thought that the House, when I made my statement, would gather that there are on the Land Commission gentlemen who prefer the present constitution.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, by the appointment of these lay Commissioners they are merely to value, and not to sit in Court and hear evidence? I wish to ask whether the fact of a person being a valuer of experience, and much employed in valuing land, should be considered a disqualification for employment as Sub-Commissioners?

I think the hon. Member is under a slight mistake as to the statement which I have made. Each pair of Sub-Commissioners will be alternately in Court, and engaged inspecting the fields. And the Government will endeavour to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in attempting to obtain the services of gentlemen who are thoroughly acquainted with the value of land.

May I ask, as this is a matter of importance, whether I understand the right hon. Gentleman in believing that all the Commissioners will hear evidence? The Question I wish to ask is, whether two Commissioners will remain in Court hearing cases, and the two other Commissioners, who do not hear, will go to value?

The business, I take it, will be apportioned between the two pairs of lay Commissioners, and the same pair of lay Commissioners will inspect the farms and hear the evidence, just as was done before when there was only one pair of Sub-Commissioners. "We hope this will enable the Sub-Commissioners to give a very much larger amount of time to valuing the land.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been drawn to letters which have appeared in the "Daily News" of Saturday last from electors of the School Board Division of Lambeth, complaining that they were refused admission to the polling station at 7.30 p.m. on the day of election; and, whether such exclu- sion of electors from the polling station before 8 p.m. is legal?

, in reply, said, that the letters in question stated that the poll at the election in Lambeth was closed before 8 o'clock, and, of course, it ought to have been open till that time. The Deputy Presiding Officer had communicated with the proper authorities, and stated that the poll was taken up to the statutory hour. It was reasonable to suppose that the conflict of statements arose from the fact that the door of the polling station was closed earlier than 8 o'clock. Very likely, if the polling station was full of persons wishing to vote, there would be a pressure of persons coming in, and it would be necessary to shut the door. If that was the case, and votes were received till 8, there would, in his (the Attorney General's) opinion, be no breach of the law.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of his statement that Her Majesty's Government entertain no doubt that Tajoura Bay is part of Egypt, under the Rule of the Khedive and the Suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey, Her Majest3''s Government are prepared to oppose any cession of Tajoura Bay to France by the Sultan of Laita?

The Question put by the hon. Member is a hypothetical one. Should the case arise, the matter will be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government; but we are not aware that it has arisen.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as publicly stated, that one of the first acts of the Khedive's Government, on their return to Cairo, was to pay Sultan Pasha £10,000 out of the public chest; whether Her Majesty's Government know for what services this sum was paid; whether this is the same Sultan Pasha who has been accused publicly of having caused the Mudir of Miniek to receive eight hundred blows of the courbash on account of a private grudge; and, whe- ther this is the same Sultan Pasha who has recently been made a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George?

By a decree of the Khedive, dated the 4th of October, the sum of £10,000 was granted to Sultan Pasha. This sum is stated to have been in part an indemnity for losses. We know nothing of the matter referred to in the third part of the hon. Baronet's Question. The conduct of Sultan Pasha, as President of the Chamber of Notables, in standing out with courage against military violence, has been much admired in this country, not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by the hon. Baronet himself. He was of great service to Her Majesty's Forces during the military operations, and after their conclusion was made an Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George.

asked the hon. Baronet whether the Egyptian Assembly of Notables would be asked to confirm this grant of £10,000 out of the Egyptian taxes?

The grant was not made at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, and we were not consulted in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be communicated to the House; and, whether the whole of the grant recently voted for distribution amongst the Force has been so applied?

The Report of the Commission referred to in this Question has not yet been received by the Government. I cannot say whether it will be presented to Parliament. The gratuity, roughly estimated at £180,000, has been distributed among the Force on the terms approved by the Irish Government and the Treasury, with the exception of a few outstanding claims. As the known expenditure amounts to little over £160,000, the amount necessary to meet the claims would appear to have been over-estimated.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the statement of the Earl of Morley, at the dinner to the Medical Staff upon the 21st November, is well founded, that the Committee now sitting upon the medical arrangements of the Army is not appointed to inquire into the alleged defective condition of the Department during the Egyptian War?

The observations of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War must, I think, have been misinterpreted; and it would be more satisfactory to the House to have the exact terms of the Reference to the Committee now sitting. At the War Office the following are the instructions from the Secretary of State:—

"It will be advisable that the Committee appointed to inquire into the organizations of Army Hospital Corps should extend the scope of its inquiry into the question of hospital management and nursing in the field, as well as the sea transport of sick and wounded. The recent experience in the Egyptian campaign will be most valuable in such an inquiry. The Committee should ascertain what deficiencies, if any, existed in the field, or other hospitals, or hospital ships in that campaign with a view to future remedy?"

asked when it was likely that the Report would be laid before the House?

replied that the Report was not yet completed; but that great efforts would be made to complete it by next Session.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Depot Ship at Portsmouth will, in three years, be unfit for service; and, whether, meanwhile, provision will be made by the erection of Naval Barracks; and, if not, if he can state the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government have relinquished the intention of erecting the Naval Barracks, of which the foundations had been begun?

It is hard to say when the Depot Ship at Portsmouth will become unfit for service, and I should be sorry to accept the time named by the hon. Member. As to the erection of barracks, it is not in- tended to proceed with it until we have seen whether the Naval Barracks now under construction at Devonport succeed. There is also some doubt as to the suitableness of the site on which the commencement of a building had been made at Portsmouth.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any emolument is attached to the rank of Colonel, which Her Majesty has granted to His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck?

No pay is provided by the Regulations for a Colonel in the Army who holds no other commission. His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany are, like His Serene Highness the Duke of Teck, Colonels in the Army, but do not receive pay. There is, in fact, no pay attached to the rank of Colonel as such.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the fact that when the Native assessors at the trial of the Hindu prisoners accused of complicity in the Salem riots refused to find the prisoners guilty on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, they were denounced in open Court by the European Judge, Mr. Wigram, as having given "a perverse verdict," which "convinced him that they cannot have conscientiously considered the evidence;" whether the Native assessors to courts of justice in India, who are appointed under the Criminal Procedure Act to give their opinion to the court upon such evidence as may be produced at a trial before them, are liable under any law to have opinions thus given in the discharge of their official functions controverted by the presiding judge; and, what stops the Government intend to take to protect Native assessors in the discharge of their legal functions; and also, whether the attention of the noble Marquess has been called to the fact that the presiding judge, Mr. Wigram, before proceeding, on his sole responsibility, and without any jury, to sentence a number of Hindu prisoners in the foregoing case to various terms of penal servitude for life, and for long terms of years, made the following explanatory statement of his reasons for passing such severe sentences:—

"The sentences I am about to pass may appear severe, but I shall append to my judgment a recommendation that, should the feud between the Hindus and Mohammedans be buried for ever, and should Salem again assume its prosperous and peaceful condition, the Government should, after two years, revise the sentences as to them may seem fit;"

In reply to these two Questions I think that I have already said that I have no information except from newspaper reports. I find that the prisoners referred to have appealed to the High Court at Madras, where their appeal is now pending; and, under these circumstances, I think it would be undesirable to enter into any discussion on the points raised.

asked whether it was only Indian prisoners who could be sentenced to penal servitude for life without the intervention of a jury; and whether it was the fact that in the case of European prisoners no such power was vested in a single Judge; and, whether, if such were the case, the noble Marquess would propose to repeal a law which inflicted such gross inequality of treatment between different subjects of the Crown?

said, he could not answer the Question without Notice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the memorandum of the Irish Land Commission, dated 28th August, recommending the appointment of Court Official Valuers was communicated officially to the Irish Executive, and contained the well considered views of all the Commissioners in favour of the proposal; whether he received a deputation in Dublin which publicly gave some views opposed to these appointments, and the First Lord of the Treasury lately laid upon the Table a memorial of the same purport; and, whether, under these circumstances, it is desirable to keep secret the memorandum which caused and justified the appointments?

The recommendation of the Land Commissioners referred to in this Question is an official communication from one Government Department to another, and quite fulfils the conditions referred to by the right hon. and learned Member. As I have already explained, the Land Commissioners unanimously object to its being presented. I have recognized the truth of the facts stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but I cannot see any point in this Question which should induce me to depart from the answer on the matter which I have already communicated to the House.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman considered the Irish Court of Land Commission to be a Government Department?

Inasmuch as it makes recommendations by letter on questions which we may call administrative, it may be called a Government Department. But inasmuch as it gives judgment, I have always endeavoured, though under great difficulty, considering the nature of the Questions to which I am subjected in this Blouse, to protest against its having any connection with the Government whatsoever.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If an application from the Commanding Officer 2nd Battalion Staffordshire Rangers, for an Officer of Royal Marines to succeed to the vacant Adjutancy caused by the death of the late Captain and Adjutant Luxmoore, R.M.L.I., has been refused: and, if so, the reason for such refusal?

No application was received from the officer commanding the 2nd Battalion Staffordshire Rangers for an Adjutant from the Royal Marines. An officer from the territorial regiment has been selected for the appointment.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If any reply has been sent to a letter, dated 26th ult., written by the Honourable Salvatore Cachia Zammit (an elected Member of the Malta Council of Government) concerning some pending questions; whether he is aware that tomorrow is the day fixed for the opening of the Malta Session, and that the proceedings of the Council are not unlikely to be largely influenced by the view taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to these questions; if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists; whether any steps can be taken to restore to the Maltese people some control over their own local affairs; and, if there is any objection to lay a Copy of the Correspondence with Mr. Cachia Zammit upon the Table of the House?

