asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a Conference on Cholera Precautions of the Medical Officers of the Metropolitan Parishes, declaring that the important sanitary defect of the Metropolis specially calling for notice is its water supply, and asserting the need of watchfulness over all the reservoirs and mains of the Water Companies; whether the monthly reports on the composition and quality of daily samples of water supplied to London, addressed to the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and forwarded to Members of Parliament, emanate from the Local Government Board or the Water Companies; and, if from the latter, seeing the frequent discrepancies between the results set forth in these reports, and the reports of the Official Water Examiner to the Registrar General, whether he will consider the propriety of directing, at least temporarily, control analyses, and supplementing them by explanations for microbic impurities by the methods devised by Professor Koch and Dr. Angus Smith?

Sir, the Board have had communicated to them the Resolution passed at the Conference of Medical Officers of Health referred to. The Board do not, however, find in the resolution that the water supply was referred to as "the important sanitary defect of the Metropolis." The members expressed their views as to the importance of a pure public water supply; and stated that, while the amendment of the water service in detail would receive the attention of the Medical Officers of Health, experience had shown the need of watchfulness over the reservoirs and mains of the Water Companies. The Board have brought under the special attention of the Water Examiner of the Metropolis the resolution of the Medical Officers of Health so passed. The monthly Reports referred to do not emanate from the Local Government Board, but are, as I have often stated, prepared for, and at the expense of, the Water Companies. The analyses on behalf of the Board are made by Professor Frankland, and the Board have full confidence in the results of his analysis. At present, the Board see no sufficient reason for obtaining control analyses. With regard to the supplementary examinations, the Board, some time since, arranged for samples of the water of the Metropolitan Companies being supplied to Dr. Angus Smith for examination, according to the method alluded to.

asked whether the attention of the Water Companies had been called to the desirability of supplying the water direct from the mains by taps, in the manner he recommended a few days ago?

, in reply, said, attention had been called to the point, and that was all he could say at present.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Local Government Board would have any difficulty in preparing a Return showing the number of tenements valued at £4 in Parliamentary boroughs in Ireland, distinguishing each borough; and also the number of holdings in each county in Ulster valued at £11 10s., or any intermediate sum up to, and excluding £12, distinguishing each county?

, in reply, said, that the Local Government Board could prepare such a Return. In the case of the boroughs there would be no difficulty; but in the case of the counties there would be more trouble, and considerable time would be necessary. He did not think, in the latter case, that the Return would be presented this Session.

said, in that case, he would move for the Returns separately.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What amount of money the Board of Works in Ireland have advanced on the Clare Slob Reclamation works, and to whom; who is now constructing the works; if it is a fact that, up to the present time, it has not been found possible to close the bank so as to exclude the tidal overflow; and, if the Board of Works are under any obligation to make further advances on the successful completion of the reclamation bank?

Sir, this work was at first undertaken by a Company, who contracted for its execution at a cost of £55,000, of which the Board of Works advanced £45,000 to the Company; but that sum proving to be quite inadequate, and the Company being unable to raise further funds, the Board and a gentleman who had lent money to the Company entered into possession as salvage creditors. A second contract was then made for £23,000, of which the Board advanced £15,000 to the contractor; but, owing to storms and unforeseen difficulties, this also proved inadequate, and a further sum of £12,000 was promised to be paid when the work was perfected. The original contractor is the person engaged in constructing the works, which are now far advanced, and which are expected to be, and should be, finished before next winter's storms. The total amount advanced by the Board has therefore been £60,000; and, in addition to that sum, there is £12,000 to be paid when the works are completed. It is believed that if a much larger sum were advanced than has been, the value of the reclaimed land will be quite sufficient to cover the advances made and promised.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, How many Seamen and Marines became eligible for the Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions under Orders in Council during the last twelve months, and how many of these have received them?

, in reply, said, that under the Order in Council of the 29th of June, 1878, the number of Greenwich age pensions was fixed at 7,500. The list was completed as vacancies occur. In the year ending March 31 last, 467 men had received pensions. At the same date 840 men had passed the qualifying ago of 55 years; but many were ineligible for a pension which was regarded as a charity, because they were able to support themselves.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstance that the foul water from the irrigated meadows between Portobello and Leith is sometimes allowed, along a considerable extent of these meadows, to overflow on the foreshore, which is thereby rendered, at times, impassable; and, whether he will take steps to secure that the discharge from the meadows shall be confined to defined channels?

, in reply, said, that he had communicated with the owners of the meadows, but had not, as yet, received any answer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are considering the position of the Dublin Collector General from an administrative point of view, and apart from the legal question a Court may have to try, if their decision as to the retention of Mr. Byrne in office depends on whether the Land Commission feel themselves technically warranted in ordering a prosecution, or will it be determined by the usual considerations of public policy; and, can he state when he hopes to be able to announce the decision of the Lord Lieutenant as to the retention of Mr. Byrne in office, and that of the Law Officers of the Crown regarding the advisability of a prosecution?

Sir, the matter is receiving the most serious consideration, and I will state the decision at as early a date as I can. The question of the retention of Mr. Byrne in office will not depend upon any action which the Land Commission may see fit to take in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Johnston, Inspector of Fisheries, has made any reply to the remonstrances recently addressed to him on the subject of his recent speech, and how often similar remonstrances have been addressed to Mr. Johnston since his appointment; and, whether he has given any pledge to ab- stain from delivering similar speeches while he remains a servant of the Crown?

Sir, Mr. Johnston has replied to the letter I wrote to him on the subject. So far as I have been able to ascertain, he was twice cautioned in 1879 by the Government then in Office, and reminded of his obligations as a permanent salaried officer of the Crown. I did not ask him to give any pledge; but cautioned him against the repetition of such conduct. I hope he will accept the warning; but if he does not he must take the consequences.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on 24th July, the Recorder of Dublin, at 1.15 P.M., adjourned his court to distribute the prizes at the Protestant Model Schools, although there are 900 cases listed at the present Sessions; whether upwards of thirty witnesses from Galway, Cork, Belfast, &c., have been attending court daily since 21st July; and whether all suitors are put to great inconvenience by such needless delays; whether it is a fact that the Recorder has, during the last two years, constantly adjourned court to attend "Prison Missions," Bazaars, &c., at the Christian Union Buildings; and, if anything can be done to prevent the loss and inconvenience entailed by adjournments entailed upon those attending court?

Sir, with reference to the inquiries on this Question, I have to state that the Recorder of Dublin was asked to preside at the distribution of prizes in the Marlborough Street Schools, which are the chief model schools of the Irish National Board, on Tuesday, the 24th instant, and, before receiving the Recorder's reply, the managers of the school announced in the papers that he would be the chairman. On Monday, the 23rd, he wrote to say that he could not promise to attend as chairman, but that he would be present for a short period, and try to address the meeting, if it would not cause any inconvenience to the suitors in his Court. On rising on Monday evening, one of the practi- tioners in his Court asked him if he proposed to adjourn earlier than usual on the following day, and the Recorder intimated that he only intended to adjourn for luncheon, from 1 to 3 o'clock, and that he would not adjourn at all if it would cause any inconvenience. On Tuesday, when adjourning for luncheon at 1.30, he asked all the practitioners present in the Court if it would cause them any inconvenience to adjourn till 3 o'clock. They unanimously intimated that it would not cause them the slightest inconvenience, and the Recorder thereupon left the Court at half-past 1 o'clock, reaching Marlborough Street at a quarter to 2. He returned to the Court at five minutes past 3, and stated that, lest his absence should disappoint anyone, he would sit on after the usual time of 5 o'clock, until as late as might be necessary. Accordingly, he did sit till between 5 and 6 o'clock, when every case listed had been disposed of. I am unable to state whether any witnesses were present from a distance; but I am assured that the Recorder took care that they should not suffer any inconvenience on his account.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not usual, when Questions are passed by, that they should be taken at the end of the list?

I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know, Sir, if it is usual or customary, when a right hon. and learned Gentleman occupying a seat on the Treasury Bench is answering a Question, that he should be interrupted in this manner?

