asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the cases of the Rosina and the Triumph, recently decided in the Law Courts, imposing unforeseen liabilities on Harbour Commissions, which have already had the effect of placing the revenues of two such Commissions in the hands of receivers, the Board of Trade will take legislative or other steps to prevent the losses of individual shipowners from becoming a charge upon Harbour Dues levied upon ships in general; and, if not, will the Board of Trade consent to increased rating and borrowing powers for Harbour Commissions in the hands of receivers, in order that they may discharge such liabilities?

(who replied) said: The Board of Trade are quite alive to the hardship imposed on harbour authorities, and through them on the shipping using their harbours, by such liabilities as those incurred in the cases of the Rosina and the Triumph; and while they see great difficulty in altering a general rule of law which makes public authorities liable for damage caused to individuals by the negligence of their officers, they will be prepared to consider, when opportunity offers, whether the enforcement of such liabilities ought not to be postponed and limited as not to interfere with the due maintenance and improvement of the harbour. The Board of Trade can only help to increase rating and borrowing powers by means of Provisional Orders, prepared and submitted to them by harbour authorities. Any such Orders they will carefully consider, and will view with favour any proposals made to them for assisting the funds derived from the dues on shipping. I would direct the attention of my hon. Friend to the Provisional Order for St. Ives, which will very shortly be laid before Parliament, by which the Corporation of St. Ives will be enabled to tax the ratepayers for the assistance of their otherwise insolvent harbour. A Report on the subject will be found in Parliamentary Paper No. 57 of the present Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the application made by Trinity College, Dublin, in or about the year 1848, for Letters Patent to permit the Board to pay themselves their salaries out of the general funds of the College, and the subsequent Correspondence between the Government and the Board which culminated in a change of tenure of the lands of Trinity College, Dublin; and, whether the intervention of the Government has been sought in the present crisis by the holders of those lands?

There is no objection to laying on the Table of the House the document in question, if the hon. Member will move for it. Intervention was sought by Memorial addressed to the Prime Minister. I am not aware of any other application.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would consider the equitable claim of those guarantors of rural telegraphs who, having entered on an agreement with the Government on the assumed basis of the one shilling tariff, now find the actual charge falling upon them materially increased, in consequence of the Postal authorities having introduced a lower tariff without consultation with such guarantors?

In reply to a Question put to him on the 26th of April, 1883, Mr. Fawcett stated that it would be only fair, in the case of guaranteed telegraph offices then in existence, that the guarantors should not be allowed to suffer any pecuniary loss from the proposed reduction of telegraphic charges; and they would not be called upon to pay any more than the payment made in the last year of the average payment of the last three years. This arrangement is now being acted upon.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that the postage of letters from France, Germany, and other European Countries to our Colonies is only one-half what it is from this Country; and, whether he will take any steps to draw closer our connection with our Colonies by putting an end to such anomaly?

I am aware that in France, Germany, and a few other foreign countries, a uniform charge of 2½d. is made for all letters addressed to places within the Postal Union; while in this country the charge made for letters to the same places is in some cases 4d. and in others 5d. The rates now in force here are rendered necessary by the fact that the cost of the ocean packet services devolves upon this country. Having regard to the very heavy loss now being sustained by this country with reference to Colonial postage, the Postmaster General is not prepared to increase that loss at present by reducing the rates.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Departmental Committee which in March 1885 was carefully considering the question of the great inconvenience caused in consequence of the postage stamps being all printed in one colour, has yet made its report; and, whether he is now prepared to prevent the loss to the Revenue which takes place, by returning to different colours for different denominations of stamps?

The Committee to which the hon. Member refers has made its Report, and no time is being lost in the preparation of the new stamps. The importance of distinctiveness of colour has been carefully kept in view.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following Resolution, passed at a meeting held on the 11th instant at the Mansion House, Dublin, presided over by the Right honourable the Lord Mayor, M.P., and at which His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was present, and took part in the proceedings:—

"That in our opinion the best means whereby relief may be afforded to unemployed and destitute persons at the present time is the inauguration and carrying out of works of public utility; and we earnestly urge upon the Government the necessity of instructing the Departments which have the control of public funds to afford all reasonable facilities for the prompt commencement of such undertakings;"

whether he has heard that the works of the West Clare Railway, already partially suspended, in consequence of the delay in obtaining the loan which has been subject of negotiations with the Irish Board of Works since June last, are now for the same cause about to be stopped altogether; whether he is aware that the proposed security consists of shares guaranteed four per cent. interest in perpetuity by the county of Clare, in addition to a mortgage of the undertaking; whether certain technical legal obstacles raised by the Board of Works were declared by three eminent Counsel (all of them present or past Law Officers of the Crown) to be either non-existent or easily overcome; and did those Counsel in November last agree on a scheme to enable the matter to be carried out; whether satisfactory evidence has been given that the Railway will be duly completed if the loan is granted, and has the personal bond of the directors been offered to secure its completion; whether practical effect will be given in this instance to the above quoted resolution; and, will this work be at once resumed?

My attention had been previously called to this resolution passed at the Mansion House meeting. I am not aware that there is any danger of the works of the railway being stopped for want of funds. The question of the security for the loan is one for the Board of Works. The sufficiency of the security for the completion of the loan is, and has been, for some time engaging the attention of the Treasury; and, as far as is consistent with their duty, there is no desire to throw any obstacle in the way of this railway, and there will be no unavoidable delay in coming to a decision about it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What has been the result of the communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, promised in July last to a Deputation from the Central Emigration Society, on the subject of the assisted emigration of suitable children from certified industrial schools and voluntary training homes in the Mother Country to British Colonies willing to receive them?

(who replied) said: The Colonial Office reported that if Her Majesty's Government decided to bring in a Bill authorizing the expenditure of public or local funds for this purpose, the Colonial Office would communicate with the Canadian, Australian, Cape, and Natal Governments, and ascertain whether they would be willing to co-operate. The matter will be considered in connection with the subject of Industrial Schools and Reformatories, on which it is desirable to legislate at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is customary for Protestants to be detained in Roman Catholic Reformatories; whether it has come to his notice that Charles M'Clintock, of Ardstraw, county Tyrone, a Protestant, and the son of Protestant parents, has for three years been detained in the Glencree Roman Catholic Reformatory; whether an application from the parents in January last to the late Lord Lieutenant, to have him transferred to a Protestant Reformatory, was refused; and, whether, in consideration of the unusual nature of the case, and the anxiety of the parents on the subject, he will give directions to have him transferred to a Protestant Reformatory?

The boy who is the subject of this Question was a tramp wandering about the country, neglected by his parents, and entirely free from parental guidance and restraint. He was convicted of larceny in the county of Meath, and as he represented himself to be a Roman Catholic he was sent to a reformatory school in connection with that Church. He was there for more than two years before any question as to his religion was raised. It has been ascertained by very discreet inquiry that he wishes to be a Roman Catholic, and is determined, if discharged, to continue in that faith. He is old enough to have an opinion of his own, being in his 17th year. In these circumstances it does not appear to me that it would be likely to tend to the boy's welfare to transfer him against his will to a Protestant school, or to send him back to the parents who neglected him in his childhood.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the present position of the Industrial School at New Ross; whether there is in this school accommodation for a considerably larger number of children than that certified for by the Government; whether the Inspector has reported most favourably of this school; whether a memorial signed by all the local magistrates, of all creeds, was presented to the Government last year, praying that a larger number of children might be certified for; and, whether, in the event of his being precluded from proposing to increase the grant now in consequence of the Estimates for the year having been made up, he will give any undertaking that the matter will be duly considered in time to have the additional sum included in the Estimates for next year?

I have, in reply to this Question, to state that this case, with others, will be considered in October. The hon. Member will understand that, of course, I cannot give any promise to extend that certificate. I am informed that the present certificate is a fairly average one, and that the county of Wexford is well off already in the way of industrial schools.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the vacancies on the Board of Governors of the Limerick District Lunatic Asylum, caused by the death of the Most Rev. Dr. Butler, Bishop of Limerick, and the Very Rev. Dean O'Brien, will be filled immediately by the appointment of Catholic ecclesiastics?

What the hon. Member suggests appears to me to be a very proper thing to do, and I will communicate with the Lord Lieutenant about it. Some little time will necessarily be occupied in making the usual inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a principle in the management of the model schools under the control of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to select teachers belonging to the various Churches, so that their number may be in proportion to the number of pupils belonging to those Churches, who attend the model schools; whether the Government is aware that, in the Belfast Model School, there are five Roman Catholics in the Teaching Staff to nineteen Roman Catholic pupils, and only two Methodists in the Teaching Staff to one hundred and fifty-five Methodist pupils; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to have this inequality remedied in future appointments?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that it is their practice to be guided by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph of the Question. The undue proportion of Catholic teachers to pupils in the Belfast Model School is due to the fact that some years ago there was a very large attendance of Catholic pupils at the school, as many as 600 appearing on the rolls. I am, however, assured that advantage is taken of every opportunity to remedy the existing inequality. I should add that, besides the two Methodist teachers referred to, there are two resident Methodist pupil teachers in the school.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Robert Teskey, of Curraheen, county Limerick, has received a letter threatening the life of his wife, who gave evidence at the recent assizes against the men charged with making an attack on his house, upon which occasion Mr. Teskey was severely injured; whether, at the trial in question, the jury acquitted the prisoner, notwithstanding his identification by Mr. and Mrs. Teskey, and the strongest circumstantial evidence against him; whether the Judge who presided at the trial has been asked to make any report thereon to the Government; and, if the trial of the other prisoners has been postponed; and, if so, for what reason?

Mr. Teskey received on the 12th instant a letter threatening his own life and warning him to leave his home. At the trial on the 6th instant Mr. and Mrs. Teskey identified the prisoner, and there was also circumstantial evidence, as well as some suspicious circumstances, against him; but the jury, acting on evidence of an alibi submitted to them, found a verdict of acquittal. In consequence of that decision, the Crown counsel did not think it desirable to proceed with the cases against the other prisoners at the present Assizes, and they were accordingly admitted to bail to stand their trial at the next Assizes. The Judge has not been asked to make a Report on the case. It is not the practice to ask for such Reports in cases of the kind.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to a memorial presented from the Solicitors and Procurators of Berwickshire, complaining that Mr. Crawford, recently appointed sheriff clerk of the county, holds a number of public appointments, and was and still practically continues to be a partner in a firm of solicitors practising in the district; and, whether he has made any inquiry as to the truth of the statements contained in the memorial; and, if so, whether he purposes taking any action in the case?

I have seen this memorial, and made inquiry in regard to the allegations which it contains. The information which I have received is, that Mr. Crawford does hold a number of public appointments, and although these constitute a large concentration of offices in the same hands I cannot say that his tenure of them is a violation of the terms of his commission or of the general law. The commission contains a stipulation that Mr. Crawford shall not practise as a solicitor or law agent, or be a partner of any firm of solicitors Or law agents; and I am informed that he is complying with this condition—that he is not practising as a solicitor or law agent, either personally or through anyone else, and that he is not a partner of any legal firm.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause inquiry to be made whether, after the passing of "The Employers' Liability Act, 1880," the London and North Western Railway Company induced their employés to contract themselves out of the Act; whether, since the introduction of the Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment Bill, the same Company have called upon their employés to sign another document to the effect that they are satisfied with the Act as it stands; and, whether the men signing this document are doing so under the understanding that it will be worse for them if they do not?

I have no information on the subject of the hon. Member's Question; but such as has been furnished by the officials of the Company, who state that in 1871, prior to the passing of the Employers' Liability Act, the workmen in the employ of the Company had established an insurance fund to meet cases of accident. In 1881, after the passing of the Act, the Company offered considerable advantage to the men forming that society by making a large contribution to its funds, on the understanding that it was to cover all risks that might arise under the Act. Fifty-three thousand men in the service of the Company voluntarily acceded to this arrangement. Subsequently, it was made a condition that all new workmen should enter into a similar arrangement. The Company state that the insurance society has acted very advantageously to the interests of the workmen, and that its accounts show a large balance. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I understand that the workmen are petitioning Parliament in order that their representatives may be heard before the Select Committee to which the Bill is referred, when there will be an opportunity for a full statement of their case.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information to the effect that certain employés who had refused to contract themselves out of the Act had been dismissed?

said, that he had no information on the subject beyond what he had stated.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under secs. 13 and 14 of 43 and 44 Vic. c. 14, the provisions of sec. 14 of 43 Vic. c. 4, apply to the county cess levied for repayment of the loan made to the Wicklow Harbour Commissioners under sec. 6 of 44 and 45 Vic. c. 38; and, whether it is a fact that, up to this, the landlords have made no allowance to the tenants in respect of the sums levied for repayment of the loan; and, if such is the case, how should they act?

, in reply, said, he had applied to the Attorney General for Ireland, who informed him that this question affected private rights, and sufficient materials did not exist to enable him to answer the Question. In any case, the Question was one that ought to be addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury.

gave Notice of a further Question on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Law as to summoning jurors in Ireland requires that the panel should be exhausted before any juror is summoned twice; whether it is the fact that in Antrim and other Irish counties some jurors are summoned frequently, and others not at all; and, what steps will be taken to secure the even and impartial operation of the Law?