There is no objection to lay on the Table Mr. Zammit's letter with the Secretary of State's reply. I do not think it probable that the Malta Council will meet as soon as the hon. Member seems to think, as five of the unofficial Members have just resigned their seats on account of the election of a pauper by the inhabitants of Gozo to a seat at the Council Board. There has been considerable dissatisfaction expressed by two opposite parties—namely, by those who think the Government have done too much, and also by those who think they have done too little in the way of improvement and reform. There has been every desire to regard the wishes of the Maltese people in respect of local affairs; and it is only in cases where it has been thought that Imperial interests were involved that the votes of the elected Members have been overruled by the official majority.

inquired whether the dissatisfaction had found expression in the Correspondence to which reference had been made?

replied that, upon that point, the hon. Member must draw his own deductions.

asked the Vice President of the Council, How many outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease have taken place since the Return published in the "Gazette" of Tuesday 22nd instant, and in what counties they have occurred?

There was no Gazette Return of foot-and-mouth disease on the 22nd of November; but since the Return of the 24th instant, which included all outbreaks up to the 18th, there have been 103 fresh outbreaks, including to-day's Return. Fifty-six of these have been in the county of Norfolk, nine in Essex, and seven in Suffolk. The remaining 31 have been spread over 15 counties, of which Surrey is one with two outbreaks. We have passed an Order restricting the sales of store stock in the counties of Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, from the 10th of December, and we purpose to add to the list from time to time any districts that may become seriously affected. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the Veterinary Department is exercising the greatest vigilance and vigour in dealing with the recent outbreak of disease.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will remove some uncertainty which exists respecting the scope of the General Police Bill for Scotland, proposed to be introduced next Session, by stating whether the legislation contemplated is intended to apply to large towns as well as police burghs?

The legislation contemplated is intended to apply to large towns as well as police burghs.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the evidence given before the Royal Commission for the Advance of Technical Education, with a view to utilizing the information gained on the Continent for the amelioration of the condition of the population of the West and the North West of Ireland, by providing technical instruction in industries suited to the condition of the people?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the Question. The evidence before the Royal Commission on Technical Instruction is not yet complete, and none has yet been presented. The Chairman, Mr. Samuelson, and Mr. Magnus visited Ireland last September for the purpose of placing the Commission in communication with persons in a position to give information on the best means of introducing domestic industries into the West of Ireland; and they have issued a series of questions which are now in circulation, and to which some replies containing valuable information have already been received. Mr. Woodall and the Secretary, Mr. Redgrave, undertook a journey through the Black Forest and Thuringia in order to inspect the home industries carried on there. A Report on their visit is now being prepared by them for the information of the Commission. The Commissioners are now in Belgium, and some of them will proceed to Holland. They are including domestic industries in their inquiry in those countries. I understand it is probable that they may make a special Report on this part of the subject, apart from their general Report.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can inform the House of the probable cost of the recent Naval and Military operations in Egypt; and, whether it will be necessary to submit Supplementary Estimates for Army and Navy Services during the current financial year?

I will answer the first and second parts of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question before coming to the figures. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to ask the House for Votes on Account of the Army and Navy; but whether, and how far, they will be Supplementary Estimates, or whether they will be in the shape of a further Vote of Credit, is a question which for the present we shall reserve. The figures are simply these. The House will remember that the original Estimates were—For the War Office, £900,000; and for the Admiralty, £1,400,000; making a total of £2,300,000. The Supplementary Estimate up to the 1st of October—the epoch at which the War charge, properly so-called, accrued to the Exchequer of this country, apart from the question of contribution from Egypt—will be £750,000 for the War Office, and £310,000 for the Admiralty, making together £1,060,000. Putting together these two sums, already authorized and estimated to be required down to the 1st of October the total charge borne, and to be borne, by the British Exchequer, is £3,360,000. Then there is the Indian Contingent, which was originally estimated in India at £1,880,000. The expenses of that Contingent have been very considerably less—namely, £1,140,000. But I ought to state that the original Estimate included a sum of which we are not precisely informed, but it would not be very large—not more than a fraction of the whole—for the difference in the ordinary pay of the men sent from India. The actual charge borne out of the Indian Revenues in the first instance is £1,140,000, making a total charge for the operations of the war, including the transport of the men, of £4,500,000. I have only two other points to mention. One is that the extra charge from the 1st of October is one which we have reason to expect will be borne entirely, or almost so, by the Egyptian Revenues. It will not be a large charge for the current financial year. It may have to be voted by this House in the first instance; but, if so, when the Vote is asked for, a full statement will be made as to the arrangements for repayment. The other point is, that I have spoken of these payments without any reference to the final repartition of the charge between England and India, which is a matter that is under the consideration of the Government; and, when they have had the proper communication, they will make known their views and their proposals to the House.

asked whether the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made included the ordinary pay of the troops only, or the extra pay and allowances also? He also wished to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India whether, as four months had passed since the subject first came before the House, he could not, before the end of the Session, present a statement to the House of the whole details connected with that transaction? He asked the noble Marquess whether he could give Papers as to the first communications between the Home Government and India on the subject?

That part of the Question which belongs to the province of my noble Friend I must leave to him. With respect to the sum which I mentioned in answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. Member asked me whether it includes the ordinary pay only, or likewise the extra pay and allowances? The ordinary pay, I thought I stated before, is not included either in the case of India or this country. All that is included and has been sent to us at the Treasury are the special allowances in connection with the war, and the whole extra charge connected with, the war.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's recent letter to the "Times" newspaper, and, whether, having regard to the replies given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to questions relating to the trial of Arabi Pacha and the employment of counsel in his defence, he intends to allow the costs of such trial to be defrayed by a private individual; or, whether, seeing that the Government have stated that they had "secured" for the prisoners, who surrendered to our troops, "the benefit of counsel and publicity of trial," he will undertake to defray, out of public funds, the costs already paid by Mr. Blunt from his private purse, and such further expenditure as may be necessary to insure a full and fair trial of the accused?

On this subject I have to make a very brief reply. Her Majesty's Government have not in any way entered into or been responsible for, nor do they intend to make themselves responsible for, any of the proceedings of Mr. Blunt in regard to Egyptian affairs and the operations in Egypt, and they have no intention to defray any part of the expenses of the proceedings taken for the defence of Arabi, and those who, in common with him, are arraigned in Egypt, either for an act of rebellion, or otherwise.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the causes which have led to disturbances in Skye, and serious agitation in Caithness and other parts of Scotland; and, whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government having decided against the appointment of a Commission, he will, before the House rises, give a day for the discussion of the question? The hon. Member further asked whether the attention of the Prime Minister had been called to the reports in the newspapers of a very serious state of affairs existing between the tenant farmers in Caithness and the proprietors? The right hon. Gentleman might not, he added, be aware from the newspapers that there was likely to be a very serious difficulty. In asking the Question he apologized for any appearance of importunity on the ground of the extreme urgency of the case.

With regard to the state of affairs in Caithness, I, like the hon. Member, have seen a statement in the newspapers which indicates differences between a Caithness proprietor and his tenants; but I am in no condition to give any official information, nor is it likely we should have under the circumstances; nor am I in a condition to give an opinion on the subject, except this—that I think both in Caithness and Skye, from whence we hear reports of a different kind tending towards popular commotion, that matters are in such a state as to render it peculiarly incumbent on the Government to consider very carefully what course it may be proper to take, in order to avoid any steps which might possibly lead to inconvenient consequences. The hon. Member will recollect that the difficulty in Skye at the present moment occurs under these circumstances—that there are legal rights in contest between one and more proprietors and a number of tenants, that the natural course would be that these rights should be ascertained; but that at present there is an appearance of resistance to the first step towards ascertaining—namely, the service of writs, or whatever the proper name may be for that step in Scotland. With regard to the appointment of a Commission, the hon. Member will recollect that there was an opportunity for full discussion of this matter in the summer, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate stated, on the part of the Government, the reasons which led them to believe that it would not be wise to issue a Royal Commission on the subject. On the facts placed before them, Her Majesty's Government cannot see in anything any reason for departing from that determination. Of course, if we are in that state of mind, it almost follows that I must answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question in the negative, and say that we are not prepared before the House rises to give a day for the discussion of this subject. With regard to any apparent importunity on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I beg him to believe that nothing could be further from my intention than to make any charge against him on that subject. I am sure he does it from an earnest and philanthropic interest in the matter.

asked the Prime Minister, if he could not give a day, whether he would use his influence with a distinguished Member who sat behind the Government to remove the block on the subject from the Paper, and he (Mr. Macfarlane) would do the rest himself?

said, he could not undertake to interfere with the course any hon. Member proposed to take. It would be setting an awkward precedent.

asked the Lord Advocate whether he had received any confirmation of the statement that the dispute in the Braes district had been settled?

I have not received any information of a definite settlement; but I received information last night that there was a probability of its being settled—that negotiations were in progress which, it was thought, would result in a settlement.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will afford facilities, before the Session ends, for the discussion of a Motion standing on the Order Book in the name of the honourable Member for Sligo, arising out of the Report and Proceedings of the Select Committee on Privilege in the case of Mr. E. D. Gray?