The ordinary course is to wait until the other Questions are got through. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, was not in his place when the hon. Member for Monaghan first rose and asked the Question; and it had been put again when the right hon. and learned Gentleman came in. I think it would be more convenient to wait.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) will allow me to finish my answer. The hon. Member for Monaghan asks me whether, for the past two years, the Recorder constantly adjourned to attend bazaars and meetings of Prison Missions, and meetings in the Christian Union Buildings. The fact is, the Recorder has never attended a bazaar during the last two years, either at the Christian Union Buildings, or anywhere else. Within the past 12 months he has been twice in the Christian Union Buildings; but not during the sitting of the Court. He attended a meeting in the Christian Union Buildings this year. I do not know the precise date; but it was held at 8 o'clock in the evening, and he took the chair; and he also attended the annual meeting of the Prison Gate Mission, but that was in the evening, and he certainly never adjourned his Court for the purpose; so that the statement made is perfectly unfounded. His present practice is to sit until 6, 7, and even 8 o'clock in the evening, in order to finish the cases that are listed, so that people from a distance may not be put to inconvenience; and it is his custom, also, to appoint a special day for the hearing of such cases. I feel bound to say that Her Majesty's Government, in any Department of the Public Service, have no more faithful, zealous, and upright public servant than the Recorder of Dublin. He has devoted his life and energies to the discharge of his duties; and I cannot but think it hard that statements of this sort should be made without the strictest inquiry as to their truthfulness.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a Circular Letter was recently sent to all or any of the Officers Commanding Regiments in the United Kingdom, inquiring whether any, and, if so, what, steps had been taken by the Officers of their respective regiments to vest their mess plate and other property in trustees; and, if he can state what action, or intended action, on the part of the authorities at the War Office, has led the Officers of so many regiments to take this step in defence of their private property?

Sir, reports having reached His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge that some regiments had transferred their plate to trustees unconnected with the Army, a letter was written to the General Officer Commanding the Home Dis- trict asking whether such was the case, and expressing His Royal Highness's opinion as to such a transaction. The General Officer Commanding the Home District made the inquiry of the regiments in his district, which is, I presume, the Circular Letter referred to. Two regiments have, I understand, taken this course; but I am not aware of any action, or intended action, on the part of the authorities which has prompted or could justify so irregular a proceeding.

asked whether this course had only been pursued in the Home District, or whether the same Circular had been sent to other districts?

in reply, said, that he understood there was no Circular; and, as far as he was aware, no inquiry had been addressed to any but the Home District.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that the district season reports for the week ending the 15th of May show the prevalence of cholera in many parts of Bombay; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the "Bombay Gazette" of that date declares that the disease has assumed "serious dimensions in several parts of the Bombay Presidency," and that, though the number of officially reported deaths from cholera during the week was 714—

"This does not represent the total mortality from the disease, as, in several cases, the presence of cholera is merely mentioned, without any particulars being given;"

whether, in the Hassick District, there has been 260 officially recorded deaths from cholera during the week ending the 15th May; whether, in the small town of Dhulia, there had been, during the same week, 181 recorded cases, and no less than 76 deaths; whether, in the small town of Coorla, in the neighbourhood of the city of Bombay, cholera had suddenly attacked 63 persons, of whom 38 died within a few hours or a couple of days; and, if special attention has been paid to this state of affairs among the Native population of Bombay?

in reply, said, the figures quoted in the Question were correct. As regards the other parts of the Question, he had informed the House yesterday that cholera was very pre- valent in the Deccan Districts of Bombay, though the rest of the Presidency was unusually free from disease. The way in which the health Returns were prepared showed that, in comparison with the last 15 years, cholera, though severe, was not exceptionally virulent. He had received information that the cholera in the Deccan Districts, the serious nature of which there was no wish to underrate, was engaging the special attention of the Bombay Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Cairo Correspondent of the "Daily News" to-day—

"That he had been able to ascertain that, on July 24th, 1,200 deaths took place, whereas the official lists gave only 463;"

whether no deaths are officially reported from towns or villages under 2,000 inhabitants; and, if any steps can be taken to obtain correct returns of the mortality?

Sir, my attention has been called to the statement referred to by the hon. Member, and I have already stated in the House that deaths no doubt take place which are unrecorded; but it is impossible, as I have already said, to test the accuracy of the statements which appear in the newspapers from day to day with regard to particular localities. The daily reports received are believed to include all deaths, wherever occurring, and there appears no means of obtaining any Returns more correct than those supplied by the competent Department of the Egyptian Government. The present is not a favourable opportunity for attempting to reform the Statistical Department of the Egyptian Government, which is responsible for these Returns. The subject of that Department is mentioned in the despatches presented to Parliament.

asked if they were to understand that the deaths from cholera in Egypt might, in reality, be three times greater than the number given in the official records?

in reply, said, he could not commit him- self to any numercial statement of that kind. All he wished the House to understand was, that he did not wish them to believe that implicit faith was placed on every figure which was published.

asked the Postmaster General, Are the rural letter carriers of Ireland, under the new parcel post system, to carry 33 pounds weight; and, if so, what increase of pay are they to get, and how much; how will he deal with rural letter carriers on circular routes who have from 14 to 16 miles to travel in single journeys, and may have to carry such weight to the end of their walk; what will become of parcels awaiting them at different places on their route; and, can arrangements be made that where vacancies occur in a post office, or extra hands are required, that rural letter carriers of over ten years' service shall get the preference?

Sir, the importance of a letter carrier not being overburdened either with parcels or letters is fully recognized. As bearing on the question of fixing a maximum weight of 35 lbs., I may mention that the weight, including clothes, carried by a soldier, when in marching order, is now between 54 lbs. and 55 lbs. The pay of rural letter carriers is in all cases adjusted to the amount of work they have to perform. There is no rule excluding rural letter carriers from appointments as town letter carriers, and such appointments are not infrequently made; but the town letter carrierships are chiefly recruited from the telegraph messengers, and if it were not for this arrangement it would be difficult to find employment for the majority of the latter class.

I would wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the question of parcels, how many days in the year soldiers have to carry 55 lbs?

The difference, no doubt, is very considerable; but I may say that the maximum weight has been very carefully considered, and has been in operation for a very long time. At the same time, instructions have been given to the officials to see that the Parcels Post in no ease interferes with the punctual delivery of letters.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is in Plymouth at the present moment a member of the Metropolitan Police appointed for the carrying out of the Contagions Diseases Acts; and, if so, whether he is under his control; whether this officer has received instructions not to carry out the provisions of an Act still in force; from whom did he receive those instructions; and, would it be within the power of the local authorities to order that officer to carry out the Law?

in reply, said, that, properly speaking, there was no member of the Metropolitan Police appointed to carry out the Contagious Diseases Acts in Plymouth. The only statutory authority for employing the Metropolitan Police outside of the Metropolitan District was the Act of 1860. That was an Act for the employment of the Metropolitan Police Force in Her Majesty's yards and military stations. The present position of the Metropolitan Police at Plymouth was governed, as he understood it, by the Act of 1869. At the request of the local authority an Inspector of the Metropolitan Police was allowed to render assistance so far as the voluntary submission of women was concerned; but not as regarded compulsory examination. Of course, if the local authorities desired it, the Metropolitan Police Officers would desist from that duty. In answer to the last part of the Question, he had to say that he conceived the Metropolitan Police at Plymouth were under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, and not of the local authority.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he thinks that it is possible, at this period of the Session, adequately to discuss in Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill?

said, that before the Question was answered, he would ask if it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to put such a Question as this, which was asking for an opinion as to what would be done by the House?

in reply, said, he saw nothing irregular in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he could not conceive why they should not proceed with the Bill, which was fully discussed on the second reading, and which had been considered for many days in Committee, and by those lawyers who were not upon Circuit. He therefore hoped they should be able to take it without much discussion.

said, it had been so altered in its progress through the Standing Committee that when it came on for Consideration, as amended, he should move that the Order be read and discharged.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether complaints have been made by British shipowners that the local administration of the Suez Canal is partial and corrupt; and, whether the Commanders of British ships are frequently compelled, under risk of serious interruption to their passage of the Canal, to give douceurs and bribes to the officials?