The Juries Act contains a provision for the purpose stated in the Question. I am not aware whether any such practice exists as that stated in the second paragraph of the Question; but if the hon. Member will kindly furnish particulars of what he complains of, I will see that careful inquiries are made. The law is, that if any juror was summoned out of his turn he can make a complaint, and if it is proved the returning officer is liable to be fined, and the fine might be paid to the juror to recoup his personal expenses.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the urgent need of employment caused by existing distress, the Irish Local Government Board will immediately communicate to the South Dublin Board of Guardians their decision as to the drainage of Lower Rathfornham, concerning which one of their inspectors, Mr. R. O'Brien Smyth, held an inquiry about two months ago?

What the hon. Member suggests has been done.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the condition of the harbour of Girvan, in Ayrshire, and to the complaints of fishermen that heavy dues are exacted from them under the Provisional Order granted for the construction of the harbour; the original condition being that a depth of four feet would be maintained at low water, whereas the depth at low water does not now exceed two feet, that portions of the quay have fallen in, and that the harbour is in an unsafe condition; and, if he would take immediate steps to inquire into the case, and have: the defects complained of remedied?

I have com- municated with the Girvan Harbour Commissioners, respecting the complaints that have been received from certain fishermen as to the condition of the harbour, and the following is the substance of their reply:—The rates levied on fishing boats are those authorized by Parliament. The depth of water required in the Parliamentary plans is 3 feet, and not 4 feet. In November last there was from 18 inches to 2 feet of water in excess of this. The bar and entrance is a shifting one, and during the winter the depth of water has been somewhat reduced; but the first flood or scour will probably remove the accumulated silt, which cannot be dredged in the winter months. A small portion (about 35 feet) of the old boulder wall—600 feet in length—has been undermined in consequence of dredging operations; but this will be rebuilt when the weather admits. The fairway is in no way obstructed and no accidents have occurred, the fishing boats going in and out every day that weather admits.

said, that the complaint of the fishermen was as to the small depth of water at low water, which compelled them to lie to at half-tide at the entrance. He would ask, if it was possible for fishing boats to enter the harbour in safety at low water?

said, he had sent the complaint to the Harbour Commissioners, and he had given exactly their reply. Anything further that the hon. Gentleman desired he would be happy to forward to the Commissioners, and he would show the hon. Gentleman any Correspondence that might take place. But he would point out that the Board of Trade had no power to compel them to adhere to their arrangements. That could only be done by Courts of Law.

asked the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, Whether the refreshment contractors receive five hundred pounds per annum for plate; five hundred pounds per annum for servants; pay no rent, no rates; have firing, light, and table appointments free of charge; whether they charge higher prices to one class of customers than to another; and, whether he would consider the desirability of throwing the contract for refreshment open to competition on the next vacancy?

, in reply, said, that, for a great number of years, a subsidy of £500 had been granted by the House to the refreshment contractor. In 1882 an exhaustive inquiry was made by a Sub-Committee into the whole financial condition of the undertaking of the contractor, and their Report contained a strong recommendation to the Treasury that the subsidy should be increased to £1,000. It was true that the refreshment contractor had no liability as regarded gas, rent, rates, and firing, and that table appointments were found free of charge. As to the objection that higher prices were charged to one class of customers than to another, there was a very slight change made in the charge to officials of the House; in other respects the prices were absolutely uniform. As to the last paragraph of the Question, he believed that whenever a vacancy had occurred in the past the contract had been thrown open to competition; but on the last occasion very few offers had been sent in.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether the New Code will form the basis of school examinations in Scotland after the 31st March 1887, or what date?

The New Scotch Code will form the basis of examination in Scotland in all schools of which the school year ends on the 31st of March, 1887, and any subsequent date.

asked the Secretary of State for War, How many vacancies there now are for officers on the established regimental strength of every branch of the Volunteer Force?

The deficiencies are—in the Light Horse, four; Artillery, 325; Engineers, 48; Rifles, 849; giving a total of 1,226. As a set-off, there are in certain corps 130 supernumerary subalterns, leaving a net deficiency of 1,096 officers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Reports of the Royal Commission on Accidents in Mines will be in the hands of Members?

(who replied) said: I hope it will be possible to lay the Report upon the Table of the House on Monday next, and it will probably be in the hands of Members on the next day.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will consider the desirability of making arrangements that copies of all Parliamentary Papers be issued gratuitously to the accredited agents of the Incorporated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom?

If it should be still possible to make the necessary arrangements, I think that Chambers of Commerce might be granted the same advantages in this respect as free libraries, which I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a meeting of the Kilbride Branch of the Irish National League was held on Sunday, February 21st 1886, at the house of James Creighton, Ballinderry, county Roscommon; whether John O'Connor, herd to Mr. Keegan, was directed to appear before this meeting, and explain why he allowed some cattle, the property of Patrick Hunt, of Ballinderry, to graze on Mr. Keegan's farm; whether Mr. Keegan has been, and is now, boycotted; whether two head of cattle belonging to Patrick Hunt have since been removed from Mr. Keegan's farm; and, whether the Government intend to take steps to secure freedom of action in county Roscommon?

As the Question infers, the meeting alluded to was a private one, and the police were not present. I am informed that John O'Connor was directed to appear at the meeting. He declines to give any evidence of what happened. It is the case that Patrick Hunt removed his cattle from Mr. Keegan's land a few days afterwards. Mr. Keegan is stated to be "Boycotted" in consequence of the raising of certain conacre rents on the property on which he is bailiff being attributed to him. He is under police protection. I am not aware of anything in the circumstances of the county of Roscommon calling for isolated action with respect to it.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information as to what statement had been made to the police in connection with this matter?

I gather that no statement has been made—that those who could have made it declined to give it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. Perry, chief clerk in the office of the Collector General of Rates, Dublin, has this year made an alteration in the rate books which is calculated to deprive of their franchise rights persons occupying premises rated to the relief of the poor under the annual value of eight pounds; whether the chief clerk is a member of local Conservative clubs; and, what the Government will do to prevent illegal tampering by officials with the franchise rights of occupiers?

I am informed that any changes which have been made in the Dublin rate book this year were made by direction, not of Mr. Perry, but of the Collector General, acting on the legal advice of the late Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Carton, Q.C. The Collector General reports that every person has teen rated who is entitled to appear, so far as the collectors of the various wards have been able to ascertain. It does not rest with the Collector General, nor with anyone in his Office, to decide who is entitled to the franchise,

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, By whom was the appointment of Mr. Giffard as head of the Bankruptcy Court in London lately made, at a salary of £2,000 a-year; and, whether he was entitled to the appointment as being next on the rota for promotion?

(who replied) said, the appointment of Mr. Giffard as one of the Bankruptcy Registrars (not head) was, by virtue of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, made by the then Lord Chancellor. The salary is the same as that of the then existing Registrars — namely, £1,500, not £2,000. The concluding paragraph of the Question it is not necessary for me to answer.

asked, whether it was the case that Mr. Giffard was a brother of the late Lord Chancellor?

said, that he could not give any answer to that Question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether he has received a memorial from James Martin, lately in the police force in Aberdeen; whether the circumstances of the dismissal of James Martin are correctly set forth in the following statement made by him:—

"At Whitehall Road, where my beat was situated, early in the morning of the 29th October last, a young man named Corbett was suffering from a severe attack of asthma, and had been under the care of a doctor for a considerable time. When going my rounds I heard several times the shouts of the sufferer. A little after five o'clock in the morning one of his female attendants asked me to procure some brandy for him. As they had no doctor's prescription for it, it was with a considerable amount of hesitation that I said I would endeavour to get it. Mr. Craighead, grocer, lived not far off, so I went to his house, rang the hell, and explained the state of matters. He gave me a bottle of brandy on the condition that I would replace it next day along with a doctor's line, certifying that Mr. Corbett was really in want of it. I duly replaced the brandy, along with a line from Dr. Wyness, who was attending the sufferer. Next night I explained the matter to my sergeant, Daniel Ross, the consequence being that Superintendent Wyness dismissed me from the service without any further investigation;"

whether it is the practice when a policeman has been dismissed from the force in one place to consider him ineligible for appointment in any other place; and, whether he will consider the propriety of proposing such a change in the law as will give dismissed policemen a right of appeal to the Watch Committees or similar authority?

I have received the memorial in question, and think it right that the superintendent of police should have an opportunity of furnishing me with an explanation of the case, which I have asked for. The practice referred to in the third part of the hon. Member's Question is laid down as a rule of the Police Force by an Order of the Secretary of State under the Scottish Police Act of 1857. The Police Act of 1862 gives the superintendent of police the right of appointing and removing constables at his pleasure; but I will consider the question of providing for appeals in such cases in connection with the Police Bill now before the House of Lords.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Select Committee on Town Holdings has, under its enlarged powers, authority to take into consideration the expediency of rendering all Corporation Stocks and all Debenture Stocks of Railways in the United Kingdom liable to local taxation; and, if not, whether the Government would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject?

, in reply, said, it was his impression that this question would not come within the scope of the Committee on Town Holdings, but that it rather referred to the question of local government, with regard to which Her Majesty's Government intended introducing a Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, by reason of existing Circuit arrangements, many of the Judges of the High Court are withdrawn four times yearly from the Metropolis to the Provinces, where much of their time is occupied in disposing of criminal cases, of which a large number are within the jurisdiction of Courts of Quarter Sessions; whether the consequent diminution of judicial strength in the Metropolis leads to a serious arrear of untried causes, and to loss and detriment to suitors; and, whether the Government contemplate an early alteration of present Circuit arrangements, or intend otherwise to provide for more speedy and continuous trial of actions in the Metropolis?

In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman I have to say that the Secretary of State has made inquiries, and he does not find that much of the time of the Judges on Circuit is spent on Quarter Sessions cases. New Circuit arrangements have very recently been made with a view to the best distribution of judicial time between the Metropolis and the Provinces; and the Lord Chancellor and the Judges keep the subject always under their attention with a view to any alterations which may from time to time appear desirable and practicable.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state what provision is made in the Estimates for 1886–7 for the defences of the coaling stations, the military ports and the commercial ports respectively, and the specific purposes in each case to which the money already voted and now asked for has been or will be applied; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Paper showing the original Estimates for the several defences, and the progress made in providing them?

I have already stated in answer to Questions the sums proposed for coaling stations. As regards military and commercial ports, we do not intend to go beyond the normal provision, excepting in submarine mining defences, for which £40,000 will be provided under Vote 13. With regard to "the specific purposes in each case," as to which my right hon. Friend inquires, I will ask him to allow me to follow the example set by himself last year, and to decline, in the interests of the Public Service, to give details of the precise places and manner at and in which the money should be expended.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information confirming or contradicting a telegram in The Times of the 15th instant, that Lieutenant Andersen, on behalf of the German East African Society, had acquired the Sabaki territory lying between the Zanzibar Coast and Kilima-Njaro, and that the expedition had been fired on by the soldiers of the Sultan of Zanzibar; and, whether Her Majasty's Government has received any information relative to a telegram in the daily papers, dated Vienna, 16th instant, to the effect that the Sultan of the Comoro Islands, who hitherto had been under the nominal protectorate of the Sultan of Zanzibar, had accepted the protectorate of, and had concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with, the Government of the French Republic?

As to the first part of the Question, no information of any sort has been received. No official information has reached Her Majesty's Government of the reports which have appeared in various newspapers as to the extension of the Protectorate of France, which has for some time existed in Mayotte, over any other Island of the Comoro Group.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the fishermen on the coast of the Start Bay, South Devon, having no harbour accommodation of any kind, and having, in consequence, to beach their boats, in all kinds of weather, on their return to shore, have a special breed of Newfoundland dogs, trained to swim out and meet these boats in rough weather, and to bring ashore ropes, without which it would be impossible to beach the boats; and, whether, seeing that sheep dogs are exempted from taxation, on the plea that they are labour-saving, he will consider the expediency of exempting these life-saving dogs from a tax, the strict enforcement of which threatens to cause the extinction of the breed?

The subject is a new one to me, but it is a very interesting one, and I will make inquiry into the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Bishopric of Jerusalem is still vacant; if so, whether the appointment to it rests with the German Government; and, if it does, whether he can tell the House the reason why the German Government have not filled up the vacant appointment?

I believe the state of the facts to be this—In the first place, the Bishopric in question is still vacant; and, in the second, it is the turn of the Emperor of Germany, under the existing arrangement, to nominate a successor to the late Bishop. But His Imperial Majesty has made a communication to this country, that he desires the arrangement made in 1841 to be either modified or abrogated altogether. Under these circumstances, I understand a communication has been recently received from the Archbishop of Canterbury consenting, on behalf of the British Trustees to the British deed of endowment, that the present arrange- ment should be abrogated. What will be put in its place I am not in a position to say.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the most urgent matters of Supply will probably be disposed of by Monday next, he can now state when he will be in a condition to make that further indication to the House as to the whole or some part of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for dealing with the question of the state of Ireland, which, on the 18th of February, he hoped to be able to give by the 22nd of March?