, in reply, said, he saw no call upon them to make any special arrangements, and no special advantage in raising this question at the present moment. He did not recognize in it any character of urgency which would make it necessary to be discussed at the present time, as compared with a period at the commencement of the next Session, when hon. Gentlemen would have their own opportunities in the regular course of Business. He did not wish to appear discourteous to the hon. Members opposite; but he would say that it was a very difficult matter for him to interfere with this proceeding of individual Members; and if he was asked in one instance to use influence to induce a particular Member to take a particular course, he felt it would be introducing an awkward precedent, because he did not feel that he was entitled to interfere in that way. He was by no means sure that discussion of this subject was desirable; because, what he wished to signify was that it was the duty of the Government to see to the proper execution of the law, and he did not at all feel that their taking this step at the present time would tend to promote that object.

I wish to redeem a pledge I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) on the subject of the inquests, so called, on the murderers of Professor Palmer and his coadjutors. We have a telegram to-day, from which we are led to expect that on or before Christmas the whole of those concerned—no doubt a considerable number, between 20 and 30—will be brought to Suez, and together with them another number of persons who are competent to give evidence in the case.

There is no reason to doubt that the guilty persons will be fully and properly punished?

We have no reason to doubt it. The expectation held out to us is a confident expectation. There is no reason whatever to doubt it.

Is there any information as to the servant of Captain Gill? He had a servant, who has been missing and not accounted for.

According to the best information we have, the Native servant of Captain Gill was included among those who were killed.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a battalion of 900 Royal Marines and Marine Artillery, under the command of a Lieutenant Colonel of Marines, was landed in July last at Alexandria from Her Majesty's Troopship "Tamar," but was not placed under the Army Regulation Act for some days; whether during this period the Naval officer commanding the "Tamar" had to go ashore daily to dispose of defaulters and prisoners in the battalion, although he was of standing junior to the Marine officer commanding the battalion; and, whether such change will be made in the status of the officers of Royal Marines as will prevent such an occurrence for the future?

The Marines who were landed from the Tamar were not placed under the Army Act owing to express orders to that effect from the Board of Admiralty, the reason being that it was not at that time probable that they would permanently form part of the military force at Alexandria. As soon as they became incorporated in the military force, they were made subject to the Army Act for purposes of discipline. Until this was done, they were, no doubt, while on shore at Alexandria, in a somewhat anomalous position, though I cannot without inquiry say whether the facts were precisely as stated in the hon. and learned. Member's Question. The anomalies which arise in such circumstances, and in certain other cases, have for some time been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and we will see whether any modification of existing arrangements is necessary.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could give the House any additional information with respect to the deplorable occurrences in Dublin yesterday; whether any further arrests have been made; and, whether the Government would consider it necessary to take measures for the protection of jurymen in the exercise of their functions? I am sure it would interest the House to know whether any arrests have been made in connection with the occurrences that have taken place.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask whether the attention of the Government has been called to the language used by Michael Davitt in his speech at Navan, which language is of a most inflammatory character? At the meeting there were two Members of Parliament present—the hon. Members for Westmeath and for Meath; and I should like to know what steps the Government intend to take in this matter?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether the hon. and gallant Baronet has a right to use argumentative phrases, such as that "language was of a most inflammatory character," in place of submitting to the judgment of the House the exact words of which he complains?

The hon. and gallant Baronet appears to me to have applied an epithet that is open to controversy.

With regard to the speech of Mr. Davitt, the questions of the action of the Irish Government with reference to speeches and articles are questions which involve very careful and long consideration, and afterwards communications, sometimes protracted, between Members of the Government. I answered the hon. and gallant Baronet yesterday that a speech, which had been made some time before that, was under consideration, and he was satisfied with the answer. I need not say with regard to Michael Davitt's speech, that it is yet under consideration, because Business has been so pressing during the last few days in the Irish Office in London, and in the Irish Office in Dublin, that nothing official has passed yet on the subject of that speech. With regard to the question whether any arrests have been made, I imagine that none have been made, because I telegraphed early in the day to have any information on that point sent to me, and because I have spent a considerable time with Mr. Jen-kinson—a very active officer—and he had not, up to that time, heard of any arrests. With regard to the Question of my right hon. Friend, that matter has certainly occupied the attention of the Government, and has occupied it very promptly; and communications of great importance with regard to the means of preserving the peace in Dublin have been passing to-day, and will probably bear some fruit. The only telegram of interest I have to communicate to the House is with relation to the condition of Mr. Field. Dr. Kaye, Assistant Secretary, says—

"I have seen the two medical men in attendance on Mr. Field, who was so badly wounded, and they both say he has had a more favourable night than could be expected; but his state is most critical."

Are the Government in a position to state how far they have reason to believe that the speech attributed to Mr. Davitt in this morning's papers has been correctly reported?

There is a Question on that subject upon the Paper for to-morrow.

Were any Government reporters present?

I shall be ready to answer that Question to-morrow. I can hardly be blamed for not having the information now.

said, he was sure the whole House deeply sympathized with the regret expressed by Sir Erskine May, and the cause which had necessitated Mr. Lyon Playfair taking the Chair; but, before the unfortunate circumstance occurred, which they all sincerely trusted might not be of any serious moment, the Prime Minister had just addressed the House, and he (Mr. Plunket) would make a brief commentary upon that speech. He did not think it necessary to speak at much length, because the various Members who had addressed the House since his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) opened the debate had really not touched the main grounds upon which he rested his case. The two main grounds were that by the action of the Government, as declared by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, a precedent had been set for the interference by the Executive Government in Ireland with the action of the Land Commissioners in a matter which was essentially theirs, and in which they ought not to be interfered with. No answer had been made to that charge at all. The other complaint, and the main ground of his right hon. and learned Friend, was the language—as he thought the most unfortunate language—which had been used by the Chief Secretary in dealing with this subject when receiving a deputation of Ulster Liberals. The Prime Minister commenced by criticizing some practical observations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), and had reproached him because he spoke of Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act as sub-confiscators. He thought the Prime Minister might have remembered that the hon. Member had had a considerable portion of his rent, though not so large as some landlords, taken away through no fault or act of his own, and through some principle entirely new to the law of this country. If he did speak warmly it should not be forgotten that the Prime Minister had encouraged the acceptance of the Act, and he" did not doubt secured it by holding out that reductions would only occur in certain exceptional cases, that they would not be the general rule, and that good landlords would get off scot free. His hon. Friend had not found that to be the case, although one of the best landlords in the country, and if he spoke warmly there was some excuse for his language. Why, there had been a general, reduction of rents all round of more than 20 per cent. Into that question, however, he did not wish to enter. The immediate subject before the House was the question raised by his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague, and upon that he felt bound to say that the ground taken up by the Government was radically and fundamentally bad. Power had not been given to the Government to appoint valuers, because it was feared that their appointments would be open to suspicion. The same danger existed now. The original idea was to leave the appointment of the valuers to the Land Commission; and the only control given to the Government was that of assenting, through the Treasury, to the appointments. He was greatly struck by a curious expression used by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who said that the Treasury ought to have the appointment of these officials, and that the Commissioners ought only to arrange what salaries they were to receive. Of course, the direct reverse of this was the case. The Prime Minister gave two reasons why the Land Commissioners did generally advocate the appointment of valuers. He said it was for the purpose of increasing the expedition and the action of the Land Commissioners in valuing fair rents; and, secondly, for the purpose of diminishing appeals. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the experiment was tried and had failed, and he said that if it had succeeded at all it had only infinitesimally succeeded—of course, they had not the figures before them, so they could not judge for themselves. The Land Act had been in operation but a short time, and the plan under which the valuers were appointed had been at work a still shorter time. But, as to the hope expressed that it would have the effect of diminishing appeals, the Prime Minister said that that had also failed—at least, he said that there was not much evidence of any improvement being made. Again, it was impossible for the House to judge of that matter, because the Government would not give up the document in which the Commissioners had recorded their opinion. It was not possible for him to approach the Prime Minister upon that matter; but he would remark that it was not the right hon. Gentleman nor the Irish Executive who ought to be the umpire as to what should be the plan, whether the plan was a success or not, but it was the Land Commissioners. Although it was the main ground of the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague who introduced this Motion, the Prime Minister had not informed the House what it was that the Land Commissioners had not changed their opinion as to the propriety of appointing these valuers, and why they continued their opposition to the abolition of the valuers, until the Government interfered with the power which the Treasury gave them, and took away from the Commissioners that assistance which they thought was politic, and which had been conceded to them only a short time previously. The Prime Minister had stated that the ground upon which the valuers had been appointed had been cut away. That was not, he contended, a sufficient reason to give; and what they wanted to know was, whether the ground was cut away from under the feet of the Land Commissioners when they appointed the valuers? The Prime Minister made a calculation to show in what way time and money were to be economized by the abolition of these valuers. It appeared to him, however, that the expenses would be indefinitely increased, while time would not be saved under the new system. The valuers would now be called Sub-Commissioners, with, he supposed, an addition to their salary, and a larger number of men to do the work. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to say what were the advantages which he expected to derive from the new system. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk found fault with his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) for bringing this matter suddenly before the House; but how else was the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get the information he wished for? All their opportunities had been taken away, and in this Autumn Session they were not able to obtain what they wanted except by the course now adopted. If the answer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland earlier in the day had been satisfactory, no Motion for Adjournment would have been made. Moreover, the time was slipping away. Those appointments would soon be gone, and what would be the use of protesting after they had been abolished? It would come like a pardon after an execution. He did not propose to argue at all whether the action of the valuers had been to the advantage of the landlords. That was just the very view of the case which he deprecated, and which he was entitled to denounce. The ground on which he objected to the action which the Government were now entering upon was this—that they were interfering by means of the Irish Executive, and through the control the Treasury gave them were endeavouring to disappoint the intentions, to thwart the policy, and to overthrow the discretion of the Land Commissioners, who ought to know what was best on this subject, who alone had practical experience, and whoso action in this matter ought, for every reason, to be as free as possible from the influence of the Executive of the day. He objected altogether to the Executive dealing with this question. Suppose another Government were to succeed to power, why there would be an utter want of confidence in the action of these Commissioners if it were thought that they could be overborne by the Government of the day. Then, too, he had to complain seriously of the speech which was delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to a deputation which waited upon him in October last. If ever there was an occasion upon which a Minister ought to be careful what expressions he used, surely that was such an occasion. His right hon. and learned Friend had made one quotation from that speech, and he (Mr. Plunket) would make another. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"We shall have a statement from all the (Sub-Commissioners in the same manner, and if the general conclusion to be drawn is that the tenants have not at all lost by the change, then I am sure that the tenants will be willing to arrive at the same conclusion; and if, on the other hand, we come to the conclusion they have lost by the change, the Government will sympathize with them and feel that they have taken a step injurious to them."