Sir, I hope the House—I would almost venture to hope that the hon. Member, upon reflection—will feel that this is a Question which it is hardly generous—indeed, I may say, hardly even fair—to put on the Paper in its present form. The hon. Member makes, or rather insinuates, an accusation, which is the most serious and offensive that could possibly be brought against officials in responsible situations, and he does this without giving any particulars whatsoever. He does not indicate the names of the persons whom he desires to accuse, and does not specify the particular acts of which he accuses them. All I can say in answer to the Question is, that I have not myself received any official information bearing upon this matter, and I am informed by Sir Rivers Wilson that the British Directors of the Suez Canal have not received any complaints of the kind; but I am also requested to say that, if the hon. Member will put me in possession of any particular charges, which he thinks he can bring against any particular official, they shall be thoroughly sifted by the British Directors.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the report upon the demands — unfair demands — made on British ships passing through the Suez Canal, issued by the gentleman who has for many years been agent for the Peninsular and Oriental Company there; and I shall bring to his notice the report, if he has not seen it. It appeared in The Times some days ago.

You said "partial and corrupt."

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the demand of a bribe for the passage of a ship through the Canal is not corrupt?

If the hon. Member is prepared to bring evidence that such a bribe has been demanded, he ought to bring that evidence forward, and not insinuate it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain that I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether complaints had been made to him of this practice, and that was a perfectly legitimate and usual Question. I have not yet understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny that no complaints have been made. Whether that be so or not, I will, at the earliest opportunity that may be afforded me, bring before the House the evidence on which I base this Question.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding upon the matter, I beg to state that I have denied most distinctly that any complaints have been brought before me. [Mr. ASRMEAD - BARTLETT: You said official.] I have heard vague gossip very much in the nature of the Question of the hon. Member.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he can explain why a Vote for £11,246, out of the sum of £15,000 paid by Her Majesty's Government to the United States in June 1881, as compensation for acts of violence committed by Newfoundland fishermen in Fortune Bay and other places, has been included in the Supplementary Estimates; whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies did not inform the House in October last that the Government of Newfoundland had agreed to propose a Vote to the Colonial Legislature for the amount so paid; and, on what ground it is proposed to impose on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom the payment of compensation for acts of this nature committed by the inhabitants of a self - governing Colony?

Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asks for explanation of a Vote about to be submitted in Committee of Supply. That is somewhat inconvenient, if not unprecedented, as the answer necessarily involves statements of facts and arguments, most of which are subjects of controversy. The state of the case, shortly, is this—The sum of £15,000 was settled in diplomatic communications between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States. Of this amount, £150 was apportioned to Canada, and has been repaid, and the remainder was claimed from Newfoundland. The Governor, in compliance with the promise of my hon. Friend (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), duly brought the question of repayment before his Ministers on the meeting of the new Legislature this spring, but was advised by them that there was no hope of obtaining a Vote for the full amount, the inhabitants of Newfoundland having throughout strongly protested that they were not justly liable for any payment, and that the utmost he could hope to obtain was the sum of $17,300, being the value put by a local Judge upon the damages actually inflicted by the Newfoundlanders. Upon full consideration, Her Majesty's Government decided to accept that sum in discharge of their claim, and it has already been received here. As I have intimated, the people of Newfoundland have always disputed their liability, and it must be remembered that the amount paid was settled without consultation with their Government; and in reference to the last Question of the right hon. Baronet, I must remind him that we have practically no means of compelling payment by a self-governing Colony.

gave Notice that he should oppose the Vote when it was proposed in Committee of Supply.

asked whether Papers would be laid on the Table, containing the Correspondence, before the Vote came on?

in rely, said, if the hon. Member moved for them, he had no doubt they would be presented.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government is prepared to adopt the Report of the Royal Commission on Tonnage to put an end to the gross anomalies between the measurement and carrying capacity of steamships in the future?

I have considered and highly appreciate the valuable Report of the Royal Commission on Tonnage; and I am inclined, speaking generally, to agree with the recommendations of the Commission. My hon. Friend (Sir John Jenkins) will see that pressure of other work has rendered it quite impossible to deal with the question during the present Session. I hope it may be possible next year to deal with the whole subject of the law affecting merchant shipping; and, if so, this matter of tonnage will be one of the points which will come up for consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the notice recently issued by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company, requiring householders to put additional values, covers, guard hoses, &c., in their houses; and, whether those additions will not cause heavy outlay to the householders of the Metropolis, while, at the same time, preventing them from clearing out their cisterns or flushing the drains so easily as they can do under the present system?

Sir, the Board have obtained a copy of the notice which has been issued by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company. The Company, in view of a continuous water supply, have required that each supply-pipe shall have a screw-down stop-valve, and that the valve, if fixed underground, shall have a proper cover and guard box—not guard hose. These fittings are essential under a system of constant supply, which the Board desires to see adopted generally; and the requirements of the notice are in strict accordance with the regulations made under the Metropolis Water Act, 1871. The valve, &c., cannot, as it appears to the Board, in any way prevent the cleaning out of cisterns and the flushing of drains, and the expense of providing them is but small.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he would state the names of the British Commission which sat at Simla more than two years ago to consider the Military expenditure of India; whether it is true that the Report recommended the abolition of separate Staffs in the Bombay and Madras armies, and other large reductions in the Military expenditure; whether such Report has yet been published; and, if not, what has caused the delay in doing so; and, whether he has any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, that the Simla Army Commission was composed of Sir Ashley Eden, Mr. Bernard, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Peter Lumsden, General Phayre, General O'Connor, Colonel Baker, Colonel Macgregor, and Major Newmarket. They recommended the abolition of the Commander-in-Chief in the Madras and Bombay districts, with their Staffs, and the substitution, for the present three Commanders-in-Chief in India, of one Commander-in-Chief and four Lieutenant Generals, each with a separate Staff, complete in all departments. That change would not cause any reduction of expenditure; but other changes recommended would have that result. Some of those changes had been carried out, as explained last year by the Secretary of State for War. The Report had not been published, because no final decision had been arrived at. He hoped to include a full account of this matter in his official Statement on the Indian Budget.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the enforcement of the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts, and of the great increase of disease that has taken place in our seaport towns, as well as the abandonment by the Government of all legislation upon the subject this year, he can assure the House that, as far as lies in the power of the Government, police assistance shall be given, as heretofore, to enforce the Law; and that, pending future legislation, the health and efficiency of our Army and Navy shall not suffer by the departmental negligence of the Executive during the Recess?

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he is not aware that it is not only the health and efficiency of the Army and Navy, but the morality of those towns which were heretofore protected, that is suffering to an alarming extent, owing to the withdrawal of the provision for compulsory examination; that, in fact, there are hundreds of young girls and women on the streets of those towns who dare not have carried on their immoral trade had the Acts been in force?

in reply, said, he was aware that the restrictions of the Acts, whatever they were, operated upon the population of the places subject to the Acts as well as on the troops who might constitute the garrison of those places; but if the assertion which the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Price) conveyed in his Question were correct, it appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that it raised another question—as to whether the attention of the police had been properly directed to that state of facts, for they would have power to deal with such abuses as they arose. In answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil), he had to say that he had consulted with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington); and he was of opinion, with his noble Friend, that the time which had elapsed since the Resolution against the compulsory provisions of the Act was adopted by the House did not disclose a state of things sufficient to warrant the Government in arriving at any positive conclusion, or in undertaking to announce any particular course of action. Comparing the increase which had taken place in subjected and non-subjected districts, the utmost effect which might be attributed to the suspension was that, of a strength of 40,000, there had been 27 additional admissions per week. Without further information as to the stations from which troops had lately come—Egypt, for instance—it was impossible to say how much disease was to be ascribed to the change which had been made. Some part of the increase, however, might he explained by the circumstances surrounding the removal of troops to different places. He would not, therefore, give an assurance that the same practice would have been adopted if the Resolution had not been passed. With respect to the last Question of the noble Lord, undoubtedly there would be no departmental negligence during the Recess on the part of the Executive.

asked whether the Government would allow local authorities, upon application, to have the assistance of the Metropolitan Police?

asked that Notice might be given of the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is in a position to lay upon the Table Plans and Estimates of the proposed harbour at Dover to be carried out by convict labour, in a form to enable the House to form a judgment upon the scheme, before a Vote is taken for the Convict Prison to be built at Dover?

in reply, said, that Papers had already been supplied to the House, which gave the plans and estimates for the proposed harbour. What the Government proposed was, to build a prison by convict labour. That would take three years to complete, before the harbour works would be commenced; and, therefore, during that period there would be time for re-considering and carefully going over the plans and estimates for the harbour. He only mentioned that, because it must not be taken for granted that the plans and estimates were absolutely and finally conclusive.

asked what course the Government intended to pursue should the Harbour be found almost impossible of construction at Dover?

in reply, said, that could not be taken for granted. Of course, the Government relied on their scientific advisers. As their advisors thought it to be possible, the Government had founded the plans on that advice.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether lie will lay upon the Table the documents showing that, in 1872 (that is, when the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of the Government), a claim was made to a larger monopoly by M. de Lesseps than that lately claimed by him?

in reply, said, that the Paper to which he referred in the debate of the previous evening would be laid upon the Table. He wished, at the same time, to say that the claim of M. de Lesseps in 1872 did not arise out of any transaction between him and the British Government; nor was it a claim of which the Government had any official cognizance. It came to their knowledge as a matter of information merely, as regarded communications that were taking place in Egypt, and between M. de Lesseps and the Khedive.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how it came to the knowledge of the Government?