The terms used by the right hon. Gentleman are not, I think, quite precisely accurate. On referring to my words, I find that they are, "that after the Votes in Supply are concluded"—for which date I named the 22nd, as to be, in fact, the probable and necessary day for the Votes of Supply to be taken—"by that time I shall be able, I hope, to make some announcement." I have no change to make in the statement I then made before the House. Next week I hope to name a day for the purpose of redeeming the pledge I then gave. Perhaps I may be permitted to repeat the caution which I ventured to impress upon the House on a former occasion, and to recommend, in regard to current rumour upon matters—the truth of which it is impossible to make known at the present time without a breach of an honourable engagement—that, with regard to those rumours, they should exercise a prudent reserve. I may even venture to say a wholesome scepticism. Another word I have to say is this—it would be a comparatively simple proceeding for myself and my Colleagues, if we had nothing to do but to announce the day when that statement could be made in a speech to the House. But, Sir, it would be most unsatisfactory, I think, to the House if, upon any particular day, I were to rise to make a statement, and, at the same time, were not able to inform the House that the Bill for giving effect to that statement had been drawn, and would be very promptly in the hands of the House. It is quite evident that a statement of that kind itself may be im- portant and interesting, notwithstanding the defects of the Speaker; but, however important and interesting it may be, it cannot form an authentic basis for the judgment of the House. It is the Bill itself that can only become that. The drawing of Bills upon a subject such as may be in prospect is a matter of considerable delicacy as well as importance, and therefore it cannot be carried beyond a certain point. I can, however, assure the House that since I spoke to them on the subject I can really say with truth that not a day has been lost, and that not a day will be lost.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be in a position to answer the Question on Monday? I would also ask him what Business he proposes should be taken on Thursday next?

I cannot add anything to what I have said. That is, that some day next week I hope to name a day. On Thursday next I propose to take a measure which is really urgent—the Crofters' Bill—which has been delayed somewhat beyond our expectations.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the Address presented by the representatives of the Methodist Church in Ireland, which comprised over two hundred Ministers, and more than fifty thousand adherents, to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, protesting against any legislation in the direction of Home Rule; and, if the Eight honourable Gentleman would direct a Copy of the Address to be laid upon the Table of this House?

In connection with this Question, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for West Clare is one of the 50,000 Methodists who are referred to in the Question?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. As I stated in reply to a similar proposal or suggestion by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), I confess I see no use in producing and placing on the Table of the House a document which has been already directly accessible to the public in the newspapers. The other day my right hon. Friend stated his intention to lay before the House various pieces of information laid before him. I think it is very likely that this particular document will find its place amongst these.

asked, Whether the document that had appeared in that morning's papers, purporting to be the Government scheme, was genuine; and, if so, how it was that it had been communicated to the newspapers before being circulated to Members of the House?

, in reply, said, if the right hon. Gentleman had attended the first meeting of the Committee yesterday he would have got a copy of the proposed Rules, as other Members did. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought it was desirable that the public and the Members of the House not on the Committee should see these Rules; and, therefore, with the full assent and consent of the Committee, they were sent to the newspapers.

I wish, Sir, with your permission, to put a Question to you. I wish to ask whether, in your opinion, the Orders of the Day, as they appear upon the Paper, have been properly made out? Until this morning a Bill which stands in my name—the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill—stood first on the Orders of the Day. It was, in fact, an unopposed Bill until this morning. I now find that there are on the Notice Paper seven Orders before it, including Supply. Six of these Orders are Government Orders, as to which, of course, there is no question, as this is a Government night; but I find, Sir, that among the Orders the second on the list is the Labourers (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill, which is not a Government Bill, but a Bill introduced by a private Member. Standing Order No, 96 is as follows:—

"The Orders of the Day are to be disposed of in the order in which they stand upon the Paper; the right being reserved to Her Majesty's Ministers of placing Government Orders at the head of the List, in the rotation in which they are to be taken, on the days on which Government Bills have precedence."

Now, I do not see in that Order any power given to Her Majesty's Government to give precedence to one private Member's Bill over that of another private Member; and as it appears to me that this is a matter of very considerable importance with regard to the Business of the House, I venture, very humbly, to ask your opinion on the subject whether this Order Paper to-day has been properly made out, seeing that it gives precedence to one private Member's Bill over that of another private Member, which stood first on the Order Paper until this morning?

There have been repeated cases in which the course objected to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge has been taken. For instance, the University Tests (Dublin) Bill was put down as the first Order of the Day in 1873, taking precedence of other Orders which originally stood before it. There have been other instances, to which, however, I have not had an opportunity of referring.

Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that it is competent to the Government to give precedence to any Bill they prefer over the Bills of other private Members?

Yes; on the days on which the Government have the disposal of the Business, that is so.

said, some delay had occurred owing to the necessity of communications with the other House with regard to this Committee, in consequence of some doubts as to its constitution and numbers; but he hoped it would be nominated in two or three days. When they were informed of the Members to be appointed by the House of Lords, there would be no serious delay in completing the nomination of the Members.

, in calling attention to the position of trustees, executors, and others liable to the payment of duties to the Crown, said, that the existing law was based upon the old principle, that "Nullum tempus occurrit regi;" but that principle had already been departed from, particularly with reference to the claims of the Crown to real property, which, by statute, were now limited to a period of 60 years. No exception to it, however, had been made in the case of Succession, Probate, or Legacy Duties, which were, consequently, the subject of claims by Revenue authorities for an indefinite period of time. Nor was that all. The Crown could claim interest at 4 per cent on unpaid duties, and the right to such interest accrued from the moment when the duties were legally due. It was obvious that this must be the cause of great hardship—he might say of injustice—to many persons; and he had in his hand numerous instances of this, with the whole of which he did not propose to trouble the House; but he would give one or two illustrations. Isabella Campbell died in October, 1807. She directed her real estate to be sold on the death of Isabella Gilmore. The Legacy and Probate Duties were duly paid on the personalty. The real estate was sold in 1840, and the duty was demanded in 1880 upon it. Thomas Ledwell died in 1803, bequeathing the interest of £1,710 Reduced to an illegitimate daughter for life. Trustees of the will were appointed by the Court of Chancery in 1805. In 1829 fresh trustees were appointed, and the present trustees in December, 1852. The daughter died in May, 1885, and duty was claimed on the dividends paid to her from 1803. The claim was compromised by the payment of the duty from 1852. A. and B. settled £14,000 in 1833 upon trust to pay the income to a sister C., and on her death for her children D. and E. D. married in 1849, when her share of the fund was settled. E. married in 1852, when her share was settled. C. died in October, 1853, when the funds were transferred. The Succession Duty Act came into operation in May, 1853; the duty was claimed in 1885. Lord Pomfret died in 1833. A claim on jointure was made in 1865 under his will, executed in accordance with a power in his brother's will. Accounts of both estates passed, and the estate of Lord Pomfret was administered in the Court of Chancery. Duty was claimed at 10 per cent. and the claim was settled for £1,024. Those, he thought, were sufficient to support his view of the harsh operation of the present law; but there was another and very important aspect in which it had to be regarded—namely, the title to real property. As the law stood, it was necessary for a purchaser of any property to ascertain whether and how it had become liable to Succession Duty at any time since the passing of the Act of 1853; and whether all such duties had been paid. If he did not do so, he might be liable at any time to have a claim for such duty sprung upon him; and any solicitor passing a title liable to it would be personally responsible to his client for having done so. It was evident, therefore, that all their efforts to limit or shorten the title to real property would be in vain whilst the claims to Succession Duty remained in their present position. He hoped that he had shown enough of the operation of the law as regarded individuals, personal property, and real estate, to justify his calling the attention of the House to the subject. He would conclude by moving "that a limitation in point of time should be applicable to liabilities for duties to the Crown."

, in rising to second the Motion, said, that the fact that it emanated from his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) was sufficient to commend it to the House, for he never made a proposition in the House that was not worthy of consideration, and generally of adoption. He was quite sure that if hon. Members would look into the facts with reference to this matter they would be satisfied that this Motion ought to be adopted. The time within which the Crown should prosecute its claim ought to bear some reference to the time to which individuals were limited for taking action. He had no hesitation in saying that in agreeing to this Motion hon. Members would be taking a step towards the cheapening of the transfer of land. He was very glad it fell to the lot of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to reply to the hon. and learned Member opposite, as from his extended experience in these matters he would understand the value of the Motion. If the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept the Motion absolutely, he trusted that he would be able, in conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to introduce into the Budget the suggestion he had made in 1879 that there should be but one duty payable on the death of the testator. He commended the Motion heartily to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

, in supporting the Motion, said, he did so with special pleasure, having regard to the fact that he was acquainted with a case in the county he represented (Donegal) which raised the point at issue. A man named M'Donnell bequeathed his property, a small one, to the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, then Bishop of the diocese, for charitable purposes, giving, however, a life interest to his widow. The latter outlived Dr. Murray, and the property came to his successor, Cardinal Cullen, who, yielding to the representations of the then Bishop of Raphoe, handed over the property to his Lordship to be used strictly in charity, but always having regard to the claims of an old priest, Father Brady, a relative of the testator. For a very long time the Inland Revenue officers appeared to have taken no steps whatever, though they had had full information. After the lapse of a considerable period of time, however, they suddenly unearthed this old priest and came on him for a large amount of Succession Duty. They not only charged the Succession Duty, but also a largo amount of in- terest in respect of the years during which they had neglected to collect the duty. As he, however, was not in any way legally the owner of the property and not liable, they then unearthed the Most Rev. Dr. Logue, the present Bishop of Raphoe, and compelled him to pay £168 Succession Duty — the nominal value of the property was about £100 a-year—but inconsequence of the necessary reduction of rents the actual amount was only £60. His Lordship had, by the exercise of very great economy, put together enough money to build a much-needed school-house for the tenants. The ground for this was marked off and the materials got ready for the schools, when down came the Inland Revenue, and not only demanded £168 Succession Duty, but interest for the many years in which they had been lying idle to the amount of £51 in addition. The consequence was, that the Bishop was obliged to communicate with the priests of the parish that all his economy had gone for nothing, had been in vain, and that the school so badly needed could not be built, as he had not one farthing loft, having to surrender all he had to pay the Inland Revenue claim. He believed, however, that the Revenue authorities had a legal claim to the money; but, whether that was so or not, their conduct in the matter was harsh in the extreme. Considering the lapse of time that had taken place, this was really most inequitable; and he believed that the proposition of the hon. Member for Sussex would prevent the recurrence of such injustice. Such cases as these showed that the law was not in a satisfactory state, and he was of opinion that the Motion ought to be accepted.

, in supporting the Resolution, said, the risks to which trustees were exposed were often at the hands of those whom they sought to benefit; and he thought that, though what was asked was a small instalment, it was worth giving. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would speak on this subject as a member of the Profession, and not merely as Secretary to the Treasury.

said, that the high authority of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), and the uniformly fair way in which he always stated his case, invested his opinions with a weight which attached to few hon. Members of the House, and made it difficult to answer him. His hon. Friend had laid before the House the case of the executors and trustees, but did not state the case of the Government. No one knew better than his hon. Friend that hard cases made bad law. And it would be impossible to administer any law which did not entail some hardship of which the taxpayer might properly complain. He would explain how the question stood, and show that it would be unwise to agree to such a limit as his hon. Friend would propose. The Duties to which his hon. Friend referred were Death Duties, and to these he would confine his observations. There were four descriptions of duties levied under that head—namely, Probate Duty, Account Duty, Succession Duty, and Legacy Duty. As to the first, the Probate Duty, there was no difficulty about its collection. It was bound to be paid within six months of the testator's death. The Account Duty, which was not generally known to the public, but which had been introduced within the last few years, was practically a sort of subsidiary Probate Duty, and was intended to touch property made the subject of voluntary settlement or given in anticipation of death to evade the payment of Probate Duty. In that case, also, the executors were bound to pay the duty within the proper time. Coming, then, to the Legacy and Succession Duties, when was the Legacy Duty payable? His hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) would have one uniform rate levied totally irrespective of the devolution of the property, and no Legacy or Succession Duty should be afterwards charged. It was not for him to anticipate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he was bound to admit that there was a great deal to be said in favour of that view, and if such a tax could be imposed so as not to create a loss to the Exchequer it might recommend itself to the House and the country. In 1881 the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) made a change approved by the country generally, in which he substituted an uniform Probate Duty of 3 per cent. and where the property descended to the children or lineal descendants no further duty was imposed. But at present they had to deal with a most complicated system under which legacies were bequeathed. The Legacy Duty was not payable until the legacy itself was payable. It might possibly be in 12 months after the testator's death; it might possibly be not for years afterwards. Suppose a man left property to his widow, then to his married daughter, and then to her children. No Legacy Duty accrued until after the death of the widow. It would be impossible to ascertain what the duty was until the time of its payment had arrived; but how could they fix a date of that kind? His hon. Friend said 30 years might be fixed. But in a recent case the tenant for life survived the testator 60 years, a sum of £100,000 had to be divided, and 99 estates to be grappled with. The whole of his argument rested upon this—that the duty ought to be paid before the legacy was paid, or before the property was divided, that the only person who had control of the property was the executor or trustee as the case might be, and if the executor or trustee did not pay, but divided the property, the executor or trustee ought to be liable to pay the duty which the Crown had lost. If the Legislature was prepared to extend the legislation of 1881 and say that the whole might be commuted by an additional ½ per cent. a settlement might be made, and perhaps the country might be a gainer. The Inland Revenue had between 80,000 and 100,000 cases waiting the death of various persons upon whose death the duty would accrue, and the 1 per cent payable by the children or their descendants was estimated at not less than £2,000,000 payable to the Crown. He did not mean £2,000,000 on which the duty had to be paid, but £2,000,000 of duty. A great point had been made with reference to the Succession Duties; and he thought that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment must have forgotten that the Commissioners were bound to certify that the duty was paid, and that, therefore, there was no difficulty in showing that it had been paid. Whether it was real or personal property, if the trustee did his duty and paid the tax there would be no question or difficulty. But they were asked to say that they would give the executor a certain number of years in which he might or might not pay the tax, and if he did not pay the tax then he was to go scot-free, and the Crown was to have no opportunity of following him. There was another serious question in which the Revenue was concerned. If a Statute of Limitations were passed the effect would be that the duties would not be paid until the period had run out, and then the Crown would find that the parties had gone. The broad principle upon which the law rested was this—all property under settlement under intestacy was in the legal hands of trustees, or executors, or administrators, as the case might be. It was their duty before they parted with property to see that the taxation which the Legislature had imposed upon it was paid. If they discharged that duty they were subject to no further liability or risk; if they did not they ran a risk. Then it was said that the period within which the payment should be made ought to be limited. He contended that a statutory limitation of this description would be an incentive to fraud, a premium on carelessness, and would seriously affect the whole working of the duties and injure the Revenue. On these grounds he asked the House to negative the Amendment.