said, he must express his regret that more of his Colleagues from the North of Ireland were not in their seats when the Chief Secretary for Ireland made his very satisfactory statement to the House. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) that all that was wanted was fair and impartial justice. If the farmers of the North of Ireland desired more than that they must find some other exponent of their views than himself. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) had spoken of public plunder. If he saw the Sub-Commissioners adopting a policy of public plunder, or putting their hands into other people's pockets, the Land Act would have to find some other exponent than himself. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last took exception to the speech made by the Chief Secretary in October last. There were some observations which might bear the construction the right hon. and learned Gentleman put upon them; but as he himself introduced the deputation, he might state that the impression left on their minds by those observations was not similar to the construction which had been put upon them. Their impression was that the valuers had been appointed for an express purpose—namely, to expedite the decisions under the Land Act; and that, if they did not bring about that result, they would be changed. The Prime Minister said the appointments had not increased the number of cases heard, or the number of fair rents fixed, and had not decreased the plethora with which the Courts were gorged; and he thought that was sufficient reason for going back to the old procedure of the time when the Land Act was introduced. The gravamen of hon. Members opposite appeared to be that the Government had given way to clamour. The only charge that could be brought against the Government was that of having given way to clamour. But if the term popular sentiment were substituted for clamour the question would assume a different aspect. It was unwise in such matters to disregard popular sentiment. Without, however, wishing to throw any cant or any charge at hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he might safely state this—that if there were any very strong public sentiment raised in the North of Ireland against the appointment of these valuers on their attachment to the Court, it arose from the action of the Conservative Party, and their attitude towards the Land Act ever since it became law. The Land Act was not long in existence before a landlords' meeting in Dublin was convened, and ridiculous statements were bandied about respecting the in competency of the Sub-Commissioners, and equally ridiculous stories as to the rapidity of their valuations. It was said of one of them that he poked his stick into the ground, drew it up again, with the decision, "Fifteen shillings an acre." Shortly after that followed a proposal in "another place" that a Committee should be appointed to consider the working of the Land Act, and a noble Lord in the "other place" stated that the object of the Committee was to revolutionize the administration of the Land Act. But owing to the spirited action of the Government that object failed. Then followed a guerilla warfare on their part, and individual Sub-Commissioners were attacked. In one instance a Sub-Commissioner was objected to because it was stated he was an ex-publican. It turned out, however, that the gentleman in question was both tenant farmer and landlord—that he had been recommended by the highest authorities, and that he had been complimented by Captain Gibson, brother of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, for the discrimination and care with which he had fixed fair rents. This course of action begot a very strong sentiment in the minds of the tenants that the Sub-Commissioners were their friends—more, perhaps, than really they were; but when they found in their places the valuers they objected to them, and objected much more than if the action had not previously been taken. Those objections were threefold. In the first place, the tenant farmers in the North of Ireland boldly stated that a change in the administration of the Act was a breach of faith with them. They looked upon it in this light, and they justified their opinion. They called to mind that after the Land Act was passed every inducement was offered in some parts of Ireland for the tenants not to avail themselves of the Land Court. A document was sent to him the other day containing the following words—" Hold the harvest; pay no rent; avoid the Land Court."

What is the date of that document?

I do not know the date of the document?

Is it more than a year old?

It is less than a year old.

Was that document issued in consequence of the attempted suppression of the Land League and the arrest of the Irish Members?

was unable to say, but after the passage of the Land Act such a document was issued; but, notwithstanding such pernicious advice, 32,000 Ulster tenants poured into the Land Court; and the fact of their doing so was, he believed, greatly owing to the number of cases that came from other parts of Ireland. Those 32,000 tenants sent in their originating notices on the faith of fair rents being fixed on certain procedures; and now was it fair or just for the Land Commissioners to alter that procedure without the consent of the applicants for originating notices, bearing in mind that they could not withdraw from the Court without the consent of the opposing party? Another objection which was held to be good against the appointment of valuers, and which he considered extremely valid, was the amount of friction they caused in the working of the Land Act. The valuers were of the Commission, and yet not in it. They were, or had been, imperium in imperio. The valuer gave his report on the fair rent separately from the Report of the Commissioners; and the following was therefore the result, or had been the result in his experience:—If the valuer sent in a report stating a farm was worth less than a fair rent fixed, then the tenant thought he had a grievance, and was apt to appeal. If, on the other hand, the valuer sent in a report that the rent was higher than the fair rent fixed, the landlord naturally thought the Land Commissioners were not dealing fairly with him, and was apt to appeal. Then, if for peace sake, as might sometimes have been the case, the Sub-Commissioners adopted the value of the valuer, then the valuer became master of the situation, and really decided the fair rent; but the objection which was the most fatal in the North of Ireland was the very name of valuator. In old times, before the existence of the protection thrown round the tenant farmers of Ireland by the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881, the valuer was a regular part of the machinery by which the landlord could squeeze the rent out of his tenant to an unfair point. If a sale took place from an old and generous proprietor in Ireland to a mere speculative purchaser it was the sign of a visit of an "impartial valuer," and this impartial valuer seldom gave any decision other than a raise of rent. Therefore, it was not altogether unreasonable that they should bring upon themselves the name of "rent-raisers." But this was a mere piece of sentiment, and the Government could not give way to it. But then, on the other hand, they could not afford to ignore sentiment; and no doubt, had the Loader of the Opposition paid a visit to Belfast, he would not have done so. In conclusion, he was thankful to Her Majesty's Government for not having disregarded what he considered to be the proper and Constitutional expression of sentiment in the North and West of Ireland upon this subject, and he earnestly trusted that the algebraical prophecy of the Prime Minister might be fully realized.

said, he thought the House might fairly and justly join in an expression of sympathy with the hon. Member who had just sat down at the surprise which had fallen upon the Ulster Liberals, who, accustomed to having their respectful protestations disregarded by Her Majesty's Government, were now quite astonished to find that I the desired removal of the Court valuers had taken place without any consultation with them. He only hoped that the expression of the hon. Member's grief would be duly reported to his constituents, and that they would derive a useful lesson from it at the next election. If a Member of the House desired to bring pressure to bear upon a Liberal Government, he had better not be an Irish Liberal himself. Irish Liberals were too faithful, and Her Majesty's Government too sure of their attachment under all circumstances, to render any little appearance of discontent on their part a matter of the slightest importance in Ministerial eyes. There was no doubt, however, that several surprises had fallen upon the House that night. They had heard the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) declare his desire to prevent the increase of acerbity between Parties in that House. They had him coming forth in the novel character of a pourer of oil upon troubled waters. When the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary for Ireland his appearances in that character were decidedly few and far between. They had also witnessed the spectacle of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) protesting against the intrusion of the Executive into judicial operations; but it struck him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not one word of protest against the intrusion of the Irish Executive into the sphere of the judiciary when they deliberately interfered with the preparations of the Irish tenantry to bring their cases before the Land Courts in the form most suitable to them, and, in pursuance of the policy of interference, cast into gaol without trial the Representatives of the tenantry of Ireland. He was, therefore, inclined to think that the present protest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was based less on constitutional scruples than upon the selfish fears of his supporters in Ireland; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt surprise at the action of the Government, he ought to remember that no less a person than the Irish Solicitor General was the Representative of a tenant farmer constituency; and, if he recollected that the tenant farmers of Derry had threatened wholesale to withdraw their cases from the Land Courts unless the Court valuers were dismissed, he would have been at no loss to arrive at one of the reasons which induced the Government to get rid of these objectionable after growths of the Land Act. If the Court valuers were not dismissed, it would, at the next election, be decidedly a case of the dismissal of the Solicitor General from the representation of Derry. However, while he certainly thought the Government were wise in getting rid of the Court valuers, he was tempted to sympathize with the spirit of the exclamation of the Conservative Member for Armagh (Mr. Beresford), who asked—"How is all going to end? "This system of experimentation upon popular feeling was a poor remedy for Ireland. He wished the Government would lay before the country without delay some definite scheme for the settlement of the Land Question. Instead of the condemned Court valuers, whose conduct was perfectly irreproachable, but at the same time unendurable, they were to have a number of additional Sub-Commissioners. No increase in the number of Sub-Commissioners would settle the Irish Land Question; and if, instead of continuing experiments of the kind of dismissing Court valuers one day and appointing Court valuers the next; now disregarding the respectful protestations of the Ulster Liberals; now listening to the angry complaints of the Land League, and the vigorous tugging of Mr. Michael Davitt at what the Prime Minister would call the chapel bell; if, instead of pursuing a see-saw policy of that kind, the Government came forward with something like a clear and satisfactory settlement of the Land Question, based on the Land League programme, and introduced, he did not say some liberal, but some honest scheme of purchase, under which a peasant proprietary might be created by the purchase of their holdings by the tenants at a fair price, a great deal of the time of the House would be saved, and a great deal of discomfort, disorder, and discontent would be prevented in Ireland.

