asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will consider the expediency of antedating to 1st July 1881 the Warrant of 1st October 1882, granting to Quartermasters of the British Army serving in India, and holding the rank of Captain, the allowances of that rank?

Sir, the ordinary practice is that changes of this nature take effect from the date of the receipt in India of the despatch of the Secretary of State, and there is really no reason why this particular case should be treated exceptionally.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire into the case of a child named Emily Agnes Henning, aged four months, who was vaccinated on the 25th July, was, within three days, attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning, and died in great suffering on August 15th; whether he is aware that the certificate of death stated the cause to be Erysipelas P. Convulsions S. without mentioning vaccination; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the circumstances satisfactory to the parents?

Sir, as the Notice gives no clue as to the place where the child was vaccinated, or where the death was registered, the Board are at present unable to give any information respecting the case. If they are supplied with these particulars, the facts will be ascertained.

I am sorry the information was not given; but if my hon. Friend had applied to me, I could have given it him.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that Kingston, Richmond, and localities in the vicinity of these towns, still discharge their sewage into the Thames, and that this sewage matter floats up and down with the tide, until it is deposited upon the mud banks, which each year are more exposed at low tide, owing to the quantity of water taken from the river by the London Water Companies and the dredging operations of the Conservators; and, whether, in view of the probability of this system of draining producing fever or some other disease, he will take measures to protect the inhabitants of the Low Thames Valley, and those visiting it, from such contingencies?

Sir, the sewage of Kingston, Richmond, and other localities below the intake of the Water Companies is discharged into the Thames. The quantity of the water taken, by the Water Companies is comparatively small. It is estimated to be not more than a seventh of the ordinary dry-weather flow over Teddington Weir, while the volume of the tidal water of spring tides is estimated to be 1,400 times that of the water flowing over the weir. The Lower Thames Valley Main Sewage District, which includes, among other districts, Kingston and Richmond, was constituted by a Provisional Order for the purpose of providing a system of sewerage which would secure the disposal of the sewage without contravening the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Acts. The Board regret that works for this purpose have not been carried out. They have issued a Provisional Order extending for another year the period allowed to the Main Sewerage Board for the performance of their duty, and for protection from liability to prosecution under the Thames Conservancy Acts; but when they intimated their willingness to issue this Order, they stated that, unless they were satisfied before the expiration of this further period that the Main Sewerage Board were taking active steps for carrying out the purposes for which they were constituted, the Board would probably be unwilling to grant any further prolongation of time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the sewerage of Twickenham? If the smell goes for anything, I should say it was not a success.

My hon. Friend wrote me a private letter on that subject some time ago. In 1880 the system was examined, and the experiments were satisfactory; but I will see that further inquiry is made.

asked whether the right hon. Baronet was aware that the water supply to Northampton was of a very inferior character?

said, he thought the Question should be placed on the Paper.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information of a disposi- tion on the part of the Cape Government to surrender not only the Basuto territory, which they have been unable to conquer, but also the other Native territories beyond the Kei, which were conquered by the aid of Her Majesty's troops, but in which a representative system has not been introduced; whether the small number of Europeans in Natal have so far declined to accept, on the terms proposed to them, responsible Government, and the dominion over the large unrepresented Native population; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of undertaking the administration of the Native territories in South Africa which have accepted and become accustomed to British rule, but have not been brought within any Colonial representative system?

Sir, no official proposal for taking over the Transkei has come from the Cape Government. It is true that Natal has declined to undertake full responsible Government; but I demur to the terms of the hon. Member's Question which imply that this would have involved uncontrolled dominion over the large unrepresented Native population. Such a proposal was never made. Her Majesty's Government have not under consideration the undertaking the administration of the Native territories referred to in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Bernard Smyth, one of the prisoners in the Crossmaglen cases recently convicted at Belfast on the evidence of the informer Duffy, and sentenced to ten years penal servitude, has been released from prison; and, whether the same course will be taken with the other men convicted and sent to penal servitude on the evidence of the same man?

Bernard Smyth addressed a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, and His Excellency, on inquiry, and after communication with the Judge before whom the cases were heard, found that the case against Smyth differed somewhat from that against the other prisoners, and also that he is a very delicate man, subject to spitting of blood, and had been treated in the prison hospital for chronic bronchitis. Under these circumstances, His Excellency took a merciful view of the case, and ordered his discharge. The reasons which influenced His Excellency in dealing with this case do not exist with regard to the other prisoners, and there is no intention of interfering with the sentence in their cases.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the imports of sugar into the United Kingdom from Germany, in consequence of the large export bounties granted by that country, during the six months to 30th June last, as compared with similar periods in 1882 and 1881; whether he is aware that, owing to these large bounty-receiving imports from Germany, the British West India Colonies are now sending a large proportion of their sugar crops to the United States; and, whether, in view of this unnatural diversion of the trade between Great Britain and her Colonies, Her Majesty's Government will now make a serious effort to obtain the abolition of the practice of granting bounties on the export of sugar from the Continent, and especially from Germany?

in reply, said, the Question was one of a very controversial character, but he should endeavour to answer it with as little argument as possible; but he must not be taken as agreeing with the statement of facts or the inferences. It was true that there had been a considerable increase in the imports of sugar into the United Kingdom from Germany, but that increase appeared much larger when compared with last year than with the year before. He was by not by any means certain that that increase was in consequence of the large export bounties granted by that country, because he was not aware of any increase in the bounties during the period in which the increase in the imports of sugar had taken place. He was aware that the British West India Colonies were now sending a large portion of their sugar crops to the United States; but the actual amount which they sent to this country had practically remained stationary for many years past. He did not think, however, that their exports to the United States were due to these bounties. On the contrary, it seemed to him to be the natural course of trade, and not, as described by the Question, as an "unnatural diversion of trade," with the West Indian Islands that they should send a larger proportion of their products to the United States. In answer to the last part of the Question, he had to say that the Government did not think any useful purpose would be served by making any further representations to the German Government on this subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now give any information with regard to the recent deaths through hardship at Loughrea, county Galway, and Kilmoree, county Mayo?

A sworn inquiry was opened to-day in the case of the girl who died of fever at Kilmoree, and one will be opened to-morrow into the case of John Burke, who died near Loughrea. I can give no further information at present.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the local Guardians had protested against the character of the witnesses called by the Local Government Board officer, on the ground that because of their prejudice their evidence was not likely to throw full light upon the facts of the case?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the feeling expressed in public meetings in Scotland in reference to what is deemed the unnecessary severity of the sentence passed upon the rioters in the recent disturbance at Strome Ferry; whether it is true that these men have had their hair cropped, and are treated in all respects as common felons; and, whether, as the rioters expressed before the Court their penitence for the offence, and were strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, he is now prepared to advise the remission of their Sentence?

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to put to him a supplementary one—namely, Whether, having regard to the admission by the Lord Advocate, in replying to a Question put to him some days ago by the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that the legality of Sunday trading in Scotland is an open question, and to the circumstances that the men convicted in this case acted on the belief that such traffic is illegal, and were seeking to prevent what they regarded as a violation of the law, he does not see ground upon which to recommend Her Majesty to mitigate the sentence passed upon them, especially seeing they have already been undergoing sentence for a month?

Sir, as this is a matter of a good deal of interest, I may be allowed to answer it somewhat carefully. As regards the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I cannot concur in that part of the Question at all. I cannot agree with the consideration that a criminal sentence should be influenced by the feeling expressed at public meetings. Indeed, I must point out to the hon. Member that one of the great obstacles to the mitigation of this sentence has been found in the ill-advised speaking at these public meetings. So long as the unwise and ill-judged language of the friends of the prisoners, amounting at least to a palliation, if not to a justification of the offences, is continued, so long it will be impossible, with due respect to law, to exercise a leniency which would only be an encouragement to fresh outrages. It must be remembered that this offence was not the result of a sudden impulse, but of a deliberate plan. The original line of defence was an absolute justification by the accused of their right to vindicate the observance of the Day of Rest by a violent and organized riot. In answering the Question of my hon. Friend behind me, without entering on the question of the law as to the observance of the Sabbath, it cannot be al- lowed that this is the proper manner to vindicate this law. I cannot, therefore, regard the original sentence as unduly severe, as it was absolutely necessary to make these men, and everyone else, clearly to understand that this was a thing the law would not suffer, and would severely punish. That is my answer to the first part of the Question; but I turn with more satisfaction to the second part, and my answer to that is this. If it be true that these men, as stated, after their conviction expressed their sincere regret for the offence into which they had been betrayed, and if that view of their conduct is frankly accepted by those who advocate their cause, then, and not till then, the question of leniency will arise. If the matter is dealt with in this spirit, I shall be prepared at the expiration of two mouths of the sentence to consult with the learned Judge as to whether the sentence can safely be mitigated.

asked if the Home Secretary would explain how it was possible that the advocates of these men in Scotland were to express their concurrence with the prisoners in their expressions of regret—in what form, and through what organ, could this be done?

asked, as to the silence of these people and their friends, how long it was to be maintained before the Home Secretary would come to the conclusion that they had exercised a proper reticence? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was understood to say he would consider the case at the end of two months. Did that depend upon silence being maintained in the meantime?