said, that he could not help thinking that the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had really lost sight of the case put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He did not understand that his hon. Friend had any objection to proper provisions being made to protect the Revenue. What he did understand him to say was that the Crown should not have an unlimited period during which they might come down on innocent parties for sums of money for which they were not liable morally and scarcely legally. A number of cases had been put by the hon. Gentleman as to the length of time during which executors had been administering estates; but his hon. Friend did not suggest that the time of limitation should run for any period before the day on which the duty became payable. His point was, however, that, assuming the duties had become payable, there should be some time, he did not say what time—a long time if they liked—but some period of limitation as against the Crown. The Secretary to the Treasury had referred to a life interest lasting over 60 years, at the termina- tion of which period the duty became payable. As he understood the hon. Member for Sussex, he suggested that when the duty became payable at the end of the 60 years, or at any other period, there should be a time within which the duty could be recovered. He desired to say that he would not willingly be a party to any scheme which would open a door to fraud; and his hon. Friend would agree that in any scheme such as that which he had put forward proper provisions should be inserted to protect the Government in case of fraud. He could not but think that it was for the protection of the Government that there should be a period within which claims could be recovered. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had said that the result of adopting such a proposal as that suggested by his hon. Friend would be that the duties would not be paid until after the day fixed by Statute had elapsed. That meant that the law would be evaded; but, as a matter of fact, the Department did find people out who had not paid the duties; and in cases which had come under his notice proceedings had been taken and money recovered. He submitted that some limitation should be fixed, under proper safeguards, within which the duties should be paid to the Revenue.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir Richard Webster) had stated that his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had not met the question as put by the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He (Mr. Gladstone) was rather tempted to retaliate, and to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not met the point of his hon. Friend's speech. The Government could not accede to a Resolution of this nature on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. They could not give a promise to deal with a subject of this kind until they saw the manner and form in which it was proposed to be dealt with, and until they were themselves prepared with a satisfactory form. They had not yet reached that stage. He would suggest this to the hon. Member for Sussex—that if he raised a substantive Motion—and he did not say it was at all im- possible—he could promise him that it would be received by the Government entirely in a practical spirit. It was impossible to take exception to the general doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) who had just sat down, or to that of the Mover of the Amendment. Primâ facie, there was something plausible and equitable in the application for limitation of the Crown rights in this case. He (Mr. Gladstone) hoped the day would come when his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Dodds) might well see effect given to his views. They had done a little in that respect, and he trusted that the time would come when all these lifelong claims would be got rid of by a great change in the Law of Death Duties. Any proposal such as the one now before them was, only at best, a modification of an extremely complicated and very objectionable system. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that they should not punish innocent parties who had never been bound to perform any legal act and never would be bound to perform any legal act in this respect. But the Government case was this—The duties passed through the medium of executors who had no beneficial interest in the matter. They could hardly expect them to be very zealous and to give the necessary notice to the Revenue Department. It was exceedingly difficult for the Department of Inland. Revenue to obtain precise knowledge as to when the claims of the Crown accrued and the legacy became payable. And if the unlimited right of the Crown should be subjected to limitation it would cripple exceedingly the representatives of the public—the heads of the Department— in the performance of their important duty, because they had no distinct means of ascertaining when the legacy became payable, and the only way of obtaining the duty in many cases was to enforce the claims when they discovered them. Of course, it was obvious that they were not likely to postpone the matter unduly. They did not keep these things hanging over the heads of persons liable to pay through any default of their own; and although it might be perfectly true that the person upon whom they came down might be an innocent person, and might not himself have been guilty of the fault, the persons through whom his interests had been transferred—namely, the executors—were the persons that had been guilty of default. The House might not be able to lay very heavy blame upon them. One could not say that they had committed any grave legal or moral offence. The wonder rather was how people in this country were induced to perform without remuneration so indomitably as they did the enormous mass of duties—difficult and irksome duties—that were incumbent upon trustees and executors. That being the state of the case, the Government did not give a pledge prematurely upon the subject; but if the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) thought he could frame a proposition, he could assure him it should have from the Government a fair and candid consideration, with no indisposition to give fair scope to the general views which he had urged upon the House.

If I rise to say a few words on this matter, Sir, it is not with any wish to criticize anything that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Gladstone) in regard to a very complicated question, which perhaps can only be fully understood by those who have practical experience of the work of collecting the duty. After the discussion which has taken place on the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), on which I do not now desire to express any opinion, it will be seen that there is very great difficulty in dealing with this question. We remember cases of hardship suffered by trustees and executors as well as by persons themselves having an interest in the property on which the duty has to be paid; but we must be careful that in our desire to protect individuals from hardship we do not do anything to damage the Revenue. I think that the introduction of a limitation in all cases would give an opening for fraud, and I will suggest in support of this argument one point in connection with the payment of the Succession Duty. If I am wrong the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) will correct me; but I think that when the Succession Duty was first imposed it was given as a boon to real property, that the duty on timber should not be paid when the inheritance accrued, but only when the timber was sold in after years. Therefore, there might be the risk that if a limitation were introduced it would tempt persons to delay making returns which the law requires them to make, and so evade the duty altogether. I hope that my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) will be content with the assurance he has received from the Prime Minister, that if he undertakes to bring in a Bill on the subject—and there is no one better qualified for the task than the hon. Member—that Bill will have the favourable consideration of the Government; and I hope that, while it may afford relief to individuals, it will at the same time prove a measure which will secure the Revenues of the country from fraud.

said, that already executors burdened with a trust had the power, under the Act 43 Vict., to go to the Inland Revenue Department and ask the duty to be assessed once for all, and, that being done, the Inland Revenue could give a full discharge to the executors. Therefore, if any executors had any difficulty they had only to avail themselves of that Act of Parliament, so that no hardship could accrue to them. If some similar provision were inserted in regard to Succession Duty no hardship would be felt at all. He hoped, therefore, the House would not think that trustees were liable to such hardships as had been represented.

complained of the hardship inflicted in consequence of the Inland Revenue Department requiring payment from individuals not only of the principal sum due as duty, but also of compound interest, which, in one case he knew of, had been exacted for a period of 23 years. He would suggest that the Prime Minister should use his influence with the Department until there was some relaxation of the law to induce them to act somewhat less stringently than they did in enforcing payments of interest such as had been complained of.

said, that the offer of the Government was very flattering and very difficult. After, however, the satisfactory statement of the Prime Minister, he would accept it, and would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

, in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is not just or expedient to embark in war, contract engagements involving grave responsibilities for the Nation, and add territories to the Empire without the knowledge and consent of Parliament,"

said: We are a people who pride ourselves not a little upon being a self-governing nation. We are apt to look with a good deal of pity, not perhaps quite unmingled with contempt, upon communities which are subject to despotic rule and have no voice in the disposal of their own destinies. And in all minor matters we are ready to defend this right of self-government with great tenacity. If any attempt were made to levy the smallest tax, or to impose any civic obligation upon our people, without the authority of Parliament, the country would be convulsed with excitement and indignation. And yet, in regard to one Department of Government, dealing with matters which are of the highest importance, and which involve far reaching issues and consequences, the Department which controls all questions of foreign policy, we are practically, as far as I can see, absolutely powerless and helpless. Any official, acting in our name, in any part of the world, may plunge us into war, with all the sacrifices of treasure and blood, and all the solemn responsibilities which a state of war involves; or may contract engagements on our behalf, entailing grave and lasting obligations; or may make large additions to our dominions, the care of which, and the defence of which, devolve upon the nation; and all this may be done without our knowledge and consent. Perhaps I may be told that the matters I specify belong to the Royal Prerogative, that the Sovereign alone has the right to make war and contract treaties, and enlarge the boundaries of the Empire; but we all know perfectly well that, whatever may have been the case in former times, that is now a mere fiction, and a very mischievous fiction, too, which may enable an ambitious or unscrupulous Minister to hide himself behind the Throne, and so escape the responsibility of his own acts; for, as Sir Henry Mayne says, in his recent work on Popular Government. speaking of the change that, in this respect, has come over, if not our Constitution, at least our habitual practice—

"At present the Sovereign can make neither war, nor treaty; he can appoint neither Ambassador, nor Judge; he can do no exeeutive act. All these powers have gone over to what is a sort of Committee of Parliament, calling themselves the Cabinet,"

who are practically irresponsible. That was not always the case in this country. Our ancestors were extremely jealous of intrusting these formidable powers to an irresponsible Executive. For many generations, scrupulous care was taken to associate the Great Council of the Nation, or Parliament, with the Sovereign in regard to war-making and Treaty-making. Mr. Freeman, in his History of the Norman Conquest, tells us that, in Anglo-Saxon times, the Great Council of the Nation had its active share in those branches of Government which modern Constitutional theories mark as the special domain of the Executive. He says—

"The King and his Witan, and not the King alone, concluded treaties, made grants of folk-land, ordained the assemblage of fleets and armies," &c.

And far further down than that in our history, in those periods when we are apt to imagine that the King was without Constitutional check, Mr. Toulmin Smith, in his learned publication, The Parliamentary Remembrancer, has adduced a series of precedents, extending over several centuries, to prove that it was a well - defined rule, which our boldest Kings dared not violate, that the consent of the Great Council, and afterwards of the Parliament, was necessary to a war, or a Treaty. I will not weary the House by reciting the many cases which he quotes from the Rolls of Parliament, and other authorities, in proof of this. I will mention only, as a sample, one case, which seems to me to be one of singular interest. In the fifth year of Edward III., the King's Chancellor, addressing Parliament, said that he—

"Summoned the Parliament in order to make peace or other issue to the dissensions between the Kings of England and France." … "The said Chancellor," says the Polls of Parliament, "on the part of our Lord the King, asked of all the Barons and great men then assembled whether the King should take the way of arbitration, as the King of France had proposed, or should make war. The Prelates, Earls, Barons, and other great men counselled as the best, that the King should make a friendly treaty with the King of France on the aforesaid matters."

Now I want to know, why this House and the "Prelates, Earls, and Barons" of the other House should not have the opportunity, as their predecessors had, of recommending arbitration, as a substitute for war, in some of the many quarrels in which this country gets involved in all parts of the world? After a while, the power and the right of counselling the Executive Government on matters of peace and war, seem to have been gradually devolved upon the Privy Council, at a time when that Body was a reality, and not, as it is now, a sham. I believe that this continued until the Reign of Charles II., when the King, as Mr. Hallam says, "wanted to be absolute, for which both he and his brother had a great predilection." I have no doubt they had. [Laughter.] There were many bad things done in the Reign of Charles II., and this was one of them; after which, Mr. Hallam says there is no tangible character to which responsibility is attached. That learned historian has some instructive remarks on this subject, to which I venture to ask the attention of the Prime Minister, who smiled rather incredulously just now, when I spoke of the Cabinet as an irresponsible Body. Mr. Hallam says—

"It may be that no absolute corrective is practicable for this apparent deficiency in our constitutional security; but it is expedient to keep it well in mind, because all Ministers speak loudly of their responsibility, and are apt, upon faith of this imaginary guarantee, to obtain a previous confidence from Parliament which they may, in fact, abuse with impunity. For should the bad success, or detected guilt, of their measures raise a popular cry against them, and censure or penalty be demanded by their opponents, they will infallibly shroud their persons in the dark recesses of the Cabinet, and employ every art to shift off the burthen of individual liability."

We may be told that Parliament has a check upon war-making, because it holds the power of the purse, and the Government must come to this and the other House for a Vote of Credit, which they may refuse. But that power is perfectly illusory, because almost invariably the war is already made. Our ships of war are in active operation, shelling the enemy's coasts, bombarding towns, and committing generally all the havoc they can, and our troops have marched to the frontier, and are in the field, before the Ministers come to Parliament and ask for money. And then, if there is any demur, we are met with such exclamations as these—"What! are we now to draw back, after we have commenced hostilities? Right or wrong, we must go forward, and not forsake the brave men who are fighting for us." I can give a practical illustration of this. When the question as to the source from which the expenses of the last Afghan War was to be defrayed was first mooted in this House, my late right hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) moved an Amendment, to the effect that it would be unjust to apply the Revenues of India for that purpose. I believe there was no man in this House, or the country, more strenuously opposed to that policy of aggression, which led to the Afghan War, than Mr. Fawcett. But he was very careful to disclaim any intention of wishing to stop the supplies for the war. These were his words—

"Before Parliament mot, he declared to his constituents. … that when war had once been commenced, nothing was so idle as to suppose that the House of Commons could stop the expenditure which had been incurred. … The soldiers who were in the field must be paid, the stores procured, or ordered, must be paid for. … Indeed so absolutely impossible, when a war had had once begun, was it to stop Supplies, that the House of Commons could practically exercise no control; and he felt this so strongly that he had no hesitation in saying that he did everything in his power to get Parliament summoned before war was declared; and he felt that had that been done, and if, before the war, they had only had the information they now possessed, this war would never have begun."—(3 Hansard, [243] 886.)