said, that if the object of the Government was to save time, nothing could be more calculated to further it and to enable land cases to be disposed of rapidly than the course which the Government had now adopted. He thought the Government fully justified in that course. It did not affect the judicial action of the Land Commission, but was a matter quite outside it. He did not know what was to be the quorum of a Sub-Commission as strengthened to five members; but if three was the quorum, then the Legal Sub-Commissioner and two others could be sitting whilst the other two were out examining lands to be dealt with at future sittings. That was a system which was calculated to remedy the defect which undoubtedly did exist under the old system. Apart from the question of saving time, there were much graver considerations, which made it wise and just to depart from the experiment which was tried for three months. The Government and the Land Commission must be taken as representing the force of the law in Ireland, and, no doubt, they did not act without consultation with one another; but if the Land Commission, in suggesting the appointment of land valuators, and the Executive, in following their recommendation, had made a mistake, the wisest and honestest course was to acknowledge that mistake at the earliest opportunity, and correct it. No doubt, the course taken by the Government was an interference with the decision arrived at by the Land Commission; but it was not an interference of a judicial description. The valuators in the Land Commission Courts were not in the position of Judges, and could scarcely be treated as witnesses; they were persons who exercised a paramount influence on the Court, but whose opinion was not binding. In the whole course of jurisprudence no instance of a body of persons placed in a similar position could be found. The appointment of these persons was entirely outside the judicial duties of the Land Commissioners. In most Acts of Parliament a question like that of the valuators was provided for by the Act; in this case it was delegated to the Commissioners as persons employed in an administrative capacity to carry out the Act. Such a matter was properly one for legislation, and the action of the Government with regard to it in no way constituted an interference with the judicial discretion of the Commissioners. He only regretted that the Government had not earlier taken the step they now proposed.

said, that, while the Prime Minister had denied that any charge had been made against the valuators, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) had approved of the decision of the Government as being in accordance with Irish popular opinion. What did that mean? He agreed with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that though the decision of the Government that night might be of small importance, yet there was a great question of principle behind—namely, where was this to end? The position of the landlords in Ireland was, in many respects, most miserable. However friendly their relations with their tenants, however low their rents, they found themselves in litigation, and their property gradually sliced away. If safeguards were provided for them—Acts of Parliament—popular pressure was brought upon the Government, and they were abolished. Although the Prime Minister denied that a charge had been made against the valuers, to the effect that since their appointment the reductions of rent had been less than before, yet the conduct of the Government emphasized that charge. By the act of dismissing or refusing to allow the valuators to be employed longer, the Government were endorsing that charge. If a charge were made against the Sub-Commissioners, and the Government were publicly to state their intention to dismiss them, and, at the same time, deny the accuracy of the charges made against them, would not the dismissal create the idea in the public mind that the Government considered them guilty? If that applied to the Sub-Commissioners it also applied to the valuers. It was said that the dismissal was in accordance with popular opinion in Ireland. What was popular opinion in Ireland? Owing to the large number of tenants in proportion to the landlord class, popular opinion meant the views of one class of suitors before the Land Commission. One of the arguments used on behalf of the Government at the time of the establishment of the Land Court was that it would be a tribunal strong enough to withstand the pressure of the popular Party; and yet now, as soon as pressure of that kind was exercised in connection with that tribunal, the Government gave way. If the business of the Sub-Commissioners had not been expedited by the appointment of the land valuers, the reason was very simple. These valuers, who were experts, were three or four times as long about valuing a farm as the Sub-Commissioners, who discharged the duties of valuations in a very perfunctory manner. If farms were to be valued fairly, business could not be got through more quickly than at present. That the employment of valuers had not resulted in a reduction of the number of appeals was no fault of theirs. As long as varying decisions were given by the Commissioners on the question of fair rent, there would, of course, be appeals. The serious part of the position of the Government was that they were usurping functions which, if not legally, at least morally, did not belong to them. The Land Commission had the power to appoint valuers, and, under the Land Act, the Executive had no right to interfere. But because the action of the valuers was influencing a certain number of votes in the North of Ireland, the Government made an unfair use—["Oh!"]—of the powers vested by the Land Act in the Treasury, with the object of counteracting that influence. It was notorious that the change in the views of the Government was the result of pressure exercised upon them from the North of Ireland. Where was this to end? Would not every succeeding Government be apt to submit itself in the same way to popular pressure? The Prime Minister, at the commencement of the Session, denounced a proposed Committee, on the ground that its investigations would interfere with the judicial decisions under the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman said—

"That the object of Parliament had been to fence the Land Commission round so that nobody could interfere with it."

objected to the change of policy on the part of the Government, because every new change led people to believe in further changes, and not to wait until they saw whether they might be benefited by what was to be done. Men skilled in the valuing of land were to be laid aside, and lawyers were to occupy the chief positions. Landholders were excluded because they were landowners. Tenants were not excluded; but they ought to be excluded as well as the landlords, if fair play were done, because they were on the other side. There were 17 Land Commissions, on which there was one legal Commissioner and two lay Commissioners. Therefore, 34 new men would be required. But when the House recollected the criticisms passed upon some former appointments, they would come to the conclusion that the Government would have very great difficulty in finding 34 fit men. The new men would be inexperienced; and, therefore, when one of them went out to examine land with his senior, he would naturally follow the judgment of the latter, and therefore it would be just as well if the more experienced Commissioner had gone out alone. There was nothing in which people could have so little confidence as in a Government which was so constantly changing, which did not know its own mind, and which was always setting its sails to the popular wind. His hon. Colleague"; (Mr. T. A. Dickson), the most prominent man in the agitation, had prophesied that before the end of three months the whole of the late arrangement would be knocked on the head, and so it was. But this uncertainty had exercised the most baneful influence upon the country—it had prevented some from going into Court, and had induced others to withdraw, in the hope that there would be another batch of Commissioners who would lower rents still more. There was another element in the case which should not be overlooked. Those who could not pay had not gone into Court; but many who could had stopped back, because they believed that the Government would give them a longer time, and now they would be "sold," because they would find themselves unable to go into Court; and as to the Irish proprietors, he was not one of those who wished to be bought out or forced to leave the country to which he and others were as much attached as any peasant could be. Many of the Irish proprietors were of old Irish descent, quite as much as those who professed alone to represent the Irish people, and why they should be brought out any more than the peasants he could not see. This he would say—that until even-handed justice was done between man and man no Government would obtain the respect of the Irish people.

apologized for the absence of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), who had just been referred to. The hon. Member stayed in the House several days awaiting this discussion, and would have come over to-day had he expected it to come on. All he had done was to tell the farmers that if they found the working of the Land Act was slower under the system of Court valuers they might rely upon the promise of the Chief Secretary that it should be discontinued. Whilst the tenant farmers of the North of Ireland desired that this Land Act should be final, they had a perfect right to demand a just administration of that Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) had stated that what was now being done by the Government was a great change. It was nothing of the kind; it was simply reverting to the old system. For 12 months the Laud Act worked in a fairly reasonable manner, but slowly, and the Government tried to expedite its working; but the plan they adopted failed, and consequently they reverted to the old practice. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not allow himself to be browbeaten by the speeches of right hon. and lion. Gentlemen opposite, who, a few months ago, could find no charges strong enough to bring against the Sub-Commissioners, nor allow anything of that kind to prevent him from carrying out the intentions the House had in passing the Act. The object of the Act was to make the property of the tenant of land in Ireland equally sacred in the e3res of the law, and equally safe with that of the landlord. He believed that under the system which the Government were abandoning that intention was not fully carried out; and he urged them to maintain the Land Act in its integrity, and to give the protection which was necessary to attain the objects for which it was passed.