I did not say anything about silence at all. What I say is, that it would be a very difficult thing in dealing with a sentence when at public meetings a great many people are maintaining that nothing wrong has been done. As long as that continued it would be impossible to do anything in the way of mitigation of sentence, as it is absolutely certain that the same thing would be done again. In the latter part of the Question the hon. Member speaks of the penitence and regret of these prisoners at the offence they committed; and, if that be so, it may be safe, with a due respect for the law, to consider their sentence.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, during the recess, he will consider the possibility of introducing, next Session, a measure to further regulate the use of steam traction engines on roads?

Sir, I can only state generally that, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, it is desirable that county authorities should have larger powers than they now possess with regard to traction engines, and that the Board would propose that in any Bill dealing with the subject of County Government additional powers should be conferred on the county authorities with respect to the regulation of the use of traction engines on roads.

asked whether Her Majesty's subjects were to have their limbs broken and lives endangered until a County Government Bill was introduced?

Her Majesty's subjects, I hope, will not have to wait long for the introduction of a County Government Bill. But I pointed out, in an answer to the hon. Member some months ago, that the present regulations are very strong indeed—much stronger than seems to be known; and in the case of the serious accident that happened lately to constituents of the hon. Member, they were not observed.

Can a Circular be issued drawing attention to them?

The regulations are partly statutory and partly made by county authorities.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Order in Council of 23rd October 1877 (Clause C) contained the words—

"Assistant Paymasters, with over eight years' seniority as such, to rank with Lieutenants of under eight years' seniority;

"To he considered to mean, to rank with, not after, Lieutenants of under eight years' seniority;"

When the Order in Council of the 23rd of October, 1877, was issued, it was found that the words "but after" had been inadvertently omitted from the clause to which the hon. Member refers. It was found necessary to amend the Circular in consequence of the anomalies which the omission of these words introduced even within the Paymasters' Department itself. For instance, it gave an assistant paymaster of over eight years' standing higher relative rank than he would have when promoted to the higher rank of paymaster. The amended Rule was embodied in the revised edition of the Queen's Regulations, and was covered by the Order in Council of the 4th of February, 1879.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he could explain why the Privy Council do not adopt precautionary regulations for the removal of animals into England from Scotland and Ireland similar to those enforced by their orders for the removal of animals into Scotland and Ireland from England, seeing that foot and mouth disease is prevalent in those parts of the United Kingdom, and that the health of the herds and flocks of England is being seriously prejudiced by the continued introduction of the disease?

Sir, the Scotch Prohibitory Order was first passed at a time when there was no disease in Scotland, and it has been maintained latterly because, although there have been occasional outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, Scotland is still comparatively free. I must remind my hon. Friend that it is a mistake to suppose that precautionary regulations have not been made for England and Wales. Every local authority has power to prohibit or regulate the movement of animals into its district from the district of any other local authority in any part of the United Kingdom. The Order prohibiting importation into Ireland is an Order of the Irish Privy Council, over which I have no control.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Papers belonging to Consul Pakenham and the Consular Archives in Madagascar were examined by the French authorities on the death of Consul Pakenham; and, whether his private Papers and the Consular Archives are at present intact in the hands of Captain Johnstone, or any other British authority?

No, Sir. Commander Johnstone has reported that, before the Consul's death, he made arrangements for the removal on board the Dryad of the Consular archives and Mr. Pakenham's papers. They were, consequently, not examined by the French authorities after the Consul's death.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has been received of the arrest, at Madagascar, of Mr. Aiken, a British subject, who is stated, at the request of Consul Pakenham, to have given shelter during the bombardment to all the British residents at Tamatave; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to obtain the release of this British subject, as well as satisfaction for his arrest?

Mr. Aiken was arrested on the 16th of June, not for having given shelter during the bombardment to British residents, but on a supposed charge of complicity in Mr. Shaw's offence. He was released on the following day. I cannot at present make any further statement.

May I ask whether during the bombardment of Alexandria Her Majesty's naval authorities arrested any French subjects who might have been in communication with the Natives?

I think that is a Question of which the hon. Member had better give me Notice?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the views of the Australasian Government on the necessity of annexing New Guinea, and extending the authority of the British Empire over other places in the Western Pacific, has been brought before Her Majesty's Government in au official memorandum signed by the Agents General of the Australasian Colonies; whether the several Australasian Colonies have offered to defray the expense of, and to enter into a federation to give effect to, the policy in the Western Pacific which they deem essential to their interests; whether the memorandum referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, what answer Her Majesty's Government have given to it?

Yes, Sir; The Memorandum referred to has been laid before Her Majesty's Government. In it the Agents General, on behalf of their respective Governments, offer, subject to the vote and decision of their respective Legislatures, to co-operate with the Government by contributing to the cost of any policy of annexation that might be adopted. The Memorandum and Answer will, in due course be laid on the Table; but no answer has yet been sent to it, as it involves grave and lasting matters which require much consideration.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's answer about New Guinea, I suppose the Papers will be laid on the Table, so that they may be circulated during the Recess?

If the Memorandum were to be laid on the Table alone without the answer it might be; but I cannot say that the answer will be delivered before the House rises.

I think arrangements are sometimes made for laying such documents on the Table in dummy form.

But you cannot lay the answer in dummy form on the Table before it is ready.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty has any diplomatic or consular representative in Tonquin or Annam; whether, in view of the size and importance of the territories in the Indo-Chinese peninsula, now being attacked by the French Republic, Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to acquire early and reliable information as to the conduct and views of the French; and, whether he can give any information as to the progress of the French invasion?

Sir, I informed the hon. Member during the discussion of the Estimates that Her Majesty has no Diplomatic or Consular Representative in Tonquin and Annam. It is not, at present, intended to alter these arrangements. Her Majesty's Government has no special information in regard to the military operations now going on, beyond the fact that troops have arrived at Saigon on their way to Tonquin, and that the importation of arms into Annam has been prohibited to foreign traders. The last part of the Question is one of opinion, which I hardly think it right to answer.

asked what was the nearest place to Tonquin where there was a Representative of Her Majesty's Consular or Diplomatic Body; and whether, in view of the fact that British trade with these countries amounts to over £2,000,000 a-year, Her Majesty's Government would take some steps to keep themselves informed as to the progress of the French invasion?

I answered this Question on the Estimates, and I told the hon. Member that we had no difficulty in obtaining information from Bankok or Saigon.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government will instruct our Diplomatic Agent at Constantinople to press upon the Ambassadors the desirability of settling, without delay, the question of, the contribution to the Public Debt of Turkey which is due by Bulgaria, Montenegro, Servia, and Greece?

Sir, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, under instructions from the Secretary of State, again brought this matter before the Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople on June 29 last, and he has applied to the Porte for data on which the amount of the tribute from Bulgaria can be determined. Her Majesty's Government have done everything in their power to obtain a settlement of these outstanding questions, and they will lose no favourable opportunity of pressing for their consideration by the other Powers.

said, the answer was, so far, satisfactory; but he would ask, further, whether Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople would be instructed to lay a definite scheme before the Turkish Government, which he believed was now in possession of Her Majesty's Government?

That will depend upon the character of the information obtained from the Porte in reply to this request. The words of the Treaty are "equitable basis," and information is required in order to define that.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the reason of the distinction between candidates for commissions in Her Majesty's Army Medical Department and candidates for commissions in Her Majesty's Indian Medical Service with regard to the marks gained by them at Netley, which in the case of the candidates for the Indian Medical Service are counted, and in that of the candidates for the Army Medical Department are not counted, in the totals which determine in each case respectively their order of merit; and, whether it is intended to maintain that distinction?

Sir, the examination at the conclusion of the Netley course is, in the case of Army Medical candidates, a pass examination merely, their relative precedence having been settled at the entrance examination. With the Indian candidates, on the contrary, the Netley course is competitive, and aids in determining the position during subsequent service. The system for the British officers was deliberately adopted, after very full inquiry, by a Committee appointed to consider the causes of the unsatisfactory supply of candidates for the Army Medical Service, which took evidence on this particular point.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether a periodical inspection is made of the buildings at the various Military Centres; and, if so, who is responsible for the condition of new barracks erected in the county of Bedford?

I have to say, on behalf of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, that a periodical inspection is made of all War Department buildings. The Inspector General of Fortifications is responsible to the Secretary of State for War for the condition of all barracks.

Will the hon. and gallant Baronet undertake that the attention of the proper authority be called to the existing condition of the barracks at Bedford?

My hon. Friend's Question will call the attention of the Surveyor General of the Ordnance to their condition.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated by Mr. A. K. Connell, in his work on the Economic Revolution of India, that interest charges for Guaranteed and State Railways, paid out of the ordinary revenues, amounted in 1881–2 to over £32,000,000, and to over £34,000,000 if loss by exchange be taken into account; and, whether, in view of these two items, loss by exchange and past interest charges, the Indian Railways earn 5¼ per cent on the whole capital outlay?