Just so; but we never do get the information that would guide our judgment, before the war breaks out. And it appears to be a received maxim of our national morality, that when war has broken out, it must be prosecuted to the bitter end, however unjust it may be, even in the estimation of those who encourage and promote it. I know of only one instance in our history, when war, having been commenced, it was suspended because the Government in power had become convinced that it was an unjust war. That was the war in the Transvaal, when the former Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman, discovering that they and their Predecessors had been grossly misled by the representations of their own officials, as to the circumstances which led to hostilities, deemed it right to arrest the war even in the face of defeat. And I am glad of this opportunity to declare that, in my opinion that was one of the noblest acts of courageous Christian statesmanship recorded in our annals. But, as a rule, our principle is, when we have once embarked in war, to stick to our work; and nothing is more vain or hopeless, than to appeal to this House, to use what is called the power of the purse to put a stop to the enterprize. How was it with regard to the Egyptian War? When the Government asked for the first Vote of Credit, on that account, the war was already begun. Alexandria had been bombarded, and that great city of 170,000 inhabitants had been destroyed; not directly by us, it is true, but entirely in consequence of what we had done. It is true there was opposition to the Vote. There were a few English and Irish Members who had the courage of their convictions, and were determined to wash their hands of all complicity in that war, and to divide against the Vote, if it were only as a protest. I was one of them, and I never gave a vote in this House to which I look back with more unqualified satisfaction. But how many did we count? Just 21 against 277. It is true that there were 125 Members of the Liberal Party who abstained, or, at least, were absent; which showed that there was some remnant of conscience left to them. For, obviously, they were not satisfied with the justice of the war. But I have no doubt that, if they had any apprehension that the Vote would have been refused, they would not have been absent. But they trusted to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and trusted not in vain, to support the Government in that warlike policy, as they may be always trusted to support any policy tending to war. The Prime Minister, in a speech recently made—and if I venture to impugn any opinion of his, I beg him to believe that I do so with the utmost hesitation and deference—stated his belief that, in respect of war and warlike preparations in all parts of the globe, we have a tolerably effective control. But the only illustration he gave, from his vast stores of Parliamentary experience, was the Motion of Mr. Roebuck, to inflict retrospectively a Censure of this House on the Government respecting the first Afghan War. But that was three or four years after the event. And if Mr. Roebuck could have carried his Motion, and had even impeached Lord Palmerston, or whoever was responsible for that war, what satisfaction would that have afforded for the unspeakable atrocities and horrors endured and inflicted in that war, and for the £17,000,000 of money spent upon it? No doubt, there are cases where the Executive may not be able to wait for Parliamentary sanction, cases of invasion or sudden attack, in regard to which there must be large discretion intrusted to the Government. But I contend that, in the immense majority of cases, the wars in which we get engaged are not of that nature. If we look at those wars in which we have borne a part, during what I may call the present generation—and Heaven knows they are numerous enough—the first Afghan War, the Syrian War, the Scinde War, the first Burmese War, the Chinese War, the Persian War, the war in Japan, when we destroyed Kagosima, the war in Abyssinia, in Ashantee, and our almost countless wars in South Africa, our second Afghan War—none of these can be said to have been occasioned by sudden and urgent necessity. Indeed, in the great majority of them, they were not, in any honest sense, wars of self-defence at all; for, in almost all of them, we were the aggressors. There was ample time and opportunity, without doing harm to any interest involved, to examine and discuss the merits of the case, and to consult the nation how far it was willing to embark on that sea of blood. We now come to the question of Treaties, or engagements contracted in the name of the nation, and involving grave national responsibilities. Here, again, Parliament is absolutely helpless. In other countries, the right of making Treaties is subject to the approval of the Legislature. In the Constitution of the United States, it is enacted—

"That the President shall have power, by and with the advice of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur."

In the Constitutional Laws of the French Republic also, we find an Article to the effect that—

"Treaties of Peace and Commerce, Treaties which engage the finances of the State, &c, are binding only after being voted by the two Chambers."

We have no such control over engagements made in our name, and which may commit us to serious and illimitable obligations. In my opinion, the fewer Treaties there are between our own and other Governments the better. Mr. Cobden had a maxim, which he frequently enforced, to this effect—

"The greatest possible contact between peoples and the least possible contact between Governments; because the contact of peoples promotes peace, and the contact of Governments endangers peace."

I believe there are far fewer of those entangling engagements than there were in former times, though there are too many still. In the year 1859—I was not then a Member of this House—my friend (Mr. Hadfield), the then Member for Sheffield, at my suggestion, moved for—

"Copies of such parts of all Treaties and Conventions now existing and still obligatory, under which the Government of this country is engaged, separately or in conjunction with any other Power or Powers, to interfere by force of arms, or by armed demonstration, or by the contribution of any military contingent or pecuniary subsidy, to attack or defend any Government or Nation with reference to its internal arrangements or foreign relations, or on any other contingency whatsoever."

The Return forms a notable monument of the folly of our ancestors. It relates to only one class of Treaties—namely, Treaties of Guarantee. There are, in all, 37 different Instruments binding Great Britain to onerous obligations in all parts of the world. Well, in 1871, Lord Salisbury moved, in the House of Lords, that this Paper should be reprinted, with the addition of any Guarantees contracted since that time. In making this Motion, he delivered a long and powerful speech, in which he said—

"We have been accused of being a shop-keeping nation. Now, I want your Lordships to examine your ledgers, and see what is the condition of your obligations—to see in commercial language what are your liabilities and what are your assets. I want you just to look and count up the obligations you have incurred in the past, to calculate the results of those obligations, and to look round and see what are your means of satisfying them. Now, my Lords, what are those liabilities?. … Our guarantees extend over the whole of Europe, and even into the other hemisphere. I will not follow them beyond the Atlantic, but will simply ask, what are the guarantees which we have undertaken in this quarter of the world? Be- ginning from the Westward, we have guaranteed the territory of Portugal, the territory of Belgium, of Switzerland, of Greece, of Turkey, and of Sweden."—(3 Hansard, [204] 1361–2.)

Some of these are very ancient, extending back to the 14th century. But by far the larger number are modern, and all were contracted absolutely without the consent, and, generally I believe, without the knowledge of the nation. Now, I do ask, is it not a monstrous thing that the blood and treasure and moral responsibility of a great nation like ours should be pledged for all time behind our backs? Now, I come to the third point referred to in my Motion, which relates to new annexations of territory to the Empire. And it is all the more necessary to dwell upon this point, as there is really a perfect mania for annexation among our countrymen in all parts of the world. It is estimated that we already possess one-fifth of the surface of the Globe. We have, in Canada, in Australasia, and South Africa an extent of territory which affords scope enough for the expansion of the Anglo-Saxon race for 1,000 years to come. But our earth-hunger is insatiable, and reminds one of the ironical stories told at the expense of some of the earlier Puritans—that to justify the grabbing propensities which began even then to be developed by men of our race, they adopted this convenient logical formula—"It is said that the saints shall inherit the earth; resolved, first, that we are the saints, and therefore, secondly, that the earth belongs to us." If anything can exceed the eagerness with which we covet the extension of territory, it is the righteous indignation with which we denounce the iniquitous rapacity of other nations, and seems to justify the sarcasm of Mr. Froude, the historian, who says—

"The English nation is the most conscientious in the world in judging of the faults of its neighbours. If France, or Germany, or Russia annexes territories belonging to other people, we cannot express our disapprobation too strongly. We ourselves have swallowed more territory than all the other nations put together, but we only do it for the benefit of mankind."

There are some who believe that our Empire is already large enough; that we possess as many territories, in all parts of the world, as we know how to administer wisely, and to defend effectually. Many years ago, the Duke of Wellington said of India, what seems applicable to our whole Empire. He said—

"In my opinion, the extension of our territory and influence has been greater than our means."

But I can give the House another more modern authority on this point, to which I am sure the House will listen with the greatest deference. In an article which appeared in The Nineteenth Century, in 1877, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister used these words—

"It is my firm conviction, derived, I think, from my political pastors and masters, and con firmed by the facts of much experience, that, as a general rule, enlargements of the Empire are, for us, an evil fraught with serious, though possibly not with immediate, danger. I do not affirm that they can always be avoided, but that they should never be accepted except under circumstances of a strict and jealously examined necessity. I object to them, because they are rarely effected except by means that are more or less questionable, and that they tend to compromise British character in the judgment of the impartial world, a judgment which, I hope, will grow from age to age more and more operative in imposing moral restraint on the proceedings of each particular State. I object to them because we already have our hands too full. We have undertaken responsibilities of Government such as never were assumed before in the whole history of the world. The cares of the governing body in the Roman Empire, with its compact continuity of ground, were light in comparison with the demands now made upon the Parliament and Executive of the United Kingdom … … We who hail, with more, than readiness, annexations and other transactions which extend and complicate our responsibilities abroad, who are always ready for a new task, yet leave many of the old tasks undone."

In my opinion, these are wise words, worthy of a sagacious, far-seeing, and patriotic statesman. But, whether it is expedient or not to add indefinitely to our Dominions, one thing seems to me perfectly clear—that those additions should not be made without the distinct knowledge and deliberate consent of the nation. I hold that opinion on this simple principle—that all such annexations involve national responsibilities, and generally responsibilities of a very grave character, and that, therefore, the Representatives of the people ought to have a voice in deciding whether the nation should incur those responsibilities. At present, it seems to be in the power of any petty officer in the Service of the Government, or, indeed, of any private adventurer, to take over large territories, and saddle the duty of maintaining and defending them on the British people, so lax has often been the acceptance of these acquisitions by the Governments of the day. I have often spoken in this House before on these and kindred questions. I am afraid my voice was too often like that of one "crying in the wilderness;" but I speak to-night with more hope than I ever did before, because I believe there is a much larger number of the Members of this House who are in sympathy with the principles I have tried to advocate than there has been, in any former Parliament. Indeed, as regards all questions of this nature my hope is in the Democracy. I have lost all faith in the Governments; they seem to have delivered themselves up, bound hand and foot, to the power of the rampant militarism, which is the curse of Europe. The one topic which seems really and supremely to interest them, is to make preparations for fighting. At this very time, when bitter destitution and distress prevail in every country of Europe—when there are millions of men, not belonging to the worthless, improvident, vicious classes, but honest and industrious men, who desire nothing more than to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow—who are trembling on the verge of starvation, what do the Governments do? The one thing that pre-occupies their mind, and on which they are squandering the millions wrung from the hard hand of toil, is to add to their armaments on a system of insane rivalry to which there is no limit. So that the condition of Europe may now be described by two words—arming and starving. I hope that the increasing power of the people will tend in favour of peace. I think I can see some significant symptoms that the great body of the working men and especially of the more educated and intelligent among them, are coming more and more to abhor war, and the warlike armaments by which they are crushed to the ground. There are some facts in the recent history of France which are fnll of hope. For we have seen Government after Government overturned in that country, because the people object to a warlike and fillibustering policy. In 1881, the Chamber upset the first Ferry Ministry by a majority of 355 to 68, on account of the Expedition to Tunis. In 1882, the Freycinet Ministry was defeated on the Vote of Credit it asked to enable France to join England in armed intervention in Egypt. In 1885, the second Ferry Ministry was overturned by a majority of 306 to 149, on a question arising out of the Tonquin Expedition. Much the same has been our own experience. The Conservative Government of Lord Beaconsfield, which came in with so overwhelming a majority, was utterly routed in 1880, on account of its aggressive foreign policy; and, I am sorry to add, that the former Government of the present Prime Minister fell on the same ground. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, I am quite convinced that the late Ministry of the right hon. Gentleman would not have been overthrown, if it had not been for the unfortunate Egyptian business. I devoutly hope that, as time goes on, the Democracies throughout Europe will lift up their voices, and show their determination no longer to support the present system—that they will make the Governments understand that if they want fighting, they had better do it themselves, and so fulfil the words of the old song—

"Let the men that make the quarrels

Be the only men to fight."

said, they must all be agreed that it was desirable that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of controlling the policy of the Government with regard to the making of Treaties, the declaring of war, and the annexation of territory. But, under present circumstances, that control was very slight, or could only be brought to bear when it was too late to effect any good purpose. Party ties gave the Government of the day an enormous power in forcing the House of Commons to accept any decision, how- ever unjust and however dangerous, at which they might have arrived in their secret Cabinet Councils. No doubt, the Government were responsible, to a slight extent, for their decisions; but their responsibility was now a very different thing from what it was in former times. He knew they would be met by the Prime Minister with the answer that whilst it might be desirable that the House of Commons should have this control, it was impracticable. On a former occasion, when he brought for-ward a Motion similar to this, the Prime Minister said it was altogether impossible to have open diplomacy. But this Motion did not recommend open diplomacy, which would have the effect of inflaming public feeling. The Prime Minister also urged that there would be great difficulty in carrying on negotiations if the Government had to consult Parliament during their progress. Of course, there would be a difficulty in that course. But his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) did not advocate that while negotiations were in progress between a Foreign Government and our own they should submit to Parliament the result of the negotiations as far as they had proceeded. All he contended for was that when the negotiations had reached a conclusion, and before ratifying a Treaty, the Government should come to Parliament and lay the provisions of the Treaty before them. In the Congo debate, on April 3, 1883, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, the then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, disputed the general proposition that the Crown had the absolute power of making Treaties, and that those Treaties were ratified before the House of Commons had the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them. He said—

"What generally happened was this, that a Treaty was negotiated with the consent of the Cabinet and through the medium of the Foreign Office, and that at some stage, which varied in regard to time and place, and according to the gravity of the situation, Parliament had, as a rule, an opportunity of expressing an opinion before it was ratified. In all those cases which were of real importance Parliament had an opportunity of expressing, if not directly, at least indirectly, an opinion. A misconception appeared to arise in regard to the term ratification. The ratification did not take place at the time of the signature, but at a later stage."—(3 Hansard, [277] 1301–2.)