The Papers will show that much better, I think, than I can.

asked, Whether the accounts in the papers about the assassination of Carey, the informer, are true; and, whether he was at the time of his death under police protection; if not, when that protection ceased as far as he was concerned?

Sir, I will give the right hon. Gentleman all the information I possess. The Government have received no direct information themselves about this matter, nor could they have done so; but the agent of Messrs. Currie, the owners of the steam vessels plying to the Cape of Good Hope, communicated to me yesterday afternoon the following telegram:—

"James Carey, Irish informer, shot dead on board the Melrose, 29th July, by passenger named O'Donnell."

That is all the information I possess on the subject. I have no knowledge of the protection afforded to Carey by the police, that being a matter for the Irish police.

Can the Chief Secretary for Ireland state anything on the subject?

Sir, I have no information upon the matter; but I will to-morrow see the gentleman who is responsible for the police, or hear from him fully; and I will see if the information is of a nature which I can communicate to the House.

asked, Whether, in view of the numerous Notices of opposition to the National Debt Bill, that important measure will be brought forward at so late a period of the Session; if so, when?

Sir, the Government adhere to the intention which was explained by me on a former day, not very long ago, that, although this Bill is certainly an important Bill, and although it is true that several hon. Members have given Notice of their intention to oppose it, yet, in our view, the question raised in the Bill is a simple one. We do not look upon it as a Bill in relation to which it is likely that a great number of questions of detail will arise; and, therefore, conceiving it to be very closely connected with the efficiency and healthiness of, our financial system, we feel it our duty to take the judgment of the House upon it. I should hope that the Bill will be submitted for second reading on Tuesday next, placing it absolutely or substantially as the first Order. I may state that on Thursday we propose to proceed with Supply, taking the remaining English and Scotch Votes in Class II. and the Votes in Class III. on Law and Police; and likewise, if we can, taking the Scotch Education Vote. We shall also propose to proceed with Supply on Monday and Thursday next week. We shall give sufficient Notice of the Votes then to be taken. To-night, we expect to dispose of the Report of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, and of what remains to be done in Committee on the Scotch Bill. In that case, I come to deal with the Business for to-morrow (Wednesday). At present, that Business is menaced by the barrier of a discussion, which would undoubtedly be one of great importance, upon a Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) in relation to a new Standing Order affecting rates on railways. That opens a subject so wide that it is quite evident that it will excite a lively interest on the part of the numerous Gentlemen in the House connected with the various railways of the country, and I own I think that, if it came to be launched, it would be impossible, in the limited number of hours assigned, to make practical progress, or to obtain a judgment of the House upon the Standing Order. Taking that fact into view, and likewise the urgency of proceeding with Legislative Business, I am disposed to make an appeal to my hon. Friend, and to express the hope that he will feel himself justified in not pressing that subject to-morrow, but in waiting for a more convenient season for bringing it under the consideration of the House. I would also make a similar appeal to the hon. Member for Preston opposite (Mr. Tomlinson), that he would likewise be inclined to combine with my hon. Friend in allowing the House to deal with Legislative Business. If that should be the case, and if the two Agricultural Holdings Bills pass their present stage to-night, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) will to-morrow proceed to submit, for second reading, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, and take the judgment of the House on that subject. It will be followed, in case it should not occupy the whole day, by the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill.

said, he hoped that the Prime Minister would invert the order announced yesterday, and take the Report on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill before the Report on the Bankruptcy Bill. It was important that the former measure should be proceeded with while the House was still full.

said, that the Government would consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to the best of their ability, and he would announce, on an early day, the conclusion at which they might arrive.

said, he would remind the Prime Minister that the hon. and learned Attorney General had promised a great many Amendments on the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill to meet the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it was desirable that these should be considered while the attendance was full.

said, he wished to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, whether, under no circumstances, it would be taken that night?

said, he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman riot to assume that, supposing they were fortunate enough to dispose of the two Agricultural Holdings Bills in sufficient time that night, the Government should not take the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.

After what hour will it not be taken?

Half-past 12 o'clock.

asked, when it was intended to bring on the Vote for Major Baring's salary?

in reply, said, he could not state absolutely now; but the Government had the matter in view for an early day.

asked, what Business would be taken on Friday; and, whether there was to be a Morning Sitting on that day?

in reply, said, there were Votes relating to the Transvaal and to Egypt, which must have precedence of further Votes for the Army. He thought the time had come when the Government might ask the House for the whole of Friday, and, possibly, for Saturday Sittings; but he would refer to that matter again in a day or two, when it might be necessary to include Saturdays in their calculations. He was reluctant to include next Friday, simply on the ground that the first Notice on the Paper for that day was one impugning the conduct and policy of his noble Friend the Viceroy of India (the Marquess of Ripon), and he would not like to make any request to the House which would seem to imply, on the part of the Government, any unwillingness that a subject of that kind should come under the notice of the House.

said, he would beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a strong protest was entered against Saturday Sittings, at the time when the House was asked to give greater facilities to the Government for the despatch of Business, and the right hon. Gentleman, recognizing the great inconvenience of such Sittings, intimated that there would come a time, with the end of the Session plainly in view, when it might be expedient to have Saturday Sittings, rather than add a few days to the length of the Session. He understood the right hon. Gentleman would not ask for Saturday Sittings until he was in a position to tell the House when he expected the Session would end. In the spirit of the understanding then come to, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the House now what was the earliest possible day when he expected the Session to close?

said, he did not absolutely admit the perfect accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; still, it was not very far from correct. It was quite true he was desirous to postpone, as long as possible, the date for making an application so disagreeable as that of Saturday Sittings. He had not, in fact, yet made the application. It was only what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) that made him refer to the subject; but, when he did make the application, he would state all that appeared to him to bear on the case.

said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the Prime Minister, he would not bring forward the Standing Order which stood in his name to-morrow; but he begged to give Notice that he would do so early next Session.

said, that, under the circumstances, he would not to-morrow propose the Standing Order of which he had given Notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If lie can give the House any information as to the health of our troops in Egypt; and, whether the statement is true which appears in the newspapers, that one-seventh of the men attacked with cholera die from the disease?

Sir, with the leave of the House, I will read a short telegram I received, before coming down to the House, from the General commanding in Egypt. It is dated this day, and says—

"The general health of the troops good. Type of cholera less virulent at Cairo. Cases under treatment more hopeful."

That is all I have received to-day. As I have before stated, all the figures and names are communicated to the newspapers as soon as they are received. A telegram, containing the nominal Return of deaths, arrived yesterday, after the meeting of the House, which appears in to-day's newspapers. I cannot answer off-hand; but I do not think the statement is accurate that one-seventh of the men attacked with cholera die from it.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether, and when, he intends to submit to the House the Resolution on the subject of devolution—that is to say, on the subject of Grand Committees?

in reply, said, he thought he had explained the intention of the Government with regard to the matter, at some length on a former occasion. What it was he would state very briefly—namely, that while this subject had in their eyes assumed an even increased importance from the experience of the present Session, they did not think the time or the circumstances convenient for making a proposal, and, consequently, they had decided to adjourn the consideration of the subject until next year.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the informer Walsh, of whom Baron Dowse remarked—

"A worse specimen of humanity, if the word humanity could be applied to such a person, never in the whole course of my experience, which I am sorry to say is rather long, have I met with than this man Walsh. The jury should be careful before they believe the evidence of such a man,"

has been rewarded by the Crown; if so, out of what fund; on what portion of the Estimates will his remuneration become a charge; how much money he has been paid; whether he gave information before or after his arrest; and, if it is intended to employ him as a witness at any future trial?