Sir, up to the 30th of June, 1882, the amount advanced to the Guaranteed Railway Companies—omitting the East Indian—was £25,344,000, and the Government share of surplus receipts amounted to £1,697,000, giving an excess of £23,647,000. When the East Indian Railway was purchased, the guaran- teed interest advanced amounted to £4,505,000. The surplus profits received by Government have amounted to £6,523,000, or £2,818,000 in excess of the amount advanced it as a guaranteed line. The total sum advanced, may, therefore, be put at £21,629,000. If loss by exchange on past transactions be added the amount will, no doubt, be greater. The capital cost of all the lines open to traffic on the 31st of December, 1882, was about 143 crores—the net revenue was 78 lakhs—or 5·37 per cent. If the capital cost be raised by the addition of the interest advanced to, say, 167 crores, the net revenue was 4·6 per cent.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Mathews, clerk to the Ballymena Poor Law Union, is also clerk to the Town Commissioners, clerk to the Gasworks, clerk to the Intermediate School, clerk to the Burial Board, and collector of county cess for a barony?

in reply, said, that Mr. Mathews held the several offices named, and had held them for periods varying from seven to 37 years. He had been a very long time Clerk of the Union, and for a comparatively short time—seven years—Clerk to the Town Commissioners. He was not aware of any complaint being made with respect to the discharge of his duties, and the Local Government Board informed him that they had no reason to believe that his engagements outside the workhouse interfered with his duties as Clerk of the Union. If the hon. Member could refer him to any responsible person who believed otherwise, he would have the matter inquired into.

asked whether this was one of the officials whose very heavy labours the Government proposed to reward by the Union Officers' Superannuation Bill?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Bill which the Government proposes to bring in next Session to amend the Irish Teachers' Act, 1875, will place the teachers in the Workhouse National Schools on an equal footing as regards result fees with the teachers in the ordinary National Schools?

Sir, I can give no pledge on this subject now. It would be impossible, without much consideration, to undertake to reverse the policy of former legislation in the matter; but I will consider the subject with the details of the Bill before I introduce it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh has postponed his visit to India; if so, for how long; and, "whether Her Majesty's Government intend to grant him a farther sum of money out of the Revenues of India?

Sir, no communication has been received faom the Maharajah with regard to the postponement of his journey to India. When, some time ago, a desire to make that journey was expressed, the Maharajah was informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, who was then Secretary of State for India, that he would have to conform with the instructions of the Viceroy which might be given him there with respect to his journey. No intention has been formed or expressed by Her Majesty's Government of making an increased money grant to the Maharajah. I may say with respect to this question of the journey, and what may grow out of it, that it has recently been referred to the Government of India.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What overt act of war Mr. Shaw is alleged to have committed to justify his being tried as a British subject by a French court martial?

Whether or not the description I gave yesterday of the acts alleged against Mr. Shaw would constitute overt acts of war I am not able to say. There may be some difficulty; but what I understand, on taking the best advice I can, is that there is no reason for us, with our present information, to presume that there has been an excess of jurisdiction on the part of the French authorities, viewing all the circumstances of the case.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the overt acts, which have made this missionary amenable to be tried by court martial for giving assistance to the enemy and being guilty of hostile actions against the French, consisted of nothing more than giving refuge to the fugitives and establishing an ambulance corps? Is there any information in the possession of the Government that this gentleman has committed any other alleged offence than these two?

I think certainly, as far as I am able to form a judgment, though I cannot speak with authority, that the allegation of those two acts against Mr. Shaw would not correspond with the description given by the French Government to us of the charges, upon which charges the House will understand it is not for me to give any sort of opinion.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the circumstances of the arrest of Mr. Shaw, a British subject, by order of the French Admiral at Tamatave, described by the Prime Minister on 11th July as "a grave and painful occurrence," and to the continued detention of Mr. Shaw on board a French man of war, and his threatened trial by Court Martial, Her Majesty's Government have put themselves, or intend to put themselves, in communication with Mr. Shaw; and, whether he can now inform the House when and where the Court Martial on Mr. Shaw will be held?

Sir, I am so far glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put this Question, as it enables me to remove from his mind what is evidently a misapprehension. He is under the impression that on a former day I described the arrest of Mr. Shaw as a grave and painful occurrence. That is not so. I used epithets to that effect undoubtedly with regard to the telegraphic intelligence that had come from Madagascar, but it had reference to a different matter. What I said had reference to what, drawing an inference from the telegrams, necessarily very succinct, had a grave and painful appearance—namely, the case of Mr. Pakenham, the British Consul. [Oh!"] That is so, Sir. I offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman the rectification. If he does not like to accept it that is another matter. We saw from the telegrams that it might he inferred with a certain amount of presumption, though not demonstratively, that the order to Mr. Pakenham to quit the town had been given knowingly by the French Admiral at a time when Mr. Pakenham was extremely and dangerously ill; and further, even, that Mr. Pakenham's death was hastened by that order. The detailed intelligence that has now come in the shape of letters I think removes both of these impressions which might have been drawn from the telegram, and these are what I described as grave and painful occurrences. Of course, the arrest of Mr. Shaw is a serious occurrence, and one with regard to which it is the absolute duty of the Government to watch with the greatest care what takes place. With respect to placing ourselves in communication with Mr. Shaw, no intimation has been conveyed to us that such a desire or a sense of such a necessity exists on the part of that gentleman or his friends; and we have not thought it our duty spontaneously, in the case of a British subject charged in a foreign country, to make an application to the Foreign Government with the view of placing ourselves in communication with him until we have reason to suppose there is some practical object to be gained by it, or necessity for it. We have no information as to the place where, or the time when, the court martial will be held.

said, he found from the report in The Times of the right hon. Gentleman's former speech that immediately after referring to the arrest of Mr. Shaw, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as "a grave and painful occurrence." Of course, however, he accepted the explanation. He desired to ask the Prime Minister now whether he was satisfied that Mr. Shaw had any means of communication with the Government if he wished to do so? The House had been informed that Mr. Shaw was practically a prisoner on board a French ship of war, and they had no further knowledge of him. Would the Prime Minister take steps to afford Mr. Shaw the opportunity to obtain a fair trial and the assistance of counsel, if necessary?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be justified by the report he has read; but I am most distinct in my recollection upon the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will hardly say that he himself, from his own recollection of what I said, can urge that when I spoke of the "grave and painful occurrence" I referred to Mr. Shaw. It was not in my mind in the slightest degree, and it is quite inappropriate to say that the arrest of a British subject in circumstances of war by a Foreign Power was a grave and painful occurrence. It would be an exaggerated style of speech on the part of a Minister, and not warranted on matters on which he felt he had only partial information. I have the strongest conviction that Mr. Shaw can have expressed no desire to communicate with the Government, for I do not for a moment entertain the supposition with respect to a friendly Government that upon the expression of such a desire by Mr. Shaw the knowledge of that desire would be kept from us.

I wish to ask a Question, to which I do not know if the Government can give me an answer, on the very point to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, that of Mr. Shaw communicating with his friends. I have a letter from a gentleman—I do not know if I am at liberty to mention his name—who very lately came from Madagascar, and who is in a position which is very likely to make him well acquainted with what is going on. He says—

"Do you know, Sir, that when Mrs. Shaw arrived at Tamatave on the 26th Juno to join her husband, after two years' absence from ill-health, her three successive written applications to Admiral Pierre for permission to see her husband were refused, and not being allowed to land, she had to return to the Mauritius without seeing him."

Sir, there is certainly no information, as far as my knowledge goes—and I think I am correct—amounting to anything like what has been read by the right hon. Gentleman. I feel that these are Questions which, if they are intended to be discussed as Questions of right, are very nice matters indeed. I am not prepared to state precisely that we have a right to demand from a Foreign Government with regard to the access of friends to a person whom, upon what they think a charge of a legal offence, they have felt it their duty to imprison. This is a very nice question indeed, and one upon which it would be highly imprudent in me to commit myself in answer to an inquiry across this Table. The question what courtesy and what humanity may be thought in our judgment to require is a different question; but although we have reason to believe that some restraints have been placed upon Mr. Shaw with regard to his family which we may not have thought necessary, or for which we may not be able to urge sufficient reasons, yet I think it better that I should not attempt to give any opinion upon that, or, in the absence of full information, state what may have occurred, until I know more perfectly. This, at any rate, I can fairly say—we will make careful inquiry into these allegations if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly supply us with the information in his possession.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer this Question. He said yesterday that Mr. Shaw was to be tried by a French court martial, and that the finding of that Court would be brought to review by what he called a Court of Revision. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that Court of Revision is to be a Court held in France, or whether it is to be a Court merely composed of naval officers, or other French officers, at Madagascar?

I have no information on the subject. The information which I communicated was given exactly as it was received by us from the French Government.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the French Government that any Court of Review held at Madagascar composed of French officers would be extremely unsatisfactory to this country?

Sir, I would not undertake to lay down rules in anticipation as to the way in which the trial ought to be conducted of a person who has been arrested in these circumstances, and I think that to do so would be exceedingly unwise. Our business is to take care that the interests of Mr. Shaw are properly protected, and that he is tried according to the general principles of justice, in the shape in which those principles are applied by the laws of a highly-civilized country, whose jurisprudence holds a very leading position in Europe. I admit we are not precluded from interfering, were there a presumption that injustice was about to be done; but, knowing the character of the French nation and of its jurisprudence, we are not justified in presuming, without adequate cause, that injustice is about to be done in this case. I am quite willing to make inquiry as to the nature of this Court of Revision; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press us further.

Has Mr. Shaw any means of sending out letters to his friends, or to the officer commanding H.M.S. Dryad? Or is he a prisoner in solitary confinement?

Mr. Shaw is not a prisoner in solitary confinement, as appears from the answer which I gave yesterday. He was left by the French Consul at Zanzibar walking about the deck of a French ship. With respect to the other Question of the hon. Member, I would request him to give Notice.

asked if it was not a fact that the French Admiral ordered Consul Pakenham to haul down his flag within 24 hours; and whether in 24 hours, the flag not having been hauled down by Consul Pakenham, the French themselves hauled it down? He would also like to know whether it was not a fact that Captain Johnstone, in a despatch to the Admiralty, had not said he was not allowed to communicate with Mr. Shaw?