Of course, the House did not require to be told that the signature of Treaties preceded their ratification; but that fact, practically, made no difference. Occasionally, no doubt, Parliament did become acquainted with the provisions of a Treaty before it had been ratified; but the accident of its doing so did not in any way give Parliament the right of preventing the ratification. There was the instance of the Washington Treaty in 1871, which was laid upon the Table of both Houses before it was ratified. Lord Russell took the opportunity, on the 12th of June, 1871, in the House of Lords, of moving an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty not to ratify the Treaty—and how was that Motion met? The House of Lords felt itself barred, by the terms under which our Plenipotentiaries were appointed, from interfering in the matter. A noble and learned Lord of very high authority (the late Lord Cairns) put the case very strongly. He contrasted the credentials of the Commissioners of the United States, which consisted merely of an authority to discuss and sign a Treaty subject to the ratification ot the Senate, with the credentials of the Commissioners of Her Majesty conferring Plenipotentiary powers. Those credentials were in the usual terms; but the noble and learned Lord thought them so important that he quoted them at length, and called attention to the fact that the Queen "engaged and promised upon the Royal word" that the acts of the Commissioners should be "agreed to, acknowledged, and accepted" by the Crown in the "fullest manner," and were to be taken with "equal force and efficacy" as if done by the Queen herself. Lord Cairns added—

"I refer to these words for this purpose. I am as jealous as any of your Lordships can be to preserve intact and in full the proper power of Parliament; but I maintain that when a Treaty has been signed, as this Treaty has been, by Plenipotentiaries possessing the powers I have read, the mere accidental circumstance that the ratifications have not been actually exchanged makes no difference to the substance though it may to the form; so that, to all intents and purposes, this Treaty is at this moment, in honour and honesty, as binding I upon this country, according to the Constitution of the country, as if the ratifications had been actually exchanged."

The House of Lords were evidently impressed with this view of the case, and there was no division on Lord Russell's Resolution. The Prime Minister had more than once pointed out that Treaties most solemnly entered into often meant very little, because a great deal of discretion was left to the contracting Powers; and the right hon. Gentleman had referred to Lord Palmerston's dictum to the effect that though the contents of some Treaties might give a Power the right to interfere in the concerns of another, they did not impose any absolute obligation to interfere. John Stuart Mill had laid down that Treaties were not eternal; and George Washington had left it on record that nations did not respect Conventions when it ceased to be to their interest to observe them. But, admitting that Governments were not bound to recognize a duty of interference when Treaties were set at naught, interference, according to existing notions, was possible, and, as there was no knowing what Government would be in power at any particular date, such a possibility constituted a danger. When Russia proclaimed her intention to disregard the stipulations of the Treaty of 1856 with reference to the Black Sea, this country acted at first in a manner which might have resulted in war. Lord Odo Russell was sent specially to Germany; but though he threatened that England would fight Russia if the stipulations of the Treaty were broken, he failed to secure Germany's co-operation. In the end, but only after much excitement, Russia was relieved from the humiliating restrictions imposed upon her by the Treaty. That same Treaty of 1856 contained the understanding of the Great Powers to maintain the integrity of Turkey; and when the subject came before Europe in a practical form in subsequent years, it was only after this country had almost reached the verge of war that the claim to maintain the integrity of the Sultan's Dominions was abandoned. In 1878 he brought forward a Resolution in the House of Commons in favour of the submission of Treaties to Parliament, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, then on the Front Opposition Bench, replied that there was a great safeguard in the determination of Treaties in consequence of their only being made in accordance with recognized, public opinion. But a very short time after that discussion the country was astonished by the Anglo-Turkish Convention, which had been secretly negotiated at the instance of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, and in which this country was committed in a most serious manner. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister very properly condemned that Treaty as an abuse of Treaty-making powers. In 1883 there was an important debate in the House on the Congo Treaty; and in the course of that debate, in reply to Mr. Jacob Bright, who brought forward the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred to a former speech of his objecting to any interference with Treaty-making powers on the ground that no Government would ever venture to make Treaties on serious matters behind the back of Parliament. And the right hon. Gentleman said that, owing to what had happened, he was not prepared to repeat that assurance; and, consequently, he undertook that any Treaty made by the Government with reference to the affairs of the Congo should be made known to Parliament in such a way, and with the intervention of such an interval, that Parliament should be enabled to exercise an independent judgment upon it. That was an important advance on the part of the Prime Minister in recognizing the right of Parliament to consider effectively the terms of a Treaty before ratification, and he (Mr. Rylands) trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that further progress would be made in the same direction.

said: Before I make any particular remarks on the subject of debate, I venture to offer a few preliminary observations. In the first place, I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Richard), in making this Motion, has entirely detached it and kept it apart from any particular subject of controversy. It raises a general question of the utmost importance; and it would undoubtedly have been interposing an obstable in his own way if he had approached the subject in a controversial spirit, with the intention of either directly assorting or indirectly insinuating that there has been in recent periods any particular case of abuse of the Treaty power enjoyed by the Crown. So far as we are concerned the matter stands sufficiently detached from any polemical considerations to enable us to look at it—as we ought to look at it—in the abstract, and any illustrations that are necessary may be drawn from a period sufficiently remote not to raise any difficulties of that kind. Secondly, I hope I may express the expectation, upon two grounds, that my hon. Friend has had it for his object to raise a discussion on this important matter, and that he does not mean to endeavour to pledge the House to the proposition he has put before it—were it only on the ground that inasmuch as it has become almost a stereotyped rule to deal by way of negative with the first Motion on Friday night's Supply, and as it was only owing to quite exceptional circumstances that that rule was not observed on the present occasion, there would be no expectation on the part of the House generally that the proposition of my hon. Friend would become the subject of a vote of the House; so that any vote which would be obtained would not probably be a satisfactory expression of the deliberate judgment of the House. I may also observe that the extreme breadth of the proposition itself would, in my opinion, make it exceedingly unwise for the House to commit itself after an incidental discussion—such as this must necessarily be—to changes of such range and such vast importance, entailing consequences so manifold and so remote that we can hardly measure them; and we ought not to be asked to commit ourselves to such a proposition at what I may call a moment's notice, or rather without any practical notice at all, on account of the consideration to which I have referred. But, in saying that, it appears to me I leave to my hon. Friend an ample margin and justification for raising a discussion of this kind; because it is very well that the minds of hon. Members, apt to be occupied from day to day with the particular cases that are continually pressing themselves upon us for notice and decision, should be occasionally brought back to the consideration of general rules and practices, which are undoubtedly in themselves of vast importance. Looking, therefore, not at the proposition as put to me with a demand for its immediate acceptance, but looking to the general principles on which my hon. Friend stands and the objects he has in view, I confess that I have always regarded them with a cer- amount of sympathy, and that I do not find as I grow older that sympathy becomes in any degree less. I desire so much that the powers that are exercised by the Executive Government should be exercised, not only with general moderation, but also with a very strong and full sense of what is duo to Parliament and the country; and I am very sensible that through the necessary infirmity of human nature, and without the smallest reference to the acts of any one Government or another, the present system cannot possibly be defended as an ideal system—that is to say, we cannot say that in every instance the maximum of security is afforded to the country against either its going wrong or its being betrayed into acts which, whether right or wrong, are acts of which it has no cognizance and on which it has had no opportunity of pronouncing its judgment. But I would observe that here we have before us three cases which are entirely distinct from one another, but which my hon. Friend—for the acquittal, no doubt, of his own conscience and for the full expression of his views—has combined in one single proposition—the cases of territories, Treaties, and war. Many of the important considerations which apply to one case do not apply, or do not apply with equal force, to the others. For example, take the case of territorial annexations. These are subject to revocation by this House. I have often said that this is a power which, in the abstract, is greater than it is in practice. But why is it limited in practice? Not because of what belongs to the annexation itself; but the difficulty arises in consequence of the political considerations which have grown, not out of the mere act of annexation—I do not know that a single case can bequoted where a difficulty has arisen simply out of an act of annexation—but on account of the liberty which has been assumed by the Executive Government in political and warlike proceedings antecedent to the annexation. That is what makes it difficult to deal with an annexation. If I refer to the case of Burmah—I have not heard it named in the way of censure, and I am not going to refer to it in that sense—it is simply because it happens to be the last act of annexation. It would be a difficult matter at this moment to revoke the annexation of Burmah. Irrespective of the question of the fulness of the justification for the annexation, there would be difficulty in doing it, for the difficulty there arises out of the warlike operations which preceded it and not out of the act of annexation itself, so that the matter resolves itself very much into the consideration of that part of the Motion which relates to war. With regard to Treaties, it is true that in very rare cases Treaties, and important Treaties, have been made, as it were, behind the back of the country; but these cases are exceedingly rare. In the main the Treaties made by the Government over a long series of years have been agreeable to the sense of the country. I take as an illustration of my argument the instance quoted with much force by my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Motion (Mr. Dodds). My hon. Friend greatly disapproves of the Black Sea Clause, as it is called, in the Treaty of 1856. As far as I recollect, I disapproved of it at the time; but I think it was irrelevant and unfortunate to introduce that subject in reference to the argument my hon. Friend had to support. The country was perfectly cognizant of that clause. The proceedings in connection with the Treaty of Paris were, according to my recollection, a subject of very long discussion in Paris, conducted by the Representatives of many Powers, and extending over such a considerable period of time that it was impossible that they should remain secret. They were matter of notoriety to the whole world before the Treaty was concluded. If Parliament had been consulted upon the subject and asked to give a formal judgment upon the clause, I have not the smallest doubt that it would have given its full consent. Therefore, it is impossible to derive an argument from that in support of my hon. Friend's contention. I do not think my hon. Friend has been too severe upon that clause. It was a clause impossible permanently to maintain. I believe I stated in this House many years ago that Lord Palmerston, who was more responsible for that clause than any other statesman in Europe, had no idea that it could be permanently maintained; but he thought it a valuable provision to maintain for a certain time, the great object of the Treaty of Paris being to give a breathing time to Europe. There was never any idea of threatening Russia with war upon the subject. My hon. Friend referred to a passage in a despatch of Lord Odo Russell, whose services are unhappily now lost to the country; but that passage had no connection with any instructions he had received from the Government at home. I have quoted that Treaty as a very remarkable instance of a European negotiation, where it was quite true that the Crown made the engagement without the formal assent of Parliament; but I am bound to say I believe it was a Treaty which was made with the thorough cognizance and in accordance with the prevailing and general feeling of the country, and therefore in faithful execution of the powers committed to the Executive. Now, with regard to war, my hon. Friend wishes to commit the House to an opinion that it is neither just nor expedient to embark in war without the knowledge and consent of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend use the word "war" in its technical sense, as describing a state of things known to International Law? No; he means to include warlike operations. I am not sure that any instance could be quoted in which the Queen has engaged in war in any technical sense without the consent of Parliament. Now, is it possible for the House to commit itself to such a proposition as that warlike operations are not to be engaged in without the full knowledge and consent of Parliament, or that Treaties are not to be concluded without the full knowledge and consent of Parliament? If a proposition of this kind were adopted by Parliament, there are no persons who would profit so much by it as the Ministers of the Crown. It would be an enormous lightening of their responsibility, as it would throw over the responsibility to other shoulders; therefore, they have every reason for favouring the adoption of such a rule if it could be safely adopted and acted upon. My hon. Friend asked me, if I am not mistaken, whether some progress in that direction has not been made by the course adopted in the case of the Congo Treaty. Well, wherever it can be done, I think it is desirable that the Government of the day should take the country into its confidence; but we cannot make a general rule to that effect. It is impossible to do so. If it were the judgment of Parliament that it was necessary to impose some wholesome restrictions upon the proceedings of the Executive Government in this important respect, how would Parliament have to proceed? My hon. Friend is perfectly right when he says that in other times such restrictions did prevail. As late as the last century, undoubtedly, it was the practice of the Crown to hold prior communication with the Houses of Parliament on Treaties which were about to be concluded. Would the hon. Member like that practice to be revived? No doubt he would. What would be the consequence of that? You must go back to the state of things which existed when these communications were made and when the debates of this House were not reported to the country. You must have a secret organization in this House; you must have another Cabinet within the House. I am not objecting to that; but I beg my hon. Friend to consider what difficulties that would entail and what sort of confidence would be given to the judgment of the House upon the resolutions adopted about war and Treaties by a Secret Committee of the House. No; I do not think my hon. Friend would accept such a Committee. How is it possible to carry on whole negotiations in the face of the world and subject to the comments of the Press—invaluable for every purpose of domestic policy, but as regards such matters of public policy totally unfit for the purpose of carrying on such negotiations? It would be totally alien from our ideas of a free Parliament, where everything is spoken out and nothing is coucealed, if the House determined to have such a change in the relations of the Executive and Parliament. After all, my hon. Friend does not get out of his difficulty. What does he say took place in respect to the bombardment of Alexandria? It was quite open to Parliament to censure the Government, so said my hon. Friend. He said there were 121 hon. Members disposed to do so, though they had not sufficient awakening of conscience in them to induce them to take one side or the other, like the angels of whom the great Italian poet speaks in the war in Heaven who were neither for God nor Satan. Two hundred and twenty-seven hon. Members came down and voted against my hon. Friend, so that, after all, my hon. Friend's instance did not seem to do much for him, I, for my part, would be delighted if it were practicable to associate the Executive more with the Legislature in these great and responsible proceedings, but I do not see how it can be done. If it can be done, let my hon. Friend show me the mode, and I, for one, am quite ready to consider it. In the case of the Senate of the United States you have undoubtedly a most efficient control over the Executive; but you have it associated with the power of secrecy, which is freely used in America, but the introduction of which would be contrary to the spirit of this House, and would be a matter of the greatest difficulty even to persons anxious to limit the powers of the Executive. With regard to warlike operations it is quite impossible it could be done. The check upon the Executive, I am sure, with regard to warlike operations would be very feeble. Let me take a case, not without interest, as sufficiently remote to be referred to without passing feeling. I refer to the case of the lorcha Arrow in connection with the difficulty with China in 1857. That was a case in which it would have been perfectly possible for the Executive Government, if they had been so minded, to communicate the proceedings to the House; but they did not think it necessary to do so. It was not like the conquest of Scinde, and many others. They might have disowned it, but they did not. The late Lord Derby had the strongest feeling upon the subject. He raised the question in the House of Lords and moved a Vote of Censure; but the House of Lords supported the Government. The question was raised here, and I took a strong part with persons of various political shades of opinion, and we beat the Government. But what happened? When we went to our constituents a great many of us lost our seats, and the country determined to support the Government in that very case. So I am afraid it would be in other matters, and that you would not be able to attain the object you had in view. It is, however, with the utmost satisfaction that I see both here and elsewhere the sense of the people much less favourable now on various occasions to wars than it used to be; but there is still great danger. The case of the China War is rather a remarkable one in that sense. Now let us suppose that Lord Palmerston was quite right and that military operations were necessary. Evidently it was a case in which there was no choice. If the thing was right to be done it was right to be done then. You could not refer to Parliament, you could not even obtain the judgment of the Government by telegraph before Sir John Bowring took action. Or to take another instance—I hope the last of all possible apprehensions of war, though one must not be too sanquine, between us and our kinsmen on the other side of the Atlantic—I mean the case of Mason and Slidell. The apprehension occurred when Parliament was not sitting. The Government of Lord Palmerston thought, as the Government of the United States afterwards admitted, that it was a clear case of violation of International Law. The Government immediately made their demands, and the sending of 10,000 troops to British North America showed that they were in earnest. Although that was not strictly the case of warlike operations, it undoubtedly committed the British Government and the country to war if the Government of America had not concurred in their view. That was in itself a breach of International Law inadvertently committed. But does anybody think it would have been possible for the Queen to have summoned Parliament on that occasion and to ask the two Houses, one of which might have voted one way and the other the other way, whether it was right for the British Government to make a demand for the release of Mason and Slidell, and if they made the demand with what practical and executive measures it was to be accompanied? I go with my hon. Friend with all he says against the militarism state of Europe, and when he says he has lost his faith in Governments and places it in the people, to a considerable extent I go with him. If we can in any way adopt any rational and practical rule that will enlarge the discretion and power on the part of Parliament towards the Executive Government, I shall be glad to listen to any such proposition if it is of a practical nature. But my hon. Friend, in eudeavouring to induce the House to support a Motion of this kind, is practically endeavouring to do what is in the nature of things impossible—namely, to make the Legislative power the Executive. The Legislative power and the Executive power are essentially distinct. In this great country and its complex Empire, ramified all over the globe, you cannot avoid giving great confidence and great discretion to the Executive. If you give that great confidence and discretion you must be prepared for its being occasionally, through error of judgment, misused. It is very sad that the nation should be subjected to such a risk; but it is in the nature of things, and cannot be rooted out, and any attempt to confound together these two great provinces of Government—the provinces of the Legislature and of the Executive—will only produce confusion worse confounded and be liable to bring about an enormous extension of practical mischief. The hon. Gentleman expresses feelings and propositions in his speech to which I heartily wish well; but I trust he will not expect us, or ask the House, to accept a Motion involving results which, I think, he is hardly able to measure, and which I am sure the House is not able, after an incidental discussion, adequately to appreciate, and which, I am afraid, will produce many consequences not only not agreeable to the views of my hon. Friend, but the very reverse of those views, and calculated to be detrimental to the high and sacred purposes which he so justly advocates and has at heart.