said, that the object of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) in moving the adjournment of the House was to enter his protest, in the strongest possible manner, at the earliest moment available to a Member of Parliament, against the constant interference which had been going on since the Royal Assent had been given to the Land Act on the part of the Irish Executive with a judicial body—an interference which had been carried to such an extent as positively to amount to a pollution of justice—[" Hear!" and a laugh]—he repeated, to a pollution of justice, which would have been stigmatized as disgraceful if it had occurred in a Turkish Pashalik. It was clear that there was a most unconstitutional—he might say an incestuous—connection between the Commission in Merrion Street and Dublin Castle, though no unconstitutional practice had in time past been more strenuously or more successfully resisted than an interference with a Court of Justice. Now, the valuers, about whom so much fuss had been made, were appointed in strict pursuance of the Act, and in accordance with the repeated recommendations of the Commissioners themselves. That the Act itself contemplated their appointment was evident from the words of the 37th section, which provided that the Court might direct an independent valuer to report to it his opinion on any matter referred to him by the Court, such Report to be accompanied by a statement of the circumstances of the case. The valuers, in fact, were appointed by the Court, and the principle of valuation was not only admitted, but also recommended by the section he had quoted. Now, however, the valuers were to be put an end to by the Government after only six weeks' experience of their services, and without any valid reason alleged. In that six weeks probably no more than about 200 cases had been tried; but had they shown the incompetence of the valuers? If so, let the Chief Secretary say in what part of their technical work there had been a miscarriage of justice. But, after all, who had complained of their conduct? The details of the agitation against them ought to be before the House; but the House was never allowed to have details, and had to be content with the generalities which were so easily swallowed by the Prime Minister's supporters. The late Chief Secretary had said that the appeals did not diminish; but why should they diminish? [A laugh.] He should like to ask the Prime Minister, who seemed so merry, why measures should be taken either to diminish the appeals under the Act, or, for the matter of that, to increase them? What, in short, was the title of the Government to interfere with the administration of a law? Only the other day he had heard the Chief Secretary say that he had written to the Commissioners with respect to the interpretation of the Hanging Gale Clause, and had impressed upon them the expediency of giving a decision on that point. Was ever such a thing done in England? And yet the Chief Secretary had told the Commissioners to do this, with or without a case before them, in order to suit the convenience of the Government. He wondered whether any Government would attempt so to degrade an English Court. As. for the action of the valuers, he presumed that their decisions, being based on a knowledge of the value of land, would tend to diminish the number of appeals; and he believed that, contrary to the view of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), it was most undesirable that they should be placed in the power of litigants by the publication of their Reports. The Prime Minister said that in a document, which he declined to produce, the two reasons appeared which induced the Government to appoint these valuers—namely, that their employment would increase the rapidity of the tribunals, and would diminish the number of appeals. Those were the only reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman; but how could the right hon. Gentleman be sure that the Commissioners had given all their reasons? If they had done so, it was very doubtful whether they would have been listened to by the Government. In all human probability, other reasons influenced them also; but they had either not placed them on record or had stated them in the second document which existed on this subject, but which the Government declined to produce. The truth was that the object of the Government was becoming clearer and clearer every day. The intention was to reduce Irish rents all round, with an utter disregard of right and wrong; to reduce them largely when the country was disturbed, and more moderately in times of peace. As to doing justice alike to landlord and tenant, that never entered the Prime Minister's head. He was always appealing to the divine right of justice; but ever since the Land Act passed the divine right of justice had boon outraged and repudiated. There was no doubt that public opinion in England was shocked at the enormous and inconsiderate deductions of rent first made by the Sub-Commissioners—reductions which were made in the teeth of all the predictions and assurances of Members of the Government. No doubt, the reductions exercised for a moment a pacifying effect on the National feeling of Ireland. In addition, there had been the Kilmainham Treaty; after that Ireland became a little quieter; and then it was that this application of the Land Commission for the appointment of additional valuators had some slight chance of favourable consideration from the Government. The consequence was that in some cases, which excited a good deal of attention at the time, the reduction of rents was not quite so large, and there was a greater approach to divine justice. There was a tremendous outcry at once. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) said the Government yielded entirely on account of the outcry from Ulster. He did not think the Government cared twopence half-penny about Ulster; it might cry and complain as long as it liked against the Court valuers if other things had not happened. There was an apparent probability that treason and all the offshoots of treason were again likely to raise their heads. He had never noticed that the chameleon like and versatile eloquence of the Members for Ulster had exorcised any influence on the Government. The only Party which did so, and which gained the ear of the Prime Minister, was the Party led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), the Party to the Kilmainham Treaty. A short time ago the attempt to murder an Irish Judge revived the memory of the murders in the Phœnix Park. Lately, there had been several incendiary speeches, reminding one of those which preceded the agitation of 1880. Her Majesty's Government quailed at once. When the House met Questions were put about the Court valuers. At that moment, apparently, the Government stood firm. But events had occurred since; and it was now seen in the answer of the Chief Secretary what effect they had had on the mind of the Government. It at once attempted to fall back on the old practice, and to buy off agitation. It arranged for rents to be reduced down to the old iniquitous standard of reduction, and that in the most insidious and malignant manner that could be adopted, for it could not have been done with more effrontery. They abolished the Court valuers, and said they were going to appoint additional lay Commissioners. What was the difference between them? The valuers were appointed by the Land Commissioners, a judicial body—at least, so far as the Government would allow it to be. The Court valuers were, in every sense of the word, specialists and experts acquainted with the science of valuing land. The Assistant Commissioners were appointed by the Government, and were nothing more or less than Government agents and tools, sensible to the slightest impression from Dublin Castle, and summoned from time to time to meet the Chief Secretary there if the original practice were still continued. The Prime Minister would have made the error of stating that there was to be no additional cost if the Chief Secretary had not corrected him. The valuers were to be got rid of, and there was to be a new set of men, picked up, Heavon knows where, who would command the confidence of none but the lowest class of the Irish people. The best barometer to indicate whether Ireland was peaceable or disturbed was the working of the Land Act. When Ireland was peaceable landlords were more mercifully treated; but when it was disturbed the more unblushingly and mercilessly was their property torn from them. The House could depend upon it that Ireland was getting into a more disturbed state on account of the announcement the Government had made that night. The Prime Minister had said that the object was to expedite the proceedings of the Land Commission; that merely meant that the reducing of rents all over Ireland was to proceed at express speed without the slightest regard to justice, allowing all the tenants to come in, not one by one, but simultaneously, to share the plunder. That was the process by which the Prime Minister told them confidence was to be restored, industrial enterprize to be established, and the fact proclaimed to the world at large that the relations between landlord and tenant were placed on a permanent and enduring basis. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman had most extraordinary methods of attaining his ends. The last step he had taken would do more than any other to frighten capital away from Ireland. In conclusion, he wished to ask an abstract question of the Government, which had some bearing on events now going on in Ireland—a question that, perhaps, the Chief Secretary would answer, although if the right hon. Gentleman did not answer it he (Lord Randolph Churchill) would put it to the public. His question was this—Who was the greatest criminal—he who, to secure the acquittal or to avenge the convictions of a murderer, stabbed a juryman in the street; or he who, to buy off political agitation, corrupted and poisoned the pure source of justice and assassinated justice? [Groans.] He should not be in the least disturbed by those expressions of disapproval. The course the Government had taken that night justified him in metaphorically asserting that they had assassinated the Courts of Justice; and he asked which was the greatest criminal—the man he had mentioned, or he who had assassinated a Court of Justice arbitrating between man and man? Which of those two parties was the most likely to inflict the most enduring and lasting misery on unfortunate Ireland?

confessed that he rose to reply with a feeling of some warmth, which, however, had not been increased, but rather diminished by the terrible interrogatory which had just been administered to him. He had listened to the speech of the noble Lord with the usual interest, and with no other feeling except, perhaps, a feeling that the general powers of political attack which the noble Lord undoubtedly possessed had suffered from the fact that his argument was somewhat overdrawn. From first to last too hot and high a tone had been given to the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had brought it on at a certain inconvenience to the House, went to Manchester, and, with great gravity and solemnity, charged him with having made a speech which no Minister ought to have made. At other places, and even before his own (Mr. Trevelyan's) constituents, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had not given an answer which was called for. At last the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he had got him face to face and would have an answer, and when he had risen to give it the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present. The question had been stated to the House by the two right hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson and Mr. Plunket), and by the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham), who never understood his case, and he would now proceed to answer them without replying to the attacks that had been made on the Government. The Government had been attacked from both sides of the House with reference to the appointment of valuers; but the Government had done its best to be painstaking and impartial in looking into the subject. Last Session many Members spoke to the effect that the Land Act was too slow in its operation, and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan) had brought in a Bill at the beginning of the Session to deal with the matter. At a later period men on both sides in politics and on agrarian politics united in saying that there would soon be a block in the Land Courts. Mr. Nicholl said that in Kerry two sets of Commissioners were required. Mr. Orr stated that it would take, at the then rate of progress, eight or ten years. Mr. Cottrell said that the number of cases waiting to be disposed of was enormous, and could not be got through in a reasonable time. Everybody agreed that the delay would amount to a denial of justice. It was true that a much more encouraging view was taken by official persons—by Mr. Litton, Mr. Godley, Secretary to the Land Commission, and Justice O'Hagan. Justice O'Hagan thought that by the end of 1883 all the cases would be disposed of. The Government felt it was a serious thing that there should be this delay, which would prevent the people from applying to the Land Courts, and in August they began to consider the matter, in order to see what could be done to facilitate the speedy hearing of all cases before the Courts. The Government consulted the Land Commissioners, so far they could within the limits of the Statute. With respect to the constitution of the Land Courts, the Go- vernment felt themselves to be responsible. At the same time, they would have been to blame if they had not consulted those who were working the Act, and held the position, and were acquiring the qualities of Judges. Accordingly, in August last, the Land Commission submitted to the Government a proposal intended to increase the expedition of trials and to diminish the number of appeals of which the essential features were—first, that each Sub-Commission should consist of three members, two legal and one lay Commissioner; secondly, that a valuer should be attached to each Sub-Commission; and, thirdly, that the legal Sub-Commissioner should sit in Court with one lay Commissioner, and that the remaining one should be engaged in valuing the fields. That was the expectation of the Commission and the Government, and on the question whether or not that expectation was realized the present controversy turned. He would not enter on the question whether the House of Commons did or did not declare itself against the appointment of those valuers during the debates on the Bill. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who showed that Section 47 of the Act clearly substantiated the right of the Government to appoint valuators. The Land Commission appointed 17 valuers, one of whom was attached to each Sub-Commission. These appointments at once attracted considerable attention, and roused a wide-spread feeling of apprehension; for, first of all, the valuation was to be made summarily, and then, also, it was not to be subject to cross-examination. He was bound to say—and he had given reasons to a deputation which waited on him on the subject for his opinion—that the apprehension was quite unfounded. But the real objection was as to the personal characteristics of the men, and to the name which they bore. It was said, and believed, that the men chosen were notoriously in the interests of the landowning class, whose sympathies were with the landlords against the tenants; and that Protestants had been appointed to the exclusion of Catholics. Now, he challenged the confidence both of Ulster tenants and Southern tenants in these men. If Catholics could not trust Lord O'Hagan, and if tenants could not trust Mr. Litton, he did not know who could be trusted by men of any religion or of any class. On what principle did they proceed to selection? On this point the Commissioners say—