in reply, said, he had already answered the first part of the Question. This man was arrested on the 7th of January, 1882, and discharged on the 27th February, 1882. It was not until the month of February, 1883, that he gave any information on the subject on which he was examined afterwards. He was in St. Helen's, Lancashire, at that time, and brought to Ireland; and, up to the present time, he was supported as any other witness would be; but he had received no money whatever in the nature of reward or otherwise. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) was not aware of any circumstances under which he would be examined in another case by the Crown, although he could not say that circumstances would not arise to render that necessary.

asked the honourable Member for Cumberland, as one of the Trustees of the National Gallery, Whether any steps have been taken so as to light the Gallery as to enable it to remain open to the public until ten o'clock at night every week-day throughout the year, in accordance with the requisition very numerously signed by Members of this House, and forwarded to the Trustees at the Session before last?

in reply, said, that the Trustees had not as yet taken any steps to meet his hon. Friend's demand. They were, however, anxiously considering the matter, and had made inquiries as to the safety and efficiency of electric lighting, and they were informed that, in both respects, improvements were likely to be made. They had, therefore, thought it advisable, as far as yet, not to take any steps on the matter; and he might say that they were anxious to avail themselves of any suggestions on the subject, so far as they did not involve any risk of injury to the pictures. They had observed what had been done in lighting the Museum at South Kensington. The last time he went there he found that the electric light had suddenly gone out in the Library. Any unfortunate confusion that might have resulted was prevented at South Kensington by the use of gas lamps; but that was a resource not open to the Trustees at the National Gallery. Gas would be very damaging to the pictures. Though the glazing of the pictures proceeded very steadily, it would be impossible to give a wholesale order for glazing, for the pictures required careful cleaning before they were glazed. If the Gallery was opened at night, it was feared, from the neighbourhood in which it was situated, that the rooms would be crowded by persons who did not go there for study. The case of South Kensington was not analagous, because that place was not near Leicester Square.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of snaking some provision by way of gratuity for the widows and children of such Irish National Teachers as have served under the Board for a long period, and have continued to discharge their duties up to death?

Sir, I do not think I can hold out any prospect of such an arrangement; but it is a question rather for the consideration of the Treasury than of the Irish Government. At present, there is something like a fixed sum distributed among the teachers, upon which no additional charge could be imposed. Therefore, unless there was a balance from that sum, there could be no fund available for the gratuities referred to in the Question. Even, however, if there was a surplus, legislation would be required. It must be remem- bered that Irish National Schoolteachers are not in a different position in this respect from civil servants of the Crown.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether orders have been given to the Letter-carriers in some districts to provide themselves with a horse and cart, to enable them to carry parcels; and, if so, whether any money is to be found by the Government for the purchase of these vehicles?

Sir, when it has been necessary to convert a walking into a mounted service, the practice has always been for the letter-carrier to provide the horse and cart, the Department making him a weekly allowance. That practice it is intended to continue when the parcels post is in operation. In those cases, and they very seldom occur, where it is found that a letter-carrier is unable or unwilling to provide a horse and cart, care is always taken to find him some employment elsewhere.

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the clause, in order to substitute the following new clause:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement subsisting between him and his landlord, a tenant may give notice, in the manner provided by this Act, of his intention to claim compensation under this Act, as though an agreement were subsisting between them, and thereupon all the Clauses contained herein as to compensation shall apply between such landlord and tenant, and all questions as to compensation shall be settled in manner provided by this Act, and the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement existing between the landlord and tenant, shall, so far as any question in respect of compensation between such landlord and tenant is affected thereby, unless the tenant shall make his claim thereunder, to the exclusion of the mode of compensation contained in this Act, become and be wholly void and of no effect: Provided always, That where, under any of the provisions of any such subsisting agreement of tenancy, the landlord has made any payment or outlay, or has given to the tenant any other valuable consideration in respect of the said tenancy, and the tenant shall, notwithstanding such agreements, give notice for compensation under this Act, such landlord may give notice of counter-claim in respect of any such payment or outlay, or other valuable consideration, in the manner prescribed in this Act."

said, he objected to the proposed clause, as being a distinct alteration of the Bill for the worse. The Bill proposed that it should rest with the Law Courts, if they chose, to set aside an agreement entered into between two parties; but what his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill) proposed was to leave it open to one of the parties to set aside the agreement without the intervention of a Law Court at all. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was astonished at such a proposal coming from the hon. and learned Member, and hoped he would not press it to a Division. It would be most unfair to give one party to an agreement the option of setting it aside after he had taken advantage of its provisions.

said, that he had nothing to add to what had been so well expressed by his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), further than to say that be could not support the clause, which would render all agreements between landlords and tenants so much waste paper. The clause, as proposed, would apply not only to agreements under Clause 5, but to present, past, and future agreements. The effect would be that no one would enter into an agreement at all, because either party would have the right to violate the agreement when he chose. He hoped the clause would be withdrawn.

considered the proposal a reasonable one. It was desirable that a landlord and tenant should he allowed to make a private agreement, as the landlord might give the tenant better terms than were proposed under the Bill. But, while that was provided by the clause, care was taken that the tenant under such an agreement should not have less compensation than was provided under the Bill. He could not see any hardship in the landlord and tenant having power to contract, so that the tenant should have the power to obtain compensation either under the Bill, or under his private agreement. Hon. Members, therefore, ought to accept the clause. It was an Amendment which he was sure was greatly desired, and would be welcomed by and meet with the approval of the majority of the tenant farmers of England as one that would do away with many causes of disputes and misunderstandings. For that reason, if his hon. and learned Friend went to a Division, he should support him.

said, he thought the whole of Clause 5 was open to great objection, and he therefore hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would take a Division on the question. There was an opinion outside the House, and one which would be strengthened by the course adopted in reference to the Amendment, that an understanding had been arrived at between the two Front Benches to defeat all Amendments, like the one under notice, which would tend to make the Bill a good one; and, in his opinion, the effect had been to prevent its being made as efficient as was desired by the country.

said, he was surprised and disappointed to find that when an improvement was suggested from the other side of the House it should receive so little consideration from the Government. He hoped the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Staveley Hill) would go to a Division.

explained that it was the intention of his clause to apply to all agreements existing or in the future.

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert, in line 14, after "tenant," the words "entitled to the benefit of the improvement," said, he proposed it with the object of making the standard of valuation as clear as possible for the benefit of country valuators.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, which he thought would make the clause less plain than it was, and would give rise to entanglements.

in moving, as an Amendment, the omission, in page 1, line 14, of the following Provisoes which had been inserted at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) when the Bill was in Committee:—namely,

"Provided always, that in respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto, there shall not be taken into account anything that may be due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"

said, the principle of the Bill was that the compensation should be measured by the value of the improvements to the incoming tenant, and he rose for the purpose of suggesting to the House that the Bill should be restored to the form in which it was introduced by the Government. During the passage of the Bill through Committee, two Amendments were carried, which, in his opinion, were extremely detrimental to the interests of the tenant farmers. The first of these Amendments, which limited the amount of compensation to the outlay of the tenant, was altogether contrary to the principle of the measure, and since it had been carried it had been condemned by numerous meetings of agriculturists and by the agricultural newspapers. Mr. Clare Sewell Read wrote last week that by far the most mischievous Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Hertford. [Cries of "Agreed!" and "Divide!"] He was sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented counties throughout England should be so impatient that they could not hear him give the opinions of such a practical farmer as Mr. Clare Sewell Read. He trusted the House would consider the propriety of eliminating these two prejudicial Amendments from the Bill.

said, he would suggest that his question would be better discussed on an Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Dodson's) name on the Paper. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw his Amendment in order to allow him (Mr. Dodson) to move his. He thought that would be the more convenient and more intelligible conrse, and by it an opportunity would be afforded to the hon. Gentleman of practically voting for his own proposal.

said, he could not do that, because the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would only make a bad matter worse. He felt so strongly on the subject that he would certainly go to a Division.

said, he would also appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Duckham) to withdraw the Amendment. He would point out to him that while he did so, he would still have an opportunity of supporting it by voting against the Amendment to be brought forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson).

said, that being so, he would withdraw his Amendment.