said: I will not trespass for more than a few minutes upon the attention of the House, especially as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) who has just sat down deals absolutely with the views of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who brought forward this Motion, and as he said nothing with which we on this side of the House would be disposed to disagree. But it is absolutely impossible for us on this side of the House to sit quietly and patiently while hon. Members opposite, below the Gangway, choose to occupy on this great question of State policy a high moral position, and choose to assert by their expressions, and to insinuate by their motions, that everybody on this side is far below them in high moral wisdom, and, in fact, that they are persons for whom is reserved the "blackness of darkness" for ever. I am quite familiar with the attitude of the hon. Member for Merthyr on this great question of peace and war and international arbitration. I have often heard him make very much the same speech; but I have never known him to take a single practical step towards carrying out the policy which he advocates. To a great extent, I go with the hon. Member for Merthyr in the Motion he has moved. And, more than that, I say that it is not possible, practically, for the Executive Government either "to embark in war," or to "contract engagements," or "add territories to the Empire" without the consent or knowledge of Parliament. What are the three principal engagements which govern our foreign policy at the present moment—engagements to which the hon. Member for Merthyr and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) have been consenting parties? The first is our engagement to the Ameer of Afghanistan, entered into by the Prime Minister in 1880 to defend, under certain circumstances, the territory of the Ameer against Russia. That is an engagement which at any moment, by some unfortunate circumstances, may involve this country in war. What is the second engagement? It is an engagement to the Government of the Khedive, the sacredness of which has been dwelt on over and over again by the Prime Minister, and which has been recognized by Parliament and by hon. Members below the Ministerial Gangway. The third engagement is that entered into with the Powers of Europe that we will, if necessary, prevent Greece by force from disturbing the European peace. Mark the position! These are the three practical engagements which the present Government is carrying out. Every one of them may at any time involve this country in warlike operations. Under these circumstances, if the hon. Member for Merthyr wished to carry out his policy, why did he not take a practical step in that direction by moving a specific Resolution to the effect that these are engagements which may involve the country in war, and that in the opinion of this House it is the duty of the Government to take steps to withdraw from all of them? That would be a practical Motion which the House could assent to if it agreed with it. I hope, before the debate closes, that one of the hon. Gentleman's Friends will answer my question. Suppose something took place under these engagements which did involve this country in war, you could not say that you were unable to assent to that policy being carried out. The Motion of the hon. Member is a thoroughly unpractical and abstract Motion, and it is purposely unpractical and abstract. It has been moved in order to enable the hon. Member and his Friends to occupy a high moral position before the constituencies, and to go about the country on various platforms and say—"Here are we bringing forward these Motions, which, of course, are opposed by those warlike Tories who are always crying out for war." The public is not always going to be blind. If the Radical Party are so strong in Parliament—strong numerically and intellectually—why do they content themselves by moving abstract Resolutions, and absolutely shirk the practical issue? It is shirking a plain and practical issue when Motions of this kind are made and direct and practical Motions are avoided. Why do not hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite move that this country withdraw from the particular engagements I have referred to, which may involve us at any time in war? That is the question that we ask those hon. Members: and until they take up a plain, straightforward position of that kind, and bring forward a practical Motion which may have some practical effect on the Government of the country, the House of Commons will not believe in their sincerity, and I am certain also that it will always be easy to dispute the sincerity of their motives before the country.

said, he believed that in the treatment of inferior races no country in the world had been so just, on the whole, as this country. He regretted to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister say that he did not see his way to establish a Committee which would have, to some extent, the control of foreign affairs. He thought that it was most desirable that this country should have a continuous foreign policy; and he should like to see, in addition to the Foreign Secretary and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, a Committee containing a certain number of experienced Members of both Houses of Parliament charged with their supervision. He should like to see foreign and Colonial affairs kept altogether free from Party politics in this country. He believed that we had suffered in the past and, no doubt, would suffer in the future by changing our policy with every change of Administration. He rejoiced to see, however, that of late years there had been a desire on the part of one Government to pursue the policy pursued by its Predecessors. While he regretted that Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury insisted in the Treaty of Berlin that Roumelia should be separated from Bulgaria, he was now glad to see that Lord Salisbury, when lately in Office, had the wisdom to adopt a policy in connection with this matter which might be described as the Liberal policy. We had seen that in Greece also the Liberal Government had followed the policy of the Conservative Government. He felt the greatest possible interest in the welfare of Greece, and he believed it would have been the greatest possible misfortune if Greece had gone to war with Turkey single-handed. He was glad when it was decided to do what we could to prevent Greece commencing military operations against Turkey, and also when Lord Rosebery, on acceding to the Foreign Office, determined to continue the policy of his Predecessor. It was fortunate for Greece that there had been a change of Administration in this country, because the Greeks had great confidence in the Liberal Party in England. He listened with satisfaction the other night to the speech on Egypt made by the hon. and gallant Member for Fins-bury (Colonel Duncan) Two or three years ago it would hardly have been possible for such a speech to have been delivered from the Conservative side of the House. We had, to some extent, now arrived at a continuity of foreign policy. Since the General Election Parliament had been able to take new departures in home affairs, and surely it could do something of the same kind, in foreign affairs? He believed it would be wise to appoint a Committee upon foreign affairs. No doubt it would have to be a secret Committee; but if such a Committee existed he should feel more confident that foreign affairs were being conducted with more advantage to ourselves, and perhaps with more fairness to other nations. He should certainly feel more certain that continuity was being maintained in our foreign policy. It had been mentioned by the Prime Minister that in the United States the Foreign Secretary took advice and in- struction from a Committee of the Senate. Certainly the United States had been remarkably successful in their conduct of foreign affairs. It was at their instigation that the French withdrew from Mexico. If the United States could carry on their foreign affairs by means of a Committee, why should we not do so? There was no validity in the excuse that it was easier to adopt a new course in a new country than it was in this. He was satisfied that we could learn much that would be of advantage in social legislation even from the smallest of our self-governing Colonies. They had made experiments, and we should not hesitate to do so.