"We must at once assume our proper share of the responsibility. The proposal to adopt the system of valuators emanated from us. We saw several candidates, made inquiries into their qualifications, and named the men who seemed to be the fittest, and as to their religion, we never dreamed of asking a question on this subject."

asked from what the right hon. Gentleman was quoting?

said, he ought to have stated that as coming from the Land Commissioners, and he frankly confessed he had been taking a liberty with the House; but he would see if the Land Commissioners would allow him to lay the document on the Table.

I wish your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is in the power of any Minister to quote from any document which he is not prepared to lay on the Table?

The right hon. Gentleman has already declared that he committed an irregularity; but that he would try to put himself in Order by putting it on the Table.

I understand from your ruling that the right hon. Gentleman is bound to lay it on the Table?

He mentioned that he had committed an irregularity; and, according to the Rules of the House, he has no right to quote from a document which is not on the Table, if any objection is made.

said, that he could not withdraw what he had said, and in the interests of the persons concerned he should be sorry to do so. What was the result? The result was that a body of men had been appointed valuers who were of the same class as the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The difference was that they gave their attention to the valuation of the land and the improvements that had been effected, by personal inspection on the land itself, without having the duty of settling in Court what value should be set on those improvements. Undoubtedly the existence of an apprehension that the Land Act would be worked in a manner unfavourable to the tenants was a very serious matter to the Executive Government, for, in his opinion, the fair and impartial working of the Act was essential to peace. It was a serious fact that general anxiety and panic, or something like a panic, did exist towards the end of last September. It found vent in newspapers and in speeches, and eventually in a large deputation of Ulster tenant farmers, which waited on him at Dublin Castle. He could quote speeches which were made which would show that their anxiety was great and their apprehension genuine, that the valuers were men who were entirely in the interests of the landlords, and who would decide against the tenants. These expressions on the part of sincere and representative men were a very serious matter indeed; and it was his evident and plain duty to re-assure the minds of the tenants. If, in his own mind, he believed the changes recently made had not impaired the impartiality of the Land Courts, the undoubted belief of the tenants was that the valuers were prejudiced against them in every possible manner, and that they could not get justice. He (Mr. Trevelyan), on the other hand, did entertain the belief that they would have justice done them when they came before the Sub-Commissioners, and was lately provided with an actual case where the valuer had fixed the rent lower than the Sub-Commissioners. He had absolute evidence, in his own opinion, that they were not the creatures of the landlords, as was supposed; and he felt it to be his duty to make the fact public, and he believed in doing it he checked a feeling which, if not settled at the outset, must have been dangerous to the country. Some thought that in his desire to re-assure the minds of the tenants he went too far. In a passage to which great exception had been taken he said it must be remembered that, after all, the valuer was not the Judge; and if the tenants found that the decisions under the new system were much the same as those under the old—and he believed they would be so, because the decisions under the latter were not inconsistent with justice—and if appeals were found to be less frequent, then the tenants of Ireland would gain very dis- tinctly, and the landlords too. That and other passages of the same character had been taken exception to. It was urged that the tenants, who, broadly speaking, were one of the parties to a suit, came to complain of decisions that were likely to be adverse to them, and that a Member of the Government reassured them by giving details as to such decisions. Now, if he had his own way, he would never answer in the House a single Question as to the decisions of the Land Commissioners, the Sub-Commissioners, or the Reports of the valuers; but a Member of the Government, in the presence of a popular Assembly, which really was the ruler of the country, and could override precedent and principle, was not his own master. This Session hon. Gentlemen had come down to the House and put to him Questions, not as to the average decisions, but as to special decisions of the Commissions, in which landlords were specially interested. On the 30th of June the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) asked him such a Question relative to the decision of the Commissioners sitting to hear an appeal at Castle bar. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton)—the brother of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, who had to-night made such severe remarks on his conduct for entering into explanations with tenants as to decisions in the Land Court—came down and asked him a Question in regard to certain appeals heard at Castlebar from judicial rents fixed by Sub-Commissioners; and whether, in cases of such marked discrepancy between the opinion of the official valuer and the decision of the Court, the Government would provide a further appeal? Then the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick) asked several Questions as to special decisions given by Sub-Commissioner Thomas Meek; and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton)—on behalf, he presumed, of some Irish Member—asked, him a Question with reference to some decisions in connection with the estate of Mr. Stuart Knox. Those, then, were four representative Irish Conservatives, all of them calling his attention to decisions of Commissioners or Sub-Commissioners, and requesting answers of exactly the same nature as those which he was blamed for giving to the tenant farmers on the 4th of October. It was not enough for him to give general assurances of the impartiality of the Commissioners; he was obliged to enter into details. Did the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), or the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis)—who always had a Motion on the Paper on the subject—object to his answering the Questions addressed to him? If they had objected and had supported him, if they had not backed up their brother Members of their own Party by their countenance, he might have refused to answer at all. But he was placed in a position in which, without extreme discourtesy, he was bound to answer Questions about judicial decisions; and if he did that he was bound to treat all alike. When landlords name to express their apprehensions he did his best to re-assure them; and when tenants came to express their apprehensions, if he shut his mouth and refused to do his best to re-assure them, he should be the Minister of a class and not of the whole country. When the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), who might from his interest almost be called an Irish Member, asked him whether he was aware that reductions of 39 per cent had been made by a Special Commissioner, he answered that that was not the case, but that the reduction was only to the extent of 26 per cent, and did any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite then object? That was an instance exactly analogous to that in which the tenants came and asked him if the reductions were 15 per cent, and his replying—"No; they are 20." It was necessary that on this occasion he should correct the statements made on all sides by Members of the House. The real fact was that the percentages of the reductions of rent had varied very much less than many hon. Gentlemen supposed. Up to the commencement of January, 1882, the average reduction for all Ireland was 23 per cent; up to the 15th of April it was 20 per cent; up to the 31st of May, 21 per cent; up to the month of June it was 20 per cent; up to July, 19 percent; up to August, 18 per cent. Under the new system, when the valuers were in office, the reductions were down to 17 per cent. It appeared to him, though it did not seem to be so to some hon. Members, that those reductions were equable, gradual, and perfectly explicable, on the ground that the worst cases came forward first, and that he was, therefore, defending Courts whose action was perfectly defensible. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a more serious objection, because he alleged that by his conduct on the 4th of October he had made the Government responsible for the judicial administration of the Land Act. That charge in the mouth of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) took almost terrible dimensions, for he said that by the action of the Executive Government with a judicial body there was a pollution of justice as black and shameful as would disgrace any Pashalik in Asia Minor. Why, it was asked, could they not leave that Court alone, like any other Court of Justice? He could not understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reconcile that charge with the policy pursued last Session by himself and his Friends. If the Executive Government had no legitimate influence over the administration of the Land Commission, what was the meaning of the Question addressed to the Representatives of the Executive Government in the House as to the action of the Land Commission and its officers? Perpetually Questions were addressed to him which could only have one meaning—namely, that he should bring some influence to bear on the Land Commissioners in order that some of their officers should be censured, shifted, or removed. The senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) had asked whether he was aware that Mr. J. G. MacCarthy, a Sub-Commissioner, was acting judicially in a district with which he was professionally connected; and whether he would suggest to the Commissioners the advisability of making some other arrangement for the Sub-Commission in that district? The noble Lord the Member for Downshire (Lord Arthur Hill) had asked him to interfere in the case of a Sub-Commissioner against whom he brought specific charges of having business relations with people which would not allow him to be impartial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself who introduced that Motion had asked him to represent to the Irish Land Commission that it was not just or expedient to employ Assistant Commissioners to act as Judges in localities in which they were now or were recently connected by residence and occupation. The meaning of that was that a special Judge should be removed from a special district. What meaning had those Questions except that the Executive Government were to use certain influence with the Land Commission; and if he gave an evasive answer he would be met, he would not say by murmurs, but by expressions of dissatisfaction in the House? On another occasion he told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Sub-Commissioner had been shifted; and, instead of expressing any disapproval, the right hon. and learned Gentleman smiled very benignly and expressed a most serene satisfaction. The conduct of the Government in the House showed that the apprehensions of the landlords were unfounded, and that their interests were being duly consulted; and if the Government gave the same assurance to the tenants he did not think anyone could complain. Indeed, between the two operations he could not see any difference whatever. He now proposed to meet the practical question before them. The reason why the Government had asked the advice of the Land Commission with reference to these valuers was not that they were themselves dissatisfied with the judgment of the Sub-Commissioners, but because they thought the Courts did not work fast enough. It was impossible to tell this at first, although the result was certainly prophesied, because during the earlier part of that Session they could not ascertain for certain the pace of the