I think all these matters were covered by the answer I gave yesterday. I have said there is a somewhat complex Correspondence involving a considerable variety of incidents; and, in our opinion, it is not possible to convey a real knowledge of those incidents, so as to enable the House to pass judgment upon them, except by the presentation of Papers. To present the Papers at this time would not be favourable to the public interest, because, in the first instance, there are several points which must be the subject of communication between the two Governments. As regards any further Questions of this character, I should be very glad to have Notice.

asked how Mr. Shaw was to obtain access to any counsel, if he was not allowed to communicate with anyone on shore? He also inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would obtain a similar assurance from the French Government to that he got from the Egyptian Government—namely, that Mr. Shaw should not be executed without Her Majesty's Government being first of all communicated with?

I have not the smallest doubt in my own mind that Mr. Shaw has perfect means of providing himself with legal assistance. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary it will be matter for our immediate attention.

Neither his wife nor the Commander of the Dryad was allowed to see him.

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, assumes more than he is justified in doing; but, supposing that to be the case, how am I able to say that the Commander, who was not at the time invested with any civil character at all——

He was acting Consul.

He was not acting Consul at all. The hon. Gentleman interrupts to give information instead of asking it. The Commander had no civil authority. He did his best as a gallant British officer; but he had no authority or warrant to act in a civil capacity. But if the hon. Member for Portsmouth has any reason to suppose that Mr. Shaw has any sort of difficulty in obtaining proper means of defence, that is a matter which, upon the receipt of evidence, shall have our immediate attention.

Surely the Government will ascertain for themselves whether Mr. Shaw has proper means of obtaining advice or not?

Sir, we are in charge of the relations of this country with foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware of the bearing these Questions have on the amity and goodwill existing between this country and another country. If I were the Foreign Minister of this country, I should deem it a slight and an offence that anyone should come before me and presume that we were about to proceed towards a subject of a foreign land in defiance of the elementary principles of justice. So, in the same manner, I am prepared to deal out to the French Government the measure I should expect them to deal out to me; and I will not, without some presumption that the French Government contemplate an erroneous course—I will not give an answer which, in my opinion, would imply that they were neglecting the very first principles that should govern the intercourse between two nations.

As this discussion has arisen out of a Question which I submitted to the House, and which was a fair one, perhaps I may be allowed to ask this Question—for I hold that this House is in charge of the liberties of British subjects—Is the House to understand that the Government will leave this matter in its present condition? Mr. Shaw, a British subject, imprisoned on board a French man-of-war, the Government having evidence that the Commander of the British ship and others endeavoured to communicate with him in vain; no evidence that he has any means of communication with his friends; awaiting his trial by court martial, it may be upon a capital crime——["Order!"]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing with matters of a controversial nature.

The Question involves so much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can hardly expect me, in the midst of my occupations, to answer all the points from memory.

understood the Prime Minister to say it was the duty of the Government to see that the interests of Mr. Shaw were consulted and that justice was done. How was this to be done if Her Majesty's Government did not see that Mr. Shaw had proper counsel provided for him?

The hon. Member has not informed me, nor has any other person, that Mr. Shaw has been in any respect hindered, or put in any difficulty with regard to the means of his legal defence; but when any evidence is brought before Her Majesty's Government to show that such is the case, it will receive our immediate attention.

said, there was a Notice on the Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate to leave Scotland out of the operation of the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Bill. He would like to know how that came about on that, the last stage; and whether the Lord Advocate was ever consulted, either in drafting the Bill, or in any stage before this House?

said, this Bill was founded almost precisely upon the lines of the recommendations of a small Committee which was appointed by the Board of Trade; and when the Bill was originally drawn it was the belief of those concerned that by the principal clauses referring to trawlers and fishing boats of 25 tons net register and upwards, Scotland was practically excluded from the operation of the measure. After the Bill was introduced, his attention was called to its provisions by the hon. Member for the St. Andrew's Burghs (Mr. Williamson), who pointed out that the Scottish boats were now being built every year larger and larger, and the result would be that if the Bill did not apply now, it might speedily apply to these boats. The hon. Member took some other objections to the measure, which led him (Mr. Chamberlain) to consult the Lord Advocate, who, for the reasons he had given, had not previously been consulted; and the Lord Advocate, after consideration, came to the conclusion that on the whole the Bill was unnecessary in Scotland, and that it was desirable that its application to Scotland should be formally excluded. It had, therefore, been determined to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he would say when he proposed to proceed with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill?

said, that having sat on the Grand Committee which considered this Bill, he wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Notice of Amendment which had been given by the Attorney General. There was a long discussion in the Grand Committee upon the proposal to extend the right of appeal in non-capital cases. That extension was resisted by the Government; but it was carried against the Government by a very considerable majority. From the Amendment on the Paper it would appear it was the intention of the Attorney General to ask the House to reconsider the decision of the Grand Committee; and the Bill was, therefore, in a very different position from the Bankruptcy Bill, and was likely to give rise to a long discussion. Under these circumstances, he asked the Government whether, at that period of the Session, it was really their intention to proceed with the Bill?

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had been governed by a very strong desire to pay respect to the decision of the Grand Committee, so far as his views in regard to the Bill would allow. The Government felt, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that as long as they could retain any hope of carrying the Bill through the House and sending it to the other House in a reasonable time, it was a serious matter to abandon a Bill on which the Grand Committee had spent so much time and labour. The Government were very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the other Gentlemen who sat on the Grand Committee—and he took this opportunity of saying it—for the patience which they had bestowed upon the Bill. Perhaps the Government had clung too long to their hope. They had believed it was possible to-night, after the second reading of the Appropriation Bill and the consideration of the Amendments on the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and the discussion upon the Medical Bill, that they might have had a debate on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill which would sufficiently show the feeling of the House in regard to the measure. He understood, since he came to the House, that a debate was likely to be raised on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. Of course, he was aware of a Notice of Motion laying down the principles of Continental policy; but he did not anticipate any lengthened debate would arise on that Motion. Since he came to the House be had been given to understand that a debate was likely to be raised in a different quarter. That debate he regarded as fatal to any hope of proceeding with the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill. If it were postponed to Thursday, which would be the only alternative, they could not hope to pass it this Session in the other House; and, therefore, he was obliged reluctantly, on the part of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and on the part of the Government, to say they no longer cherished the hope of proceeding with the Bill. He had, consequently, to move that the Order be discharged.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he would consent to refer to the Law Officers of the Crown the proceedings of the Court Martial on Gunner Fitzgerald, as well as of that on Commander Heron, it being necessary, for the proper elucidation of the case, that the proceedings of the two Courts Martial should be referred to the Law Officers?

I will see that the matter is brought under the notice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

asked whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information as to the position of Cetewayo; and whether they could state what was the condition of Zululand?

Yes, Sir; we have received information that Cetewayo and some of his brothers are located in the Reserve Territory. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of Zululand I suppose he means Zululand proper. We have no further intelligence a" to its condition.

Another Question arises out of that reply. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies stated the other day that the Government would not view with indifference any action on the part of Cetewayo to use the Reserve Territory as a basis for operations in Zululand; and I wish to ask whether any directions have been sent out to South Africa, or steps taken in order to show that the Government will put a stop to any such attempts?

Yes, Sir; I will not say that directions have actually gone; but they are in course of preparation, and will be sent.

Will they be laid upon the Table?

They can hardly be presented separately from the Papers that have preceded and will follow them. But they will contain nothing which can ultimately be considered of a confidential character.

said, he wished to refer to one point—that was, the policy of the Government with regard to Afghanistan. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, in giving the Ameer a fixed subsidy, claimed that he was following the policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord North-brook; but a few words would suffice to show that the Government was effecting a reversal of the policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord Northbrook. What had Lord Northbrook laid down? That there was to be no fixed subsidy to the Ameer. The origin of the last Afghan War was the Conference of Simla in 1873, the result of which was almost incredible. The Afghans were a greedy and rapacious people, yet Shere Ali was so disgusted at the treatment he had received, that he actually declined to take the sum of £100,000 which was waiting for him in the Treasury at Peshawur. The policy of Lord Lawrence was perfectly intelligible—namely, that of declining to interfere in any way with the affairs of Afghanistan. But if they assisted the Ameer with large subsidies, if they took control over his external relations, and in any way implied that they would assist him if he got in to difficulties, they must take care that he made a more or less proper use of the money that was given to him, and that he did not make such use of the assurances given to him as to bring them and him into collision with a Foreign Power. If they entered into alliance with the Ameer they must take certain risks which that alliance conveyed, and the only mode by which those risks could be minimized was by obtaining reliable information from trustworthy agents in Afghanistan. He was glad that the Government had adopted the course of giving the subsidy and of keeping their troops at Quetta; but what they were now doing was proof that they had blundered 10 years ago, and was only another illustration of the fact that the Government were now compelled, by force of circumstances, to bless the policy which they were put in Office to curse. He hoped they would deal generously with any advances which might be made by the Ameer.