in moving the Amendment which stood in his name—namely, to leave out the words—

"In respect of those improvements for which the consent of the landlord is not required, the amount of such compensation shall in no case exceed the amount of outlay incurred by the tenant: Provided also, that in estimating the value of any improvements in Part I of the schedule hereto there shall not be taken into account anything that may he due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"

and to insert the following words:—

"In estimating the value of any improvement in Parts I and 2 of the First Schedule thereto, there shall not be taken into account as part of the improvement made by the tenant, what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil,"

said, the Government had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as an excess of caution; for, while they did not consider it in any way necessary as explanatory of the meaning and intention of the clause, they had consented to adopt it as a further safeguard against the landlord being charged for improvements which the tenant had really not made. At the same time, they had kept themselves free to alter the phraseology, and he had told the right hon. Baronet that they should, if necessary, take the liberty of considering whether the words of his Amendment would admit of improvement. The Government considered the words of the right hon. Baronet too indefinite—they might be construed as indicating a bias against the tenant, and as directing the valuers, in case of doubt, to give the benefit of the doubt to the owner. Accordingly, the Amendment bad been drawn up which he was now moving. They were in this clause only laying down the principle by which the valuers were to be guided, and were not laying down hard-and-fast rules. The words he now proposed were also necessarily rather vague; still, he thought they were more precise than those in the Bill, and, therefore, he moved their insertion. As to the words limiting the amount of compensation to be given to the tenant by the amount of his outlay, he should not delay the House by giving reasons for their omission, for it almost appeared to him that it was only necessary to state the proposition they involved in plain words, in order to make it apparent that it was not a fundamentally fair or just proposition. It practically said that if a tenant made improvements, though he might receive less, he was never to receive more than the amount of the outlay. That would exclude the skill shown by the tenant in executing the work wisely and successfully. There were many improvements that did not begin to yield a profit for a number of years, such as liming, the planting of orchards, the laying out of gardens, and the laying down of land in grass. If drains had been well laid, so that they would last a long time, the tenant might not derive benefit for three or four years; they might be as good when he left as on the day they were made; the price of labour and materials might have risen in the interval, and he was entitled to consideration for the increase in the value of the improvement he had made. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which provided that the compensation should not exceed the outlay of the tenant, had been voted for under a misapprehension, many hon. Members having left the House in the belief that the question it raised had been finally disposed of by the Division immediately preceding. Moreover, since then the Government had agreed to adopt that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. The measure of value was, in the opinion of the Government, the only sound one. It was a right and true measure, and fair to all concerned. He moved the present Amendment, with the view of restoring the Bill as regarded value to the original principle on which it was based, and at the same time of accepting loyally the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire.

said, that he did not wish to interfere as regarded the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but, as the Amendment which had just been moved practically contradicted one which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was successful in carrying in Committee, he wished to offer one or two observations upon it. It was not out of any particular love for his Amendment that he objected to the Government re-opening a question which had been discussed and decided in a large and fully attended Committee; but he would warn them that in doing so they were setting an example which they must not be surprised if they found it taken advantage of in other quarters, and used against themselves. The Amendment now proposed divided itself into two parts—the first omitted the words which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) introduced into the Bill; and the second introduced a modification of the words suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to be of opinion that many hon. Members would not have voted for his (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment had they known that the right hon. Baronet's was subsequently to be introduced, he was constrained to say that, while he approved of it as far as it went, the latter did not, in his opinion, quite meet the situation. What wore the inherent capabilities of the soil, and how were they to be defined? No doubt, the intentions of the Government and of the right hon. Baronet were excellent; but how would the clause, as they proposed to amend it, work in practice? For instance, a railway might be made in the neighbourhood of a farm. Would the increased value of the farm, in consequence of that improvement, go to the landlord or to the tenant? He believed that the Government would acknowledge that it should go to the landlord; but it could not do so, if the clause was amended in the manner proposed, as a railway was neither a tenant's improvement, nor could it be included among the inherent capabilities of the soil. That would show the weakness in the proposal of the Government in the Bill which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had wished to correct. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had not, he (Mr. A. J. thought, in dealing with the Amendment carried in Committee, fully grasped its meaning. The cases lie mentioned were not touched by the Amendment, for he deliberately accepted precisely the improvements on which the right hon. Gentleman founded his objection. If the Amendment were carried out, the tenant would be able to get the full value of his outlay while lie remained, and the whole of his capital when he left the farm. Was not that a just arrangement? If it were not, he could not understand how the Government could refrain from bringing in a Bill dealing with house property, where a tenant, who had increased the value of his house, would have to leave without getting sixpence by way of compensation. How grossly unjust, on the theory of the Government, must be a law which they had refused to inquire into. Then, with regard to the landlord, he let to the tenant a most delicate instrument of production, in the shape of the land, which, by unskilful handling, might be so misused as to be greatly injured; for instance, lime might be so used as to greatly destroy the fertility of the soil, and yet, under the Bill, the landlord would have no remedy at all. It would, therefore, be very unfair to him to compel him to part with all control over his land with regard to certain improvements, at the same time that the tenant was allowed to speculate upon them. The Bill was founded on the principle of valuation; valuers were a necessary instrument for carrying it out; but he thought that every practical agriculturist would agree with him that they were very imperfect instruments. In the Highlands of Scotland there had been a custom that the stock on a farm was handed over to the next tenant, or to the landlord, at a valuation; the valuation was fair for the tenant, but it was 20 or 25 per cent higher for the landlord. There was danger that such a custom would arise here and of its becoming general. It it did, it would practically be a system of compensation for disturbance, and no landlord could take his land into his own hands without paying a heavy fine. Believing that that was not the desire of any one in the House, and that the tenant farmers would be the first to repudiate it, he should ask the House, recollecting what came sometimes from the germs of legislation, to resist this Amendment, and to abide by the Bill as it left the Committee.

said, that with reference to the remark of the hon. Members opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour), that the Government were re-opening this question on Report, after it had been settled in Committee, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would remind him that his Amendment was carried only by the small majority of 8, and that, too, after a considerable number of hon. Members had left the House under the impression that no further Division on the point would take place. He thought, therefore, they were quite justified in re-opening it. The hon. Gentleman had also said that the Amendment now proposed would not give adequate protection to the landlords, and he went on to quote some hypothetical cases, which were always difficult to answer. The hon. Member asked, if a railway coming into a district added to the general value of the farm, whether that would be considered a tenant's improvement? He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) should say not; but that was only his opinion. He presumed it was covered by the phrase "inherent capabilities of the soil." But even if such an improvement was not covered by those words, he should think a valuer, in assessing compensation for a tenant's improvements, would not be justified in reckoning such adventitious improvements. The fallacy which, he thought, underlay the whole argument and the Amendment of the hon. Member was this. He appeared to think that, under the principle of the Bill, the tenant would get the full value of his outlay in all cases; but he seemed to have forgotten that if, in consequence of the deterioration of the improvement, or from other causes, the value of the improvement was less at the time the tenant quitted his holding, the tenant would get less for that improvement. Their contention was, that when the reverse occurred—when, through the greater skill with which the improvement had been effected, or a rise in prices, its value was greater—the tenant ought to be entitled to enhanced compensation in proportion to his reduced compensation in the contrary case. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford would come into effect rarely, for he would admit that the cases would be extremely rare in which the value of the improvements would increase; but whenever it did it, if this Amendment were left in the Bill, it was his confident belief that it would work such an amount of injustice and create such a sense of grievance and bitterness as would inevitably lead to demands for fresh legis- lation, which hon. Members opposite would do well to avoid. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, whom they were sorry not to see still in this House, particularly when they were discussing questions of this kind, spoke of the hon. Member's Amendment in this language—

"The Amendment of Mr. Balfour is a most complete example of 'Heads I win, tails you lose' against the improving tenant. He may spend his money, and take the chance of losing it all, or the greater portion of it, if his expenditure has in any way failed; but if he has made a decided hit, than he never shall be paid more than his original outlay. The instances of an agricultural improvement in Clauses 2 and 3 being worth more than the prime cost are so exceedingly few that this niggardly precaution can only benefit about one owner in 100, whereas it will exasperate 99 tenants, who will chafe under a sense of injustice which they fancy may one day tell against them."