Courts, and that was the real explanation of the seeming inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government. Five or six weeks ago it was said that the Government had expressed confidence in the valuators; but they did not say anything about the rapidity of their work, because they had not then sufficient experience. They now possessed that experience, and, considering the very great additional burden upon the Exchequer, the advantage gained by their labours was extremely and almost infinitesimally small. In the six weeks ending August 19, 16 Sub-Commissioners' Courts fixed 2,677 fair rents—it would be very unfair to take the earlier weeks, because they had not got into working order. In the six weeks ending November 16, 17 Sub- Commissioners' Courts were working, and they fixed 2,788 fair rents, so that by the addition of 17 valuators with the same salary as the Sub-Commissioners they got in the course of six weeks only 100 additional cases disposed of out of a total of nearly 3,000. On the question of appeals, it was not the case that all the appeals were for cases decided before the change. The total appeals up to the 18th of September were 3,714, and since the 18th of September 1,127. If they compared this with the number of fair rents fixed, they would find that, while the Sub-Commissioners were working without the aid of valuators, the percentage of appeals was a little over 25 per cent. Since they had been working with the aid of valuators, the percentage had been a little over 27 per cent. These appeals were an equal grievance to both parties, and the Government were very anxious to avoid them. The principal reason for the appeals, in the belief of the litigants, was that the valuer had not sufficient time to value the land. The Government were anxious to meet a feeling of that sort by adding two pairs of Sub-Commissioners to each legal Commissioner, so that the Sub-Commissioners might have abundant and over-abundant time to examine each case. They were satisfied by the double staff they would keep the legal Commissioners employed, and with a little expenditure of money they would have a Court which would do to secure justice to all parties, and they earnestly hoped that soon both parties would come to acknowledge it. It might be that some disappointment had been felt by those who had watched the operation of the Act. The Act worked slowly, it was true; but not really as slowly as would, perhaps, appear on the surface. But it was not merely that fair rents were being fixed, it was the great and widespread tranquillity it caused, and its operation as a settlement between landlord and tenant over the whole face of Ireland that made it the most valuable. They were continually hearing that first one landlord and then another had made arrangements under it. Statistics had been placed in his hand which showed the work of one single man in valuing farms for the purpose of settlements, and they stated that he had traversed eight counties, and had visited the holdings of 1,228 tenants, of whom 72 went into Court, while 94 per cent of the total number of 1,156 made arrangements in a friendly manner. He did not think it was too much to hope that that was a process which had been going on since the beginning of the Land Act, both in the Courts as they were originally arranged, and he believed it would go on under the Courts as they were now to be arranged. Through out the whole of their scheme the Government had tried to do justice to both parties, and to restore friendly relations between the two classes, in the hope and expectation that in so doing they might bring peace, quiet, and goodwill to Ireland.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had devoted a good deal of his speech to the defence of the valuators; but, in his opinion, they were a class very detrimental to the peace of Ireland; indeed, he considered them as some of its worst enemies. But whatever else his speech might have shown, it proved conclusively that the Government had never made up their minds, but drifted from one opinion to another. Before, however, dealing with that consideration, he wished to refer to what fell from the Prime Minister. His speech was divided into two parts—the first comprising a defence of his own conduct; and the second a most glowing and impassioned prophecy of the magnificent results which would unquestionably follow this new phase of his Irish policy. For his own part, he had become rather wearied of these perpetual prophecies of the triumphant successes of the present Administration; he wished to see more of the practical growth of the country and less of these glowing anticipations of the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary had told them that the object of these changes was to secure the confidence, not of one section, but of both sections of the Irish people, and he laid great stress on the fact that he had endeavoured to gain the confidence of the landlords of Ireland. If that were so, he had signally failed. There had been that night a significant silence on the part of those who aspired to represent the tenantry of Ireland, and one voice only had been heard from those Benches during that debate. With a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) he was not indisposed to agree. When the hon. Member entreated the Government to cease from this perpetual patchwork—this perpetual alteration in the administration of the law—and to let the people of Ireland know what they intended to do, and to adhere like men to their declarations, he cordially agreed with him. But he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in thinking that it was part of the duty of the Irish Executive to be perpetually interfering with the mechanism and arrangements of the Land Commission. he was astonished when he hoard the right hon. Gentleman say that, because Questions were continually being asked with regard to particular decisions of the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners, hon. Members who put those Questions showed that they regarded the Land Court as merely a branch of the Executive Government. Before his connection with Ireland, had the right hon. Gentleman not heard Questions continually put by English, Scotch, and Welsh Members as to the decisions of various Courts; and did he or anyone suppose that the Members who asked, or the Home Secretary who replied to, those Questions regarded those Courts as forming any part of the Executive Government? There was one point he wished particularly to refer to. During the course of the debate the Chief Secretary had referred to an official document which had not been laid upon the Table of the House. The Prime Minister also referred to an official document, and led the House to understand that he was giving the House the meaning of that document. He referred to the document in respect of two points. One was that he was led to believe that increased speed would be obtained by the appointment of valuators, and the other that there would be a considerable diminution of appeals if they were appointed. The Prime Minister said that he consented to the change on that condition, and as that had not been fulfilled, the Government were perfectly right in reversing their policy. According to the universal practice of Parliament, the document to which the Prime Minister had referred ought not to be withheld from the House of Commons. He earnestly pressed the Prime Minister to permit that document to become the property of the House. That observation applied with far greater force to the document quoted in extenso by the Chief Secretary. He trusted that the House might rely upon the production of that document. He had noticed with considerable interest the reference of the Chief Secretary to the valuable results of the labours of the Lords' Committee on the Land Act. A few months ago the labours of the House of Commons were interrupted, and a list of measures—the loss of which the Prime Minister had never ceased to deplore—was put aside, in order that the House of Lords should be censured for instituting that inquiry. He heard, therefore, with very great pleasure the reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the valuable evidence that had been taken by that Committee. He hoped that in future the House of Lords, in the exercise of its undoubted rights, would be allowed to institute important inquiries upon subjects of great public interest without a Liberal Minister again interfering with the proper proceedings of the House of Commons for the purpose of denouncing the legitimate action of the House of Lords. The first defence of the conduct of the Government put forward that night came from the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who said that a legal point was involved; and the right hon. Gentleman taxed his ingenuity to show that Her Majesty's Government were expressly debarred by Act of Parliament from appointing valuers. That was rather a left-handed defence of the Government, because in its very statement it condemned their action. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that his Successor might have acted inadvertently—that he might not have had the purport of this section brought to his notice before he consented to the appointment of valuers. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that Lord Spencer, who was a consenting party, was a leading Member of the Cabinet when the Act was passed, and that the Prime Minister was the loading spirit all through those debates. It must have struck the right hon. Gentleman with astonishment that it should have been reserved for himself and Lord Spencer to be the sole proper expositors of the legal meaning of that Act of Parliament. And here he was reminded that the same Law Officers not improbably were consulted upon both occasions, and gave their valuable advice. Were they to understand from the right hon. Member for Bradford that the Law Officers who had been consulted by him gave different advice from the Law Officers whom his Successor consulted, they being identically the same Gentlemen? What must the right hon. Gentleman have thought of the soundness of his legal argument when the reply came to it, not from hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side, but from the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell)? And now they had it admitted that the appointment of valuers was strictly legal and Constitutional; while half of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down went to show how admirably the appointment of valuers had worked, how fully their conduct justified the Land Commission in appointing them, how well they had discharge their duties, and what increased confidence they had given in the administration of the Act. And having shown all that, the rest of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was devoted to the lamest possible reasons why this admirable body of men were to be dismissed and a new set of gentlemen called in. And what did it all come to? To a question of speed. They did their work too slowly; it was necessary to get on with greater rapidity. Never mind whether the work was done well or ill, so it was done quickly. Let us hurry on to the end of the chapter, and it would be found that two Sub-Commissioners would be more likely to expedite business than any valuer. Now, he altogether disputed that view of the case. He greatly doubted the stability of this great speed. And as for diminishing appeals, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman could not but have a very considerable effect in increasing the number of appeals from the judgment of gentlemen who were appointed under such conditions and with such objects. He regretted to hear the vindication which the right hon. Gentleman had made of these last appointments by Her Majesty's Government, and that the connection between Dublin Castle and the Land Commission had been so plainly admitted. He regretted many incidents in this debate; but there was one thing which he did not regret, and that was that the New Resolutions of the Prime Minister had afforded to his right hon. and learned Friend the opportunity, of which he had availed himself, of calling the attention of the House, and through the House of the country, to the latest instance of vacillation and change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government in connection with Ireland.