said, he should like to know what the policy of Her" Majesty's Government was with regard to the Australian Colonies, and the shocking condition of the Islands of the Western Pacific? The Colonists found upon their Border territory that was gradually becoming a kind of Alsatia, where the most frightful crimes wore committed by both White men and Natives. The Pacific Islanders Act of 1875 had failed to meet the case, because the jurisdiction it gave could be exercised over British subjects only. The Colonists asked what steps Her Majesty's Government would take, and offered to bear their share of the cost of what was to be done, and also offered to confederate themselves to support the Imperial Government? If Her Majesty's Government were deaf to these remonstrances and appeals, how could we expect to retain our hold upon the Colonies?

said, it did not require the well-chosen words of the hon. and learned Member to impress upon the Government the importance of this matter. That the state of things called for our intervention was one of the grounds why the Colonies had approached us; and he did not deny that there were great excesses, which would probably increase unless means were taken to check them. He demurred to the suggestion that there was anything impossible in the hope that maritime nations would agree as to the law and the tribunals that might be resorted to. He would draw the attention of his hon. and learned Friend to the concluding paragraphs of Lord Derby's despatch, in reply to the despatch of the Officer administering the Government of Queensland, which stated that, while disapproving of the annexation of New Guinea, Her Majesty's Government were willing to take steps at once—the date was 11th July—to strengthen our Naval Force, so as to enable ships to be more constantly present in the neighbourhood of those Islands than hitherto, and that in this way we might gradually establish a Protectorate capable of meeting the requirements of the case for some time to come without incurring objections to which other courses might be open. Instructions, indeed, had been sent out to the Naval Force to be more active; and, in the meantime, a Committee were considering, and were about to report to the Government, what measures they could recommend in reference to the question. The Government were most anxious in every way to give the fullest consideration to the representations that had been made to them on behalf of the Colonies. The honour, prestige, and credit of this country must be associated with the future of the Colonies; and he agreed that there was some force in the dread which they entertained lest foreign nations should establish Convict Settlements in that part of the world. The large question of Federation was one on which the Colonies had not made up their minds; but it was a question that would grow, though a considerable time must elapse, in order to its full development. The Government would strain every point, consistently with their view of the interests of this country, to meet the views of the Australian Colonies; but having ascertained that there was no intention on the part of any Foreign Government to establish themselves in those parts, the Government, therefore, did not feel warranted in rushing at once into such an enormous undertaking as the annexation of the whole of New Guinea, except the Eastern portion, which was claimed by Holland. Her Majesty's Government would rather see the interests of Australia protected by some course more gradual, more cautious, and more consistent with the desire not to overburden the Imperial power with great responsibilities than the simpler and somewhat brutal means of annexation; and he was convinced that the Colonies would give their most careful examination to the views of the Government.

said, that, before the Bill was read a second time, he wished to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government as regarded General Maceo. He had hitherto refrained from characterizing that conduct as it deserved, in consequence of the undertakings given by the Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies and Foreign Affairs that justice would be done in the case. He would remind the House that that gentleman escaped from Cuba to Gibraltar, where he expected to enjoy liberty and protection under the British flag. He was, however, seized by the agents of the British Government, and, without any process or form of law, handed over to what was to him a foreign and hostile Government. Although 10 months had elapsed since he (Mr. O'Kelly) first brought the question before the House, General Maceo still remained in prison. The contention of Her Majesty's Government, that the Spanish Government were not a party to what might be called the kidnapping of Maceo. was disproved by the Papers relating to the seizure. One of those Papers contained a letter from a high official, in which Maceo was described as a felon—a man who had been condemned by the tribunals of his country to some punishment, which he was undergoing at the time in question. But in the Papers actually presented to the House, the phrase, which declared that the Spanish Government had re-claimed this man as a felon, was eliminated, and for it was substituted the euphemistic translation that "Maceo was suffering imprisonment," notwithstanding the fact that it was upon the false statement that Maceo was a felon that the authorities at Gibraltar gave him up to the Spanish Government. Her Majesty's Government, however, deliberately avoided grappling with the difficulty, and stated that the Spanish Government did not make any misstatement, but that the fault lay wholly with the officials at Gibraltar. That was disproved by the Papers laid upon the Table; and, therefore, it was dishonest that the Government should try to hide their own misconduct by punishing some officials for what was, after all, a mistake into which the latter were led by the misrepresentations of the Spanish Consul, while they passed over others who were more to blame. The conduct of two Police Inspectors at Gibraltar was as bad as could be; and anyone who compared the evidence given before the Court of Inquiry would come to the conclusion that those men, if not guilty of perjury, came perilously near it. Further, the Spanish Government had admitted the weakness of their case by letting go two of the men taken prisoners with Maceo. When Her Majesty's Government accepted the compromise of the Spanish Government, they stated, in palliation of the act, that they had made such terms with the latter that Maceo would be treated with the consideration due to his rank, and they gave it to be understood that he would be held only on parole of some kind. But the fact was that Maceo had been sent to one of the worst places in Spain for a man born in the tropics, a place where he complained of suffering from the cold in the middle of July. On the 14th of July, Maceo wrote him (Mr. O'Kelly) a letter complaining how bitterly he was suffering from the cold at that period of the year. The Spanish Government, moreover, munificently supplied him with 1s. 3d. a-day to support himself, his wife, and his nephew, who was depending on him. The fact was, the British Government had handed this man back into a position worse than slavery. It would not be in his (Mr. O'Kelly's) power to take a Division on the matter now; but when the House met again next Session, if Maceo was still in prison, he would ask the House to say whether the Government could continue to submit to the indignity of having a man taken from under their flag by misrepresentation, without taking such measures as they would be justified in doing to restore this man to the liberty of which they had deprived him.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated, with considerable triumph, that five most important Bills would be passed this Session. Of those five, two—the Bankruptcy Bill and the Patents for Inventions Bill—were dealt with by the Grand Committees. If they assumed that the time occupied by the Grand Committees was so much gained, then it followed that only three Bills of importance would be passed by the House this Session. But, as the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill and the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, though applying to different countries, were in principle the same, and might be regarded as one Bill, the House had passed only one other, the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. And at what expense had they done so little? At the sacrifice of Supply. The Government, with the advantage of the additional time afforded by taking the Mondays and Thursdays at an unusually early period, had really been more backward with Supply than they were last year. In about five minutes on Friday night two whole Classes of Estimates were passed without a single word. In five or six minutes they voted £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 of the money of their constituents. Therefore, it came to this—and he considered it discreditable to the Government—that with all the additional facilities afforded by the House at the Premier's request last October in the shape of the New Rules of Procedure they had passed fewer measures than ever, and had had less time for Supply, important Votes—notably one of £3,000,000 for the Post Office—having been hurried through without any discussion whatever. He complained that the Indian Budget had been put off until the last Wednesday in the Session, and drew attention to the fact that out of the five fresh financial proposals made by the Government during the Session four had not been countenanced by the House.

said, that he fully concurred in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), in condemnation of the way in which the finances of the country were hurried through Parliament in the closing days of the Session without the semblance of discussion or consideration. Fortunately on that (the Appropriation) Bill, it was possible to discuss de omnibus ribus et quitusdam alüs; and, therefore, although, on more than one occasion, he had made way for Motions said to be of far greater national importance, he felt he should not be doing his duty to his constituents, if he allowed the Session to close without calling attention to a grievance they complained of—namely, with respect to the condition of the River Barrow, which skirted Queen's County on the North and West. It was only an Irish river, which affected no English interest, and might, therefore, seem to that House a matter of no importance; but the drainage of the basin of the Barrow would form a most important consideration with any Irish Government. The Government had thought it their duty to deal with the basin of the Shannon. In the year 1879–80, a sum of £5,000 was taken in the Estimates for that purpose. In 1880–1, a further sum of £20,000 was granted; in 1882, a sum of £24,700; and in 1883 an additional sum, bringing the total grant for the purpose of regulating the flood waters of the Shannon up to £52,500 in four years. The works authorized had now been completed, and the absence of any grant for the purpose in this year's Appropriation Bill presented an opportunity for undertaking works on the basin of the Barrow. After the Shannon, the Barrow Basin was the largest in Ireland, and the amount of damage done by preventible floods in that basin each year was such that he doubted whether anyone could even approximate it, to say nothing at all of the unsanitary effects. He believed a moiety of the sum that had been spent on the Shannon would have done an immense deal of good, if that amount had been spent in draining the river basin in question. The drainage required could only be effectively undertaken by the Government. About 10,000 acres were annually flooded, because of the insufficiency of the basin to carry away the waters. A telegram from a correspondent last Friday urged him to bring the subject before the House, stating that 20,000 acres above Portarlington were under water; that the main street of Portarlington was flooded by three feet of water; and that the whole of the hay of the district was destroyed. That was the condition of things in parts of Ireland, while the English farmers were enjoying splendid weather. Sir Richard Griffith, in his masterly Report, presented 73 years ago, on the possibility of reclaiming the bog lands of Ireland, placed in the forefront of that work the hogs adjoining the Barrow. According to this authority, there were then 77,505 statute acres of reclaimable bog along the course of that river. This bog being 315 feet above the level of Dublin Bay, its drainage would be comparatively easy. No other bog could be drained more easily. Going further down the river, Sir Richard Griffith went on to say that, a little below Portarlington, there was an irregular weir thrown across the river, which threw back the water for a considerable distance, and in times of flood it did great damage. It would be tedious to continue to take the river in sections; and he would therefore content himself with saying that any hon. Member who chose to consult the Reports would see that every foot of the river had been carefully surveyed, that the rainfall had been measured with great accuracy, and all the requirements of the river carefully ascertained. It was, therefore, merely a question of a competent authority to take the matter in hand. He thought it was obvious that no association of owners or occupiers, and no common action on the part of any number of Grand Juries, could possibly cope with the business which required to be taken in hand. It was for the Government to take such a matter in hand. It was very easy work and inexpensive work, and would open up a very large tract of country to the advantage of a very large population. He believed, if the Government would seriously turn its attention to the matter and effect its accomplishment by annual grants in the Estimates, it would do a great deal more good than by any scheme of emigration.