That was his (Mr. Shaw Lefevre's) own opinion, and he believed if the words were retained there would be further agitation. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would not agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Hertford.

said, that if he had been aware, when he voted for the hon. Member for Hereford's (Mr. A. J. Balfour's) Amendment, that the question would have assumed its present shape, he, for one, would not have voted for it. He considered that they had two main objects in view in the principle of the Bill. One was, that the tenant should receive a full and perfect return for his outlay on any improvements he made; the other was to encourage both landlord and tenant to increase the interests of agriculture generally. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) appeared to him to meet the necessities of the case, and he should consequently support it. He believed that, if it were agreed to, it would have the effect of stimulating them to lay out money upon agricultural improvements, and thus benefit the whole country. He thought both landlord and tenant ought to do all in their power to have this question decided now, so as to prevent its having to come before Parliament again.

said, he wished to point out that the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman was limited to the First Schedule of the Bill, and that, if it were adopted, it would make the clause actually considerably worse than when it was first introduced. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that in regard to all improvements under the First and Second Schedules, the improvements due to the inherent capabilities of the soil were not to be reckoned in calculating the compensation; but as no mention was made of the Third Schedule, the inference to be drawn was that, in regard to improvements made under that Schedule, improvements clue to the inherent capabilities of the soil were to be considered in the tenant's favour. He hoped the House would adhere to the decision they had already come to in Committee, for the Amendment as now proposed was not just. Anyone conversant with practical matters of farming knew how the fertility of light soils might be improved without any outlay on the part of the tenant; and it was, therefore, neither just nor fair that he should have a right to a larger compensation than the actual sum he had expended.

supported the Amendment.

said, he would point out that there were certain improvements which grew in value from year to year, and to limit the compensation to the actual outlay of the tenant in such a case would be a great injustice.

said, he desired to propose an Amendment to the Proviso of the right hon. Gentleman. He would ask why Part III. of the Schedule was not included in the Proviso? Surely it was just as true of improvements under the 3rd Part, as of the 1st and 2nd, that the tenant had no right to what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil. Of course, as the Bill stood, this Proviso had been applied only to one Part of the Schedule, for the simple reason that the other Parts were covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Unless this Pro- viso was applied to improvements of the third class as well as of the first and second, it was possible that a valuer, through ignorance, might attribute to the tenant, in estimating the unexhausted value of such improvements, something which really belonged to the owner of the soil. He was of opinion that the only guide which the valuers were to have under the Bill was the Proviso which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed, and it seemed to him that Proviso ought to apply to all classes of improvements; and he would, therefore, move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "Parts 1 and 2."

said, he could not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reason for blaming him (Mr. Dodson) for not including Part III. in his Amendment. One reason for not doing so was the example of the right hon. Baronet himself, who, in the first instance, proposed to confine it to Parts I. and II.

No; I did not.

said, it was the case, unless his memory deceived him; and by referring to the debate the right hon. Gentleman would find it was so.

Then I did not mean it.

said, another reason for leaving out Part III. was because the improvements mentioned in the 3rd Part of the Schedule were in the nature of superior acts of husbandry; they were not of the same character as the works contemplated in the other parts of the Schedule, and therefore it had not been deemed necessary that this Proviso should apply to them.

said, it was now more necessary than ever that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be accepted. He would explain that when his right hon. Friend moved his Amendment, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had already been carried. He considered the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dodson's) argument extraordinary and inconsistent. Because the improvements were matters of cultivation, it was no reason why the tenant should not have the value of them. For instance, on certain light soils turnips could not be grown without the application of artificial manure; but by spending £2 an acre on artificial manure the finest crop of turnips in the world might be produced. The cultivation of turnips was necessary to the four-course rotation, and it was impossible to say how much might depend upon the tenant's outlay upon artificial manure for the production of that crop. The whole value of the other crops might be affected by it. What was to prevent the valuer saying that he hardly knew how to value land artificially manured? He was exceedingly sorry that the House had reversed its opinion. When the Bill was first introduced the Government held the view that compensation should not exceed the outlay in the great majority of cases; but now—if he was to judge from the arguments of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the whole value of the improvements, however much they might exceed the expenditure, were to be claimed and awarded in every case. This, he thought, was a very serious matter indeed. It was a great question of principle. They might be told that no valuers would dream of awarding compensation of that nature; but he could not but remember that the same assurances that no evil results would follow were made when the Irish Land Act was passed. The Prime Minister himself, he believed, had then informed the House that no great reduction of rents would take place; but experience had shown the fallacy of relying on such assurances. He confessed be was afraid, if in future there were valuers of the character of the Irish Sub-Commissioners, that advantage would be taken of the loose wording of the clause, and compensation given to a degree infinitely greater than the Government had any idea of.

said, he thought the Amendment was much more objectionable in principle than it would be in practice. He thought that considerable difficulty arose as to what was precisely meant in the Bill by the word "improvement." So far as he could make out, it did not mean the making better of the holding, but something done or applied to the holding. Without that interpretation he did not think the clause was intelligible. In practice, in every case, the incoming tenant would always pay something less than the actual cost of the improvement, except in such cases as liming the land or permitting it to lie fallow. He thought that, except in some cases, the incoming tenant might be called on to pay the full value.

failed to see on what principle the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had left out Part III. What was good in the case of the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule was good in the case of the 3rd Part. The valuers would naturally conclude that the total value was to be charged against the landlord, if Part III. was excluded. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) to accept the Amendment.

said, that there was a very strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House in favour of the words which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and he hoped the Government, on further reflection, would see their way to assent to them. If they were accepted a feeling of great protection would be created. There was nothing in them inconsistent with the principles of the Government, and they would act as a chock upon rash valuers.

said, he must explain that he had introduced his Amendment in order to prevent any misapprehension arising with respect to Part III. in consequence of the course Government had adopted in reference to Parts I. and II.

said, the Proviso had been originally proposed to be introduced to meet cases in which, by a very small expenditure, large results might be produced, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. In illustration of the nature of the improvements to be dealt with in the manner proposed, it was stated that the removal, for instance, of a hedge might bring a considerable piece of land into cultivation, and so produce considerable results. But Part III. of the Schedule dealt with matters which were not connected with such a class of cases; and, therefore, to introduce the Proviso into Part III., would only lead to confusion.

said, he thought it was necessary to exclude Part III. He thought the valuers ought to be restricted to valuing for the outgoing tenant, and he wanted to protect both tenant and landlord from rash valuers. He, therefore, hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach).

said, he thought that as it had been admitted by hon. Gentlemen who were really the representatives of the tenant farmers' interests that the Amendment could do no harm, and as it was a just Amendment, the Government might very well accept it.

said, he was sorry the Government had ever adopted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) at all. The truth was, directly they introduced the question of the inherent capabilities of the soil, they introduced a subject of enormous difficulty. It was impossible to draw the line; and to put in this qualification would be simply to embarrass the valuer, and might lead him not to give the tenant fair and reasonable compensation.

said, that the argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not to the point now before the House. He had argued against the Amendment which had been adopted by the Government in Committee—namely, that the inherent capabilities of the soil must not be taken into consideration by the valuer in certain cases. The hon. Member had contented himself with arguing that such a limitation was impracticable, and would only lead to difficulty; but the Committee had agreed to adopt this test of the value of the improvements, and the only question before the House was whether that test should be applied to Part III. of the First Schedule or confined to Parts I. and II. He thought the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) had been misunderstood. That hon. and gallant Member had argued that the whole Proviso was really unnecessary, as any valuer of sense and fairness must exclude the value which arose from the inherent capabilities of the soil; but he (Sir Henry Holland) understood him to admit that, if the Proviso was to be inserted with reference to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, it ought to be extended to Part III. He (Sir Henry Holland) must say that it appeared to him that the cases under the three Parts of the Schedule were alike in substance, though not in degree, as in all the cases they had the raw material—that was, the soil and the added material, whether drainage or manure. It was essential, then, that all cases should be treated alike as regarded the manner of testing the value of the compensation. He was afraid that, unless the Amendment were adopted, a lay valuer would say—"Parliament has given me this test specially in Parts I. and II., but has excluded it in Part III.; I must, therefore, not consider the inherent capabilities of the soil when dealing with a case under Part III." That was not intended; but he feared it would be the practical result, and he could not understand why the Government should refuse the Amendment.

said, he could not help thinking that, unless the Amendment were accepted, the whole Proviso should be struck out of the Bill.

said, that experience suggested that it was not advisable to lay down too tight a rule in these matters of manures and such things. The House must trust very much to the practice of farmers and the honesty of valuers, as well as to the progress of agricultural science, which had clearly developed this fact—that the value of artificial manures was chiefly pertinent to the crop which immediately followed, an opinion which was rapidly gaining ground amongst experienced men. He felt assured that anything the Government could do to secure honest valuers would be welcomed by landlords and farmers alike.