said, he thought that no scheme would be of greater service to Ireland than that proposed by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), if it were properly carried out. He thought the hon. Member would have done good service to Ireland, if he could extort from the Chief Secretary for Ireland a promise that something should be done to reclaim the vast bogs in the centre of that country. In his opinion, that operation should be taken up by the Government as a national one.

said, that he had had the honour of bringing in an English Bill on the subject; but, because that had failed, it by no means followed that the Irish subject should not be attended to. With regard to it, it was most refreshing to have heard the business-like speech of the hon. Member for Queen's County, for he (Mr. Magniac) knew that the difficulties to be met with in carrying it out would be very trifling, for the River Barrow was very capable of being dealt with in the way proposed. His dear Friend, the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, had this subject much at heart; and, had he lived, it would have had his most earnest attention. There were three levels of the bog, the first of which would cost next to nothing to drain; the next would cost a little more; but the third would require consideration, and could not be done without the assistance of the Government. When once that assistance was given, in his belief, private assistance would also come in. He thought, therefore, that if the hon. Member for Queen's County could only get some of his friends to support him the matter would soon be carried out.

Sir, the question raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is very important; but I should not like to ask large grants or loans of money from the Government, unless a well-matured plan were pre pared, by which the improvements could be carried out in such a way that the Government would suffer no loss. I also believe that until we have county government in Ireland no plan can be carried out in fragments in a profitable way. In Ireland there is a Government who do not understand the people whom they govern; and the consequence is that they are led to undertake all sorts of impracticable schemes, so that when a really useful project is put forward, the Government are indisposed to take any action in the matter. As regards the main subject, I attribute the waste of time during the Session to the mismanagement of the Government. For in stance, referring to the action of the Grand Committees, the Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill prolonged their labours by the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade met the rival Irish sections with regard to the extension of the measure to Ireland——

I must call the hon. Member to Order for irrelevancy.

I wish, Sir, to criticize the measures that have been introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, whose salary is one of the matters included in this Bill. I wish to call attention to his management of the affairs of his Office, and his conduct of Public Business. In the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill before the Grand Committee, the President of the Board of Trade successfully muzzled both the Irish sections.

The observations of the hon. Member are not relative to the Bill before the House.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not say anything more about this unfortunate Bankruptcy Bill. I have probably said as much as will give me the opportunity of showing at some future time that I have been a true prophet, and that the whole affair is a good illustration of the way affairs are managed by judicious Members of the Government. I will now contrast against the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in connection with the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

The hon. Member seems to think that the Bill before the House is the Agricultural Holdings Bill. The Bill before the House is the Appropriation Bill.

On the point of Order, Sir, I would point out that there are several items in the Appropriation Bill; and I submit to you, Sir, whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) will not be in Order in discussing every particular item in this Appropriation Bill becoming a charge on the country? There are £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 dealt with by this Bill.

Quite so; but the hon. Member is discussing the Agricultural Holdings Bill.

I have not the slightest intention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan suggests, of going over every item in this Bill. If I wanted to talk against time I could very easily do so. There is no great difficulty in doing that. But what I want to do is to call attention to the want of good management on the part of the Government. That is my sole object in speaking here now. There are several items in this Bill. For example, I might raise discussion on the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so on; but that would be an operation which it would be just as well to practise at some other time, and therefore I do not do so. But I thought I might have been justified in showing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mismanaged these two Agricultural Holdings Bills.

The hon. Member is quite incapable of attending to my direction. The Bill before the House is the Appropriation Bill. The hon. Member seems to persist in discussing the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and the action of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of it. In doing so he is out of Order.

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, upon the salary of a particular Officer in this House—the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the hon. Member is not entitled to go into that Officer's whole conduct? On the Vote for the Chief Secretary for Ireland we discussed the whole range of his conduct. Here is a Vote for the Chancellor of the Duchy. Is not the hon. Member entitled on that to discuss the conduct of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

The hon. Member for Cavan is not entitled to do anything further than discuss the Bill before the House.

I shall not say anything more about the Agricultural Holdings Bill, or the Bankruptcy Bill. I have said all I desire to say on those subjects. But the waste of time which has taken place this Session was a subject raised by the Prime Minister, and I shall refer to that. In connection with it, I will allude to the question of the Southport Foreshore. I maintain that it was improper for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to go behind the back of the Town Council of Southport, and make a bargain with other parties in regard to the foreshore. If the Government had managed better, the time that has been wasted on the subject of the Southport Foreshore would have been saved. Then, with regard to the Suez Canal, there has been a great waste of time; because the Government made a bargain with the Company, without consulting beforehand practical men. Lastly, the evasions to which the Government have resorted in answering Questions has led to 20 being put where one would have done. I hope the Government will take all these things into consideration, so as to be able to give a better account of their work another Session.

said, he must complain of the constant interruptions that were proceeding from the hon. and learned Member for Stockport.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I did nothing of the kind. It is not a fact.

said, he wished to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission, presented in 1881, with regard to the Coleraine and Belfast navigation, and to the flooding of the lands in five counties surrounding Lough Neagh, by the overflowing of the Bann. Every time rain fell to any considerable extent the crops of those unfortunate people were ruined. He was constantly receiving letters on the subject. The inhabitants of those five counties were the most loyal in Ireland; and if the Government desired to keep up good relations with the people of Ulster, they would legislate on the subject in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which were practically to the effect that the canal navigation should be sacrificed to the interests of the farmers, and that the rivers should be made what they were intended to be—conduits for the drainage of the land. With railways competing with the canals the accommodation afforded by the latter was quite unimportant. Although the Report of the Royal Commission was presented in 1881, no statement had yet come from the Government. He trusted that, during the Recess, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give his best consideration to that Report, so that, next Session, he might be able to legislate for the carrying out of the drainage of the Barrow, and the lands around Lough Neagh.

said, that both the questions referred to had been before the House at the earlier part of the Session. In the first place, he would dismiss the complaint of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). It was stated in that House that, after considerable negotiations, an agreement was arrived at for a survey of the Barrow, half the cost of which was to be at the expense of the Government. That survey was now going on, to show how the basin of the river could best be relieved of its surplus waters, and by whom the cost should be undertaken, since he, as Secretary to the Treasury, was not prepared to consent to the Imperial Exchequer bearing the burden of relieving the riparian proprietors from all the disadvantages of floods caused by excessive rainfall, seeing that those persons bought their lands with the full cognizance of how they were subject to be affected by floods. With regard to the Bann, the Royal Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) recommended the Government to consult with the Grand Juries of the counties affected. Their whole desire and interest was that the counties should undertake the work; but the Grand Juries had all negatived the proposition, refusing to spend a single sixpence on it. With regard to the navigable canals, it was the object and desire of the Treasury to get rid of them, as far as possible, since they were practically useless, besides being a constant drain upon the Treasury.

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury entirely mistook the contention. It was not merely the riparian owners who were to be considered, but also those living in and near the towns in the neighbourhood of the Barrow, especially Portarlington, who suffered much as regarded their health, from the periodical overflow of the river. He was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Courtney's) statement that a survey of the Barrow was now going on. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, consented to the appointment of a Commission to do something definite, and the Commissioners were actually named; but since the right hon. Gentleman retired from Office cold water had been thrown upon the project at the Treasury, and from that time up to the present moment he never heard that the Government intended doing anything. The survey must have been a secret arrangement. In his opinion, the survey would be utterly useless. What was required was, that the promise made by the right hon. Member for Bradford should be carried out, and that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to consider the whole subject.

said, he wished to call attention in connection with the unfair incidence of Imperial taxation in Ireland, to the delusive character of the Statistical Abstract. The property liable to income tax under Schedule B was set down for some years past as about £10,000,000, instead of £3,000,000, as formerly correctly made out. There had been a confusion between the gross and the net amount, which was made quite manifest when viewed side by side with the other Schedules—for example, under Schedule B the taxable property of Ireland was represented as one-sixth of that of the United Kingdom, whereas under Schedule A it was only 1–13th, and under Schedule D 1–25th. The proportions shown under Schedule B were delusive.

said, the House would observe that there were a considerable number of Amendments on the Bill, many of them verbal, but not a few of them were of substance, and affected the operation of the Bill to some extent. As regarded most of the latter class of Amendments, it would be his somewhat unpleasant duty to ask the House to disagree with the Lords; but it was his more pleasant duty to ask the House to agree to this first Amendment. When the extension of this Proviso to permanent improvements was proposed in the House of Commons by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the Government stated that they considered the Amendment unnecessary, but that they would accept it, in order to remove the apprehensions of those who feared what the action of some valuers might be. The Government, therefore, did not put their objection very high. They had now to consider whether or not they would accept this extension of the Proviso to all improvements. For himself, he did not attach much importance to the Proviso, either as regarded permanent or temporary improvements. He did not think the extension of the Proviso material either one way or the other; and, under those circumstances, he was ready to agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

said, he regretted very much that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment, and to apply this Proviso to the only compulsory part of the Bill. He believed its effect would be to introduce confusion into the minds of the valuers. His objection to the Proviso was that it would confuse valuators. They would not understand what was meant. Some valuators might contend that the whole of the improvement was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil, and, therefore, that the tenant was not entitled to compensation. He thought the House ought to protest against this change in the Bill, as it still further nibbled away the Bill, which at best was no great concession to the tenant farmers.

said, he also regretted the acceptance of the Amendment; but he regretted much more the original acceptance of the Proviso of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which, on the part of Government, he considered was a most unwise step. It had landed the Government in a great difficulty, and he did not see on what ground they could now reject the Lords' Amendment. The Lords had simply pushed to its logical conclusion the acceptance by the Government of that principle. He believed the Proviso would not only puzzle valuers, but would prove a fruitful source of wrangling amongst persons following that profession. He should have been very glad if the Government could have seen their way to reject the whole Proviso; but as they had not, if his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire went to a Division, he should vote with him.

said, he thought it would be very unfair to charge the Government with having made a concession by the acceptance of the Amendment which he had felt it his duty to move in Committee on the Bill. So far as he understood, it had always been the intention of the Government that anything due to the inherent capabilities of the soil should not be included by the valuer in the amount to be awarded to the tenant. The Lords, as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had pointed out, had simply pushed the Amendment to its logical conclusion, and made it applicable to all improvements; and he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) had seen his way to accept it.

said, he thought the proper and shortest way in which to come to a conclusion was to divide the House, and then they would see in the Lobby how the matter stood. Such a course would guide the House in dealing with the Scotch Bill.

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would divide the House. It would be better to drop the Bill than to accept this Amendment. ["Oh!"]

said, he thought that the Government having accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as wise and just, he felt bound to support them in extending it to its logical conclusion.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would go to a Division. In that case he should vote with pleasure for him, and would vote against every Amendment introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords, without consideration whether they were good or bad. They perfectly well knew that the landed interest had a very great number of supporters in that House; but in the House of Lords they were all landlords, and mostly Conservative landlords; and he objected to the Bill, upon which many concessions had been made in that House, being referred to a House which was practically a House of landlords. What would be said if, when a Conservative Government were in, the Bill were submitted to an hereditary House of Radical labourers? He thought it was most desirable to teach the House of Lords a lesson. It was full time they should have it out with the House of Lords. When a Conservative Government was in, everything went on very smoothly—everything always went on smoothly when going down stream—and when a Conservative measure was brought into the House of Commons, it was carried, without any difficulty or objection, in the House of Lords; but when a Liberal Government came in, that Liberal Government was put in by the nation, and the nation expected that that Government should be allowed to carry out its own policy. How could it do so when its Bills were emasculated in this manner by the House of Lords?

said, he regretted that he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, on the ground that it was either unnecessary, or, in his view, it might do mischief. If the tenant had made improvements, for which he had, in any way, received valuable consideration, the case was already provided for in Section 6. If there were a case—and he could hardly conceive that there was—of an agreement under which a tenant had executed an improvement, without receiving any valuable consideration, and had barred himself from claiming fair and reasonable compensation for it, that was not an agreement which they ought to recognize, or in favour of which they should insert that Proviso. That was a sufficient objection, from, his point of view, to the Amendment; but he was not sure that the Proviso might not have the effect that a tenant, who had agreed not to come under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, might not be held to be disqualified from claiming compensation under this Act.

said, he thought the Amendment was a very proper one, as it only applied to agreements made before the passing of the Act. He did not know that it would apply to many cases, because he did not believe that there were many cases in which tenants had made agreements with their landlords distinctly barring them from compensation for improvements; but he was surprised at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson). An agreement between landlord and tenant distinctly barring the latter from compensation in some shape or other for his improvements would be an agreement which he should disapprove of; but, nevertheless, it might be that some such agreements might, in certain instances, have been made up to this time under the sanction of the law as it stood. And to argue that such an agreement as might be made by law, because it happened to be one of which they did not approve, ought to be rendered invalid under a subsequent Act of Parliament, was a doctrine which he could not consent to, and which called, at least, for the protest of a Division.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) had shown a remarkably bad reason for disagreeing with the Amendment. To talk about a sinking fund for 25 years for the repayment of money spent on drainage works was a delusion; because everybody knew that, in many parts of the country, those works did not last for anything like 25 years, so that the result would be that the tenants who came in after the present occupiers would have to pay for improvements the value of which had utterly disappeared. Besides, 3 per cent would not be a commercial interest, as part of it ought to be reckoned as repayment of capital.

said, he was disposed to think that the Lords' Amendment would, if carried, be found to be beneficial to tenants; for if the low 3 percentage was adhered to, the object of the clause—which he understood to be to encourage drainage by landlords—would be defeated, as they would not drain subject to having such a bad return for their money.

said, the effect of the Lords' Amendment would be that the tenant would have to pay 6½ per cent. That was too much for the improvements to be charged against the tenant. They had to recollect that the landlord had it entirely in his power to do the improvements if he liked.

said, the object of the provision in the Bill, by which the landlord was permitted, if he chose, to drain, was to give him some real alternative for the tenants doing the drainage. If that was to be a bonâ fide benefit, they must not say that the landlord, if he did not do the drainage himself, should practically have to lend money to the tenant to do it at 3 per cent interest. They would be unfairly handicapping him, if he desired to lend, by compelling him to lend at 3 per cent. All the Amendment would do would be to say that if the tenant compelled the landlord to drain his land he should not make him do it at a cheaper rate—that was to say, at less interest than that at which he could borrow money from public bodies. Anything that more carried justice on the face of it—anything that was more obviously consistent with justice, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could not imagine. As the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Biddell) had pointed out, this Amendment of the Commons would not merely be an injustice to the landlord, but would prevent improvements being done which would be primarily a benefit to the tenant.

said, that if the landlord agreed to do the drainage, and a higher interest had to be paid, the parties could agree to that; therefore, the observations of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Biddell) fell through. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that there might be a hardship on the landlord. Well, supposing the tenant said—" I can do the drainage at 5 per cent. if I like; "and then the landlord should say—" No; you shall not do it at 5 per cent; I will do it myself, at a charge that amounts to 6 or 6½ per cent"—the amount did not much matter; but, at all events, at a higher interest than the tenant would do it at himself. Surely, that would be a hardship. What did the arrangement proposed by the Amendment amount to? Why, it amounted to this—that if the tenant remained five years on the farm, after the drainage was done, he would pay more than 5 per cent during that time—1½ more than 5 per cent—and would be really paying a contribution to the value of the landlord's estate. The tenant would be adding to the landlord's capital very materially during the latter years of the existence of the improvements. If this arrangement were to be made, the tenant would be contributing to the sinking fund as well as paying the landlord's capital, and that would be a great injustice.

opposed the Lords' Amendment. There seemed to be mistaken notions as to how long drainage would last; some hon. Members being under the impression that it would not last more than 15 or 20 years. Well, it so happened that he had, not very long ago, taken up a portion of drainage which had been carried out 25 years ago; and the remark of his bailiff had been that, from the appearance of the pipes and the drains, it looked as if the drainage had only been done last week. His contention was, that if drainage was properly done it would last 50 or 100 years.

said, there were drains upon his farm which had been laid down more than 40 years, and had never cost a penny since. There could be no doubt that if drainage was properly done it would last for a very long time. It might happen that a drain would now and then blow up; but that would only be a very occasional occurrence. He trusted that the House would not agree to the Amendment of the Lords.

said, he would move to disagree with this Amendment, which appeared to him to be hardly necessary. The insertion of these words would be calculated to raise doubts; and, therefore, would do more harm than good.

said, the object of this Amendment was to supply an omission which had been discovered in the clause. The first paragraph of the clause provided—

"Where, in the case of a tenancy under a contract of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act, any agreement in writing, or custom, or the Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875, provides specific compensation for any improvement comprised in the First Schedule hereto, compensation in respect of such improvement, although executed after the commencement of this Act, shall he payable in pursuance of such agreement, custom, or Act of Parliament, and shall be deemed to he substituted for compensation under this Act."

said, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Proviso as it stood was that of the Agricultural Act of England, 1875, and which gave the landlord power to set off claims for compensation for waste or breach by the tenant committed, or permitted, in relation to a matter of husbandry, more than four years before the termination of the tenancy. It must be remembered that the landlord had the same right of action, without limit of time, at law as he had before. This was a special power to set off given to the Act of 1875. They had adopted it in the Bill, and he did not see any reason for extending it.

said, he had to ask the House to disagree to this Amendment, as it conflicted with the general principle of the Bill, which was that compensation should be according to the value of the improvement, and not according to the outlay. The Amendment was not only introducing the outlay as a measure of compensation, but it adopted what the House had discarded all through—namely, the limit of time. As there had been no reference to outlay before, the Amendment, as now inserted, was slightly unintelligible.

said, he was rather sorry that Her Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that he believed its effect would be to encourage good farming throughout the whole rotation of crops, and not only during the last year. Without this Amendment there would be encouragement given to high farming in the last year of the tenancy, so as to run up the bill for value on going out.

said, he agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Carpenter-Gamier), and he did not quite see the force of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) that the adoption of this Amendment would really conflict with the principle of the Bill, which he understood was the principle of value. He failed to see how it was possible for a valuer to value the manures put on a field in the last year of a tenancy on any other basis than that of cost price. No one could tell what the future value of that manure might be. There was another reason in favour of this proposal—the Amendment was moved originally in Committee by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), who was himself a practised valuer, and understood these matters thoroughly, with the desire to obviate the danger of fraud in these matters, which, without some check of this nature, everyone would be liable to. Looked at from that point of view, it was a Proviso quite as much in the interest of the tenant as of anyone else. He did not think it desirable that the Bill should leave open a door for fraud—no one would wish to see such a thing.