said, he could not understand how the Government could refuse to extend the Proviso to the 3rd Part of the Schedule, for there were in that improvements which might give remarkable results, owing to the inherent capabilities of the soil. It was important, therefore, to impose some limitations upon valuers, with whose advertisements the papers would teem as soon as this Bill became law, for many persons were specially preparing themselves for this new occupation.

said, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, as otherwise there would be great risk of wrong being done, the improvements included in the 3rd Part of the Schedule being precisely those which were most subject to variation in their effects, in consequence of differences in the quality of the soil, and in regard to which, therefore, a direction to valuers would he of special importance. It was also worthy of remark that in this particular class of operations there was the greatest danger of injustice being done to the incoming tenant, to whom, therefore, he hoped that the Government would give the safeguard provided by the Amendment.

said, that it was easy for Lincolnshire valuers, as they had precise instructions to guide them in valuing land, as between incoming and outgoing tenants. As an illustration of what might happen in the absence of instructions, he would mention an instance in which a tenant put three times as much manure on land as the crop could take up, and the valuer allowed for the full amount of its cost, instead of the manurial value.

said, that liming, one of the improvements in the 3rd Part of the Schedule, acted both as a food to the plant and as a stimulant to the soil; but if lime were applied to some soils, the effect was so lasting and prejudicial that they could tell for years afterwards that the soil had been over-limed. If a valuer came down to make a valuation where limo had been beneficially used, he ought to take into account the effect lime had upon the inherent qualities of the soil; and if his attention was called by Act of Parliament to the fact that the inherent qualities of the soil should be taken into account for the 1st and 2nd Parts of the Schedule, but not for the 3rd Part, the valuer would not attempt to give all that was due to the inherent qualities of the soil. Ho, therefore, hoped the Government would improve the 1st Part of the Schedule as well as the 2nd and 3rd.

said, the question was one for incoming tenants rather than landlords. If the Amendment was not accepted, lie could conceive cases in which, if not otherwise directed, the valuer might take into consideration the inherent value of the soil, and the incoming tenant would have to pay not only the cost of the improvement made by the outgoing tenant, but also for the inherent value of the soil, the latter being the very thing lie would pay rent to the landlord for. He appealed to the Government to adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), on the ground that it could not do any harm, and might possibly do a great deal of good.

said, he objected strongly to so much of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) as declared that "what is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil" should not be taken into account. If the words of the Amendment had the meaning they appeared to have, the consequences would be that the improving farmer would have no compensation whatever in respect to certain improvements mentioned in the Schedule. For instance, if he raised a crop without manuring the land, that crop would be justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, plus his labour; but, if he reclaimed land, it might be increased in value, and therefore he proposed to leave out the words lie had quoted and insert in their place the words "the inherent value of the soil." If the Amendment was not accepted, he feared the tenants would be defrauded of their just rights.

supported the Amendment, which was a great improvement on the principle which the Government unfortunately accepted. As to the inherent capabilities of the soil, a farmer's business depended on the development of the inherent capabilities of the soil by his labour and outlay; and by this unfortunate Proviso, he might, under certain circumstances, be prevented getting any compensation for improvements he had effected, and to which he had a right.

said, that the idea of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) and that of the Government was the same. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Dr. Farquharson) understood the effect of the words as they stood, and the only question between them and the Government was as to which set of words should be adhered to, seeing that both meant the same thing. He (the Solicitor General) thought the language of his right hon. Friend's (Mr. Dodson's) Amendment was best suited to the case. It must be remembered that this was a Proviso in an enactment which already said that the tenant must receive the value of the improvement be had made, and therefore the right of the tenant was secure. the Amendment only called the attention of the valuer to this—that he was to deal justly as between landlord and tenant, and not to give to the tenant what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.

said, he rose to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson), who proposed the words in question as a concession to the views of those who represented the owners of land. He (Mr. Chaplin) believed, however, that their effect would be mischievous. As the valuer was directly instructed not to take into account, in the case of improvements under Parts I and II of the Schedule, what was justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, why should he do so in the case of improvements coming under Part III.? But that would be the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

also believed that if the Amendment was not to apply to Part III. as well as to Parts I. and II. of the Schedule, the Bill would be much better without it.

said, the Government had not thought these words necessary at all; but they had accepted them to satisfy those who feared that without them injustice would arise. Having accepted the Proviso, he felt bound to support it as it stood.

said, he felt bound to bear testimony to the honourable way in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had adhered to his agreement in this matter.

said, he was afraid that the Amendment would give rise to considerable litigation.

in moving, as an Amendment, to insert 6 per cent, instead of 5 per cent, as the amount to be charged by the landlord to the tenant for 25 years to repay capital and interest of money expended by the landlord in drainage, said, he did so in order to raise the question as to the rate at which interest was to be paid in such cases. As the clause stood, 3 per cent was the amount of interest to be charged. Now, no landlord could borrow money on mortgage at less than 4 per cent; and it was impossible to conceive any- thing more unjust than to require landlords to borrow money for drainage at that rate, and then forbid them to charge as much to the tenant who had compelled them to incur the expenditure.

said, 3 per cent was as much as, or more than, landlords made on the purchase of land, and 5 per cent was a common and fair rate to charge for drainage. Besides, it ought to be remembered that no limit was put upon the time for which this interest might be charged. The point had been discussed very fully the other night in Committee, and the reasons which had induced the Government to adopt 5 per cent as the rate of interest had then been fully explained. He had agreed to an alternative Amendment, to enable the owner to recover his principal and interest in 25 years, at the rate of 3 per cent. He thought that was really a liberal proposition as regarded the owner. The tenant had nothing to do with the landlord's credit, or the terms upon which he could obtain money.

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had made one of the most extraordinary speeches he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had ever heard. He protested against the idea that, because a landlord was willing to purchase land, on which he would only get 3 per cent of a return, he should therefore be compelled to make improvements at the same rate, whenever his tenant might require him to do so. Was it fair that a tenant should be able to compel a landlord to lend him money at 3 per cent, whereas the landlord could only borrow at 4?

said, it was unfair that the tenant should pay for the improvement at all. The proposal that the tenant should pay 5 per cent of the money was a fair one, and he hoped that would be adhered to. With regard, however, to the other proposal, that the tenant should pay off the cost in 25 years at the rate of 3 per cent, that was really causing him to bear the whole cost of the permanent improvement, both capital and interest, of which the landlord would reap the benefit for whatever length of time the drainage works might last beyond that period, and during which he would get a higher rent from the succeeding tenant in consequence.

in rising to move, as an Amendment to Mr. Dodson's proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after "rate," and to insert—

"Per centum per annum at which the money can be borrowed from the Government or a Land Improvement Company in the said period,"

said, his hon. Friend's Amendment was of a very simple character. It amounted to this—that the landlord should not be compelled to lend his money at a lower rate than that at which he could borrow it. It appeared to him that the proposal was perfectly obvious and fair.

said, he could not accept the Amendment, on the ground that it would be exceedingly unfair to the tenant.

said, he thought the Bill would be far better without the Amendment just proposed.

said, he thought it unwise to insert in the Bill provisions as to matters that could be settled by private arrangement.

said, that, in his opinion, the Amendment was of no great importance one way or the other; but he thought it was desirable that it should not be inserted in the clause.

in moving, as an Amendment, to add to the concluding sub-section of the clause which substituted "fair and reasonable" compensation, secured by an agreement for compensation under the Act, words to the effect that such particular agreement should only be set aside on the ground that the compensation therein provided—

"Was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions which existed at the time when such agreement was made,"

said, he thought that would make it clear that the referee should look only to what was in the mind of the landlord and tenant at the time they made the agreement.

said, he did not think the Amendment necessary, for the clause, as it stood, really accomplished what the hon. Member (Mr. Dundas) desired. He farther objected to the words, because they would exclude any mode of impeaching the agreement except the particular mode limited by the word "only." Even if the Amendment were accepted it could not be accepted in the proposed form.

said, he thought, if the Amendment was not accepted as it stood, other words embodying the intention of it should be inserted, for it was decidedly necessary that the object it aimed at should be secured in some way or other. The Bill was intended to direct valuers, and not lawyers, and would be interpreted by them, and its ambiguity ought, therefore, to be minimized to the greatest possible extent.