was understood to say that the principle they should keep in view was that the tenant should be compensated for what he left on his farm to his successor. That would be regulated by the outlay as a rule. The difference between this Bill and the Act of 1875 was that the tenant would be compensated for his outlay, whether it was a profitable one or not to his successor. The Bill would not give compensation only for what would be profitable to the successor. It would be a hardship to the tenant if, during his last year, he was to make a large expenditure on feeding cakes; because, if he did so, he would not get compensation, as his successor would not get value for it.

said, he was sorry the Government could not agree to the Amendment, because it was directed against fraud. He could not remain silent, because he had suffered that very year from fraud, such as that in question. He had the idea that tenant farmers would not be parties to fraud as to feeding stuffs, and when he put the Lincolnshire custom into his agreements, he left out those words. This was not a landlord's question, as it was entirely a matter of inventory between the outgoing and the incoming tenant whether the latter was to be charged for an excessive amount of cake or manure which he did not require. In such a way, a man had nothing to do but to run up a large amount for feed- ing stuffs, and the incoming tenant had nothing to do but to pay it. The incoming tenant was the only one who would get any benefit from the feeding stuffs really used; he had to pay for them; and it was for his protection against fraud—against which he could not protect himself in any other way—that the land valuers throughout Lincolnshire were all desirous of seeing this Amendment put in the Bill. He had been speaking of this subject that day to a large tenant farmer, who had said to him that, within his own knowledge, the agent of an artificial manure firm had asked an outgoing tenant to double the quantity of manure he had ordered, saying—"You will not have to pay for it.'" "But," said the farmer, "I do not want it. "Never mind," said the manure man, "what does it matter to you, as the incoming tenant will have to pay for it." The gentleman to whom he referred farmed 2,000 acres, and was well known to the Members of the House and to agriculturists.

said, the view the Government took of the matter was that a provision of this kind would be very reasonable when applied to the Lincolnshire custom, or when applied to a principle based on outlay such as was contained in the Act of 1875; but when they had adopted the principle of value, and not that of outlay, a principle of this kind seemed to be inapplicable. If manure in excess of requirements had been used, the valuer would take that into consideration.

said, that if the Amendment were to be omitted, the omission would be in favour of the fraudulent manure merchant, and against the interests of the landlord and tenant, as far as the Scotch landlord went. The insertion of this provision would preserve them from that which they had not guarded against, especially in the case of poor tenants—namely, the purchase of manures of a bad quality.

said, that when he introduced this Amendment originally, he did so because it was equitable; he considered it to be equitable between the landlord and the outgoing tenant and the incoming tenant. He thought the Amendment should be inserted.

said, he was glad the Government were going to stick to the principle of the Bill as to payment by results, and not by outlay. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), in regard to the fraudulent tenant, he (Mr. James Howard) failed to understand, if that tenant intended to commit a fraud during the last year of his tenancy, what there would be to prevent him, even if this Proviso were accepted, from committing the fraud during three previous years of his tenancy. He failed to see any use in the Proviso, and he thought great injury might arise under certain circumstances to particular tenants. It might happen that during the last year of a tenancy a tenant had a larger stock of straw than usual, and which he was anxious to turn into manure, and he might, in order to do that, consume a larger quantity of cake during the last year than he had done in previous years; and, under those circumstances, if he did consume an extraordinary quantity of cake, he would leave behind him value for his expenditure. He trusted the House would reject the Amendment of the Lords.

said, he regretted the decision of the Government, and would suggest that they should accept the Amendment, and modify it by providing that the valuer should take into consideration the average amount spent on manure during the last two years, instead of the last three years.

said, that everybody would agree that a farmer who manured his land three years running was farming very much better than the tenant who left the land without manure for two years, and then put an excessive quantity on during the last year, for which an incoming tenant would have to pay. This Amendment, as had been pointed out, was directed against the commission of fraud, and they might assume that it was within the bounds of possibility that frauds would be committed. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) said it was useless to attempt to legislate against fraud, because, if a man was a fraudulent tenant, he would commit a fraud during the three previous years just as much as he would commit one during the last year of his tenancy. He (Mr. Bulwer) must point out that a man was not likely to commit a fraud upon himself during his own occupation.

said, that if there was to be a valuer at all, he would be able to form his own opinion, from the number of animals on the farm, and from the condition of the holding, what amount had been laid out. He would be hardly likely to give £1,000 about the value. Either the parties must agree in the fraud, or the valuer would not know his business, as the matter was one of mere calculation.

said, he must again ask the House in this case to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, which was unnecessary. It would be inconvenient to introduce a third authority for the appointment of an umpire.

said, the object of this clause was to make clear what was expressed in the original clause. The ob- ject of that clause was to make clear that substituted compensation might be ascertained by the process of reference under the Bill in all cases where there was no special agreement to the contrary. The substituted compensation might be for a particular improvement, or particular improvements, and not for all or for a great number. It would be very inconvenient for the landlord and tenant to have, in such a case, a process divided where it ought to be made one.

said, he had been puzzled to understand what the clause meant. He did not think it read properly as it stood now—

"In any case provided for by sections three, four, or five, if compensation is claimed under this Act, such compensation, as under any of those sections is to be deemed to be substituted for compensation under this Act, if and so far as the same can, under the terms of the agreement, if any, he ascertained by the referees or the umpire, shall be awarded in respect of any improvements thereby provided for and the award shall, when necessary, distinguish such improvements and the amount awarded in respect thereof; and an award given under this section shall be subject to the appeal provided by this Act."

said, the clause was complicated; but if the right hon. Gentleman would look at it carefully, he would see its meaning. The object was to secure that, where the ascertainment of compensation was not specially provided for in some other way, it should be ascertained by the referee under the Act.

said, he had to read this clause half-a-dozen times before he obtained even an inkling of its meaning. He thought it should not be agreed to. The latter part of the clause provided that, when necessary, the referees or umpire should distinguish between the improvements under the Act and improvements under agreement, and state the award in respect thereof. It was quite proper that the award should specify the improvements to which it related; but it was not necessary that this should be inserted in an Act of Parliament.

said, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard), it was quite true that the umpire or referees would have to state what the improvements were; but that only secured that they should show those which came under the Act, and those which came under the agreement. It was only an additional obligation on the umpire and referees. To make the Amendment clearer, he would suggest that they should leave out the word "under" where it occurred a second time, and insert the words "consistently with," and that Amendment to the Lords' Amendment he begged to move.

said, he must ask the House to disagree with this Amendment. The Government had been obliged to introduce the element of time into the clause, and to make an exception to the rule to meet one special case; but the effect of the proposed Amendment would be to make the exception the rule of the Bill, and to introduce the measure of time in every case.

said, he hoped that the Amendment, which went further than the powers of the Bill, would not be agreed to. He considered the provisions of the Bill with regard to appeal were already sufficient and ample. He was quite unable to understand on what ground this proposal for a new appeal rested.

said, that perhaps the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W Barclay) would allow him to explain. There was some difficulty with regard to Clause 5; it was doubted by some whether compensation under agreement came under the appeal provided by the Act, as was the ease with the other compensation. When the Bill was in Committee, the Government had expressed their belief that it did, and had stated that it was their intention that it should do so. This Amendment, which they asked the House to agree to, was to make the matter clear, and place it beyond all doubt. The hon. Member would be aware that the Appeal Clauses were the same as those in the Act of 1875, and that, therefore, they applied to compensation under Clause 5.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to give an appeal on every possible ground, and, on that account, he objected to it in its present form. He begged to move the omission of the concluding words of the Amendment.

said, he was opposed to giving a power of appeal on any ground, and he was therefore utterly opposed to opening the door for it too wide. He would remind the House that, under the Lincolnshire custom, so often referred to during the passage of this Bill, the arbitrators' award was final. One of the main faults of the Bill was that it presented too many opportunities for litigation, and he believed that would prove to be its ruin. He saw no reason whatever for this litigation, and he trusted the House would reject the Amendment altogether. If, however, the Government were determined to accept it, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay,) would agree with him to divide the House upon it.

said, he would suggest that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), before the House, should be withdrawn, and that they should add the words "sections three, four, or" before the word "five" to the original Amendment of the Lords, leaving out the words "or any other part."

said, he had to ask the House to disagree with this Amendment, so far as it substituted two years for one year. This question had been already fully discussed in Committee, and it had been decided to insert one year instead of two years.

said, he regretted that the Government were not able to accept the Amendment, because he was sure that a very large number of farmers in the country would rather have two years inserted. He had received a letter that morning from an intelligent farmer in his own district, who said that the Amendment would allow the landlord to trust the tenant for two years instead of one.

in moving that the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, that, although it was not in the Bill when it left that House, a similar Amendment had been inserted in the English Bill, and therefore he could not ask the House to disagree with it, as it would make both Bills accord.

in opposing the Motion, said, the Amendment in the English Bill was accepted by the Government with the greatest reluctance; and, when the English Bill was going through Committee, it was not proposed to introduce the Amendment. The Scotch tenant farmers objected to it, and he saw no reason for inserting it. It would lead to a great deal of litigation.