said, the noble Lord had called, upon Members who supported the Motion before the House to prove their sincerity by moving a Resolution to upset certain Treaties which had been entered into. They did not move any such Resolution as that, because they did not disapprove of those engagements. If it were the case that they disapproved of these engagements, then, indeed, a case, would arise in which they would challenge the opinion of the House upon that point. The Prime Minister had stated that it was in the power of the House to have interposed in the case of annexations which had taken place, but that it had failed to take advantage of that power, because the annexations had been the natural result of circumstances that had occurred previously. He ventured to say that in the case of Burmah that was a disputable proposition. For a long time after the war in Burmah had been successful it was absolutely uncertain whether annexation or withdrawal was to be the issue. Far from its being a necessary consequence that annexation should take place, it was quite possible that the Government of India might have come to the conclusion that annexation was not a legitimate, a satisfactory, or a beneficial conclusion to their operations. If that were a proper matter for the Government of India to consider and decide upon, was it unreasonable that they should say it was a proper matter for the House to express its opinion upon it? And there was no emergency, or anything calling for instant decision, to prevent or hinder the sense of the House being taken upon the question. The Government of India had hung up the matter for several weeks. Instead of being a case in which the House could not have interposed, it was precisely an instance in which the House should have interposed to express its opinion. The Prime Minister had made some remarks on the Treaty of Paris. He said that if the provisions of that Treaty had been brought before the House they would have been approved of; but that was surely an argument to show that the House was a perfectly proper tribunal to be consulted before such engagements were entered into. It was the first time the suggestion had been made that those engagements were intended to be temporary. They had been under the belief that those engagements were intended to be permanent, and that the States of Europe who accepted them were bound by them. It appeared now, however, for the first time, that there had been a previous understanding to the effect that these engagements were only temporary. Why should there be secret Treaties and secret understandings at all? The Prime Minister said that if the power of the Government to negotiate in secret were abolished we should have to return to the conditions which prevailed when Parliamentary debates were not made public. But at the period the right hon. Gentleman referred to there were literary men who attended the House, and who gave publicity to its proceedings. So eminent a man as Dr. Johnson, trusting his memory to a great extent, did publish a Report, in which he put better language into the mouths of hon. Members than they had themselves used. How could there ever have been secrecy in the consultations of 600 Gentlemen? Who ever heard of a secret that was confided to 600 Gentlemen? Though the debates of that time were not published, there was a real communication of them through the Members to their constituencies; and the opinion of the country was in some measure expressed upon them. Why, he asked, should there be secrecy? What was there in the engagements that we desired to enter into which called for secrecy? Who had been the most successful Treaty-maker of modern times? Everyone would answer Prince Bismarck, whose doctrine and practice had been to make an open declaration of what he intended to do, and what he meant. Had not many of the dangers into which we had run risen from the practice of secret diplomacy? Had they not arisen because the country had not been aware of the actions and intentions of the Government, and so could neither control them nor sanction them? The Ministers were not able to speak with the authority of the country to foreign nations. Many a time, when the Ministers were threatening war, foreign nations believed that war would not be tolerated by the country; and the result often was that we drifted into war. That was the case in the Crimean War. The Emperor of Russia did not believe that this country would allow Ministers to carry out their threats, simply because, as he was well aware, the country was not allowed to know what was going on. If Ministers were to state openly what they intended to do, and if we did away with this system of secrecy, then the nation would feel the responsibility in which it was involved; it would make up its mind calmly and deliberately, and would not be hurried away by passion, because it would not be misled by false rumours as to what had been done in its name; but, above all, it would be able to strengthen the Government, and give it a power which it did not possess just now, and it would make our negotiations infinitely more advantageous and successful to the country than they had been in the past. The consequence of it might be that hon. Members might be turned out by their constituencies, as the Prime Minister had said they were in the case of the China War; but if they should make mistakes he thought the sooner they were turned out by their constituencies the better. Reference had been made by the Prime Minister and others to the necessity which might occasionally arise for the Government taking a sudden resolution; but no one wanted to interfere with that. In common life sometimes they had to take the law into their own hand, though, if there was time for it, they had always to seek the sanction of the law in the proper way. In precisely the same manner, there was no desire to interfere with the legitimate exercise of the power of the Executive in all cases of emergency; on the contrary, they should trust the Executive, and confirm its action, whenever the occasion arose for them to do so. But what they asked in the Motion now before the House was that where there was no emergency, and where there were negotiations and transactions going on for a considerable period, the Government should not conclude those negotiations finally until they had submitted them to the consideration of the House. He hoped his hon. Friend would not yield to the appeal that had been made to him to withdraw his Motion. There were a number of hon. Members who were pledged to the opinion that such questions as were embraced in the Motion should for the future be dealt with as matters belonging to the nation, and should be brought before the nation for its decision, instead of being settled behind the back of the nation.

said, Lord Beaconsfield, on a well-known occasion, gave expression to a memorable saying when he said that the expenditure of a country is governed by its policy. In that maxim he (Mr. Handel Cossham) thoroughly concurred. It would be a happy day not only for this country, but for the world at large, when the same principles of honour and justice governed our International relations as governed the private lives of most of us. There was, it would scarcely be denied, hardly anyone who would, in his private life, act upon the immoral principles on which we had gone filibustering and annexing territory all over the world. He contested the principle that extent of territory made a nation either rich or great. A country was great not in proportion to the extent of its territory, but to the happiness and comfort and progress of its people. If, indeed, extension of territory could render a country great and powerful, Russia, which owned one-seventh of the world's surface, would be the greatest and most powerful country in the world. The history of the world showed that there were two great things that led to national disaster and ruin—one was the neglect of the poor, and the next was extent of territory. He asked the House to put a stop to that excessive military expenditure and extension of territory, which had created that gigantic National Debt now weighing so heavily on the industry and commerce of the country? He could not help observing, even in that House, that there was a great desire to spend large sums of money derived from the taxation of the country in keeping up great armaments. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), in the speech he delivered that night, had sneered at his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard). He would venture to remind the noble Lord that his family had received more money, and had done less for it, than any other in the country. He wished to remind the Prime Minister that it was the public opinion of that day which prevented this country joining the Southern States; and the case of Slidell and Mason, so far from supporting, told against the right hon. Gentleman's argument. The hon. Member was proceeding to enlarge on this topic, when—

said, that the hon. Member was travelling from the Motion.

concluded by saying that what he wanted to see was a check put upon the tendency to enter into foreign wars and complications. He hoped that public opinion would put an end to a filibustering policy in any part of the world.

said, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) if he went to a division. It seemed to him that the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) was very unfortunate in the instance he had quoted as to the Treaties he suggested they should move to repeal. Two of those Treaties certainly were entered into long before there was time to protest, and some of them had protested as soon as they had a chance of doing so. It was impossible to answer the arguments of the Prime Minister; but under the hon. Member's (Mr. Richard's) Resolution there was a great truth lying, condemning the policy of entering upon wars which involved great expenditure of blood and money before Parliament had any opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. With regard to Burmah, the policy might be right or wrong; many thought it was wrong; but it was all over before Parliament could say a word. He considered that before the country was entirely committed to any annexation of territory or any war, and before steps were taken from which there could be no retreat without disgrace, the House and the constituencies should on every possible opportunity have the satisfaction of expressing their opinion.

said, the country would be indebted to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) for bringing forward this matter. To many hon. Members it was really refreshing to have a night's debate of this sort after they had seen Parliament within the last few days spending money with the greatest lavishness, and had heard hon. Members speaking as if the only thing for which they lived was to complete instruments of destruction. In many points the case of the Prime Minister was unanswerable; but this was not a technical question. It would be lamentable if, after the extension of the suffrage, an improved feeling were not manifested in that House. He admitted at once that the House of Commons might have failed in its duty in several of the instances mentioned by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill). There were difficulties in the way; all of them were influenced more or less by Party considerations, and it was not pleasant for them to assail their Leaders; but really, if they could not insure to the House of Commons the security indicated by his hon. Friend, they would be bound to have a still higher regard than hitherto as to the composition of Governments. No speech could have been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister which would have touched Parliament or the country more than the speech which he had made that night. Many of them felt that it was only for a comparatively short time that he would occupy the position he now occupied in that House; and he had left them, in the utterances he had made that night, his latest conviction upon this most solemn question. He hoped that what had been said in that debate would make such a deep impression on both sides that the spirit of levity, and almost of callousness, with which they had entered on great International engagements would not be so readily adopted in the future. He was not one of those who could look with unconcern upon the continual extension of territory for which Parliament was responsible. Mere considerations of prudence should make them hesitate; and if Parliament could not directly control the Government in any specific case the only alternative was to lay down a general policy. Many hon. Members were subject to the reproach of want of patriotism and pluck; but he said that they on his side were proud of the Empire, and of the position which it occupied, and wished that position to be maintained. He was sorry to hear the noble Lord impute to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard) the motive of Party considerations. He believed there was no purer-minded man in that House, or one freer from considerations of that kind. During all the time he (Mr. Illingworth) bad had a seat in that House he had taken the side of abstention from meddling too readily in foreign affairs; and he was one of the seven who in 1870 refused to support the Government when, during the Franco-German War, they yielded to the panic-mongers and brought forward a Vote for an increase of 20,000 men and £2,000,000 of money. That was his answer to the noble Lord, who charged him with acerbity, for it was his duty then to vote against his own Party. What he desired was that the House of Commons, and particularly the peace Members, should be continually on their guard, and should work superior to Party considerations. It was true that in several cases where protests had been made against the interference of the Government, as in the case of the Chinese War, the constituencies went against the peace Members; but it must be remembered that there was then a limited suffrage, and that while the governing classes supported a mischievous foreign policy there was an overwhelming majority of the masses of the people who did not commit themselves to or encourage interference. It was the working classes of this country, the working men of Lancaster, and Yorkshire, and the Midlands, that prevented our middle and governing classes from having any share in the war between the Northern and Southern States of America. Although some classes might at times be carried away by passion, he asserted that the feeling of the Democracy was not in favour of a war system. They were hoping and panting for a better condition of things. War had been the pastime of the governing classes of this country, but the masses of the people had been the sufferers; and he warned the present Government, and any successive Government, that with an intelligent Democracy finding expression for its opinion, they would be mistaken if they did not rely on calm judgment and moral feeling to restrain them, from wanton aggression.

said, that he hardly knew a war since he took an interest in political life that we were right in going into; and, though strongly sympathizing with the object of the Motion, he could not support it, for he thought that it would rather tend to bring about than to prevent war. During the recent Russian scare, for instance, when the Opposition were urging the Government to take warlike measures, any debate in the House would have done immense harm.

said, he was persuaded that if this Motion was not carried to-night a similar one would be carried before long, for it touched a subject very near the hearts of the working men of the country. He believed it was generally admitted that it was the unenfranchised masses which prevented this country from being plunged into war with the United States of America, and also that it was the same class who, six or seven years ago, prevented us from going to war with Russia. This class was now enfranchised, and he believed they still held the same views, for amongst the multitude of questions that were agitated during the late General Election none found more favour than that which was involved in the Motion of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard). He was of opinion, however, that there was no desire on the part of the Democracy to lay down any hard-and-fast line in this matter, because they recognized that exceptional circumstances might arise which would justify the action of the Executive Government without having obtained the assent of Parliament. If the fire-eating journalist, bondholders, and unprincipled capitalists were to leave the people to themselves no country would think of invading the territory of its neighbour. He had no doubt that if the country had been consulted as to the annexation of Burmah before the Expedition started an immense majority would have declared against it. But the House was not consulted until the money had been expended, the blood shed, and the honour and reputation of the country more or less involved. It was in the hope of preventing the repetition of this kind of thing that he would support this Motion.

said, he desired to say a few words in answer to those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. There could be no doubt that the extension of our Constitutional rights that had been continually going on had resulted in giving Parliament a greater control over the Executive as far as related to the foreign affairs of the country. He did not believe that there was any Party in this country—and he said this as much of the Party opposite as of that behind him—who were anxious to go beyond the necessities of the case in making troublesome engagements with Foreign Powers, or to embark in military operations without the consent of Parliament. It was difficult for the Executive to have Parliament always at hand, and a large amount of responsibility with regard to foreign affairs must always be left with the Executive. Any Government which took upon themselves so grave a step as to embark in military operations knew that they would have to give a strict account of their conduct to Parliament, and that if they failed to obtain the sanction of Parliament for their acts they would incur the most serious personal responsibility, and that they would be liable to be immediately dismissed from power. In his opinion, therefore, the danger which the hon. Member (Mr. Richard) who had brought forward this Motion desired to guard against was not so great as was sometimes supposed. It was not always possible, or even desirable, that Parliament should be consulted before military operations were commenced; and, indeed, the hon. Member himself had not indicated any way in which the authority of Parliament could be better brought to bear in this matter than it was under the present system. Unless the hon. Member did that his Motion became a mere abstract one, to which it would be difficult to give any practical effect. He quite admitted that during the last 10 or 15 years the limits of Executive discretion had been overstepped upon more than one occasion; but it always lay with the Executive to allege that the occasion in question was an exceptional one, and that, therefore, they were entitled to Parliamentary indemnity for their action. In these circumstances, he was afraid that nothing would be gained by laying down a hard-and-fast line of action. With regard to the method of controlling the foreign policy of the Executive adopted in the United States, he wished to point out that that country was in a totally different position with, regard to its foreign policy from that occupied by any European Power. The United States had no foreign policy on this side of the Atlantic, and their foreign policy on their own side of it was very simple. He fully admitted that the more Parliament was consulted and the less secrecy there was about our foreign policy the better. It might be, as in the time of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, that while the foreign policy of this country in 1876 never received the approval of the people at large, still it did receive the approval of the then Parliament. If this Motion were agreed to, the hon. Member would have to go a step further and say that before the Government could take any important step in foreign policy they must take the opinion of the electors upon it. He ventured to hope that after what had been said on this subject on behalf of the Government the hon. Member would be satisfied, and would withdraw his Motion.

On Friday night, Sir, when a Motion like that which has just been negatived was taken, the custom was that Her Majesty's Government should move, "That this House immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply." [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head; but that was the invariable rule in former years, and it was adopted out of regard for the surrender of their privileges which private Members made when the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday night was got rid of. Unless some special circumstances intervened, some Member of the Government has always moved that the House should resolve itself into Committee of Supply. Now, on this occasion, land other hon. Members have Motions on the Paper of considerable importance, which, in all probability, there will be no opportunity of discuss- ing again during the present Session. I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to follow the long-established rule which he himself, on more than one occasion, has said ought to be observed, except in special circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman, and those who represent the Treasury Bench, have always said that the Motion for Supply should be renewed, unless a late hour of the evening had been reached. It is now very little more than half-past 10, and yet the Government decline to set up Supply again. We are all aware how seriously the privileges of private Members have been curtailed in this House; and unless some opportunity is given to independent Members for having the questions in which they are interested discussed, their rights will be almost done away with altogether. We have in the House at the present moment a considerable number of new Members who are not acquainted with the rights and privileges of the House; and I appeal to them to support me on this occasion, or those rights and privileges will be seriously affected. I would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to say what the rule and understanding have been in reference to the Committee of Supply on Friday nights—whether it has not always been the practice of Her Majesty's Government, when a Motion has been negatived, to set up Supply again?

I rise at once to answer the appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and although I quite agree with some of his observations, I am certainly not able to agree with the conclusion he has arrived at. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has somewhat overstated the case, although not seriously; because, in the circumstances under which the proceedings of the House on Friday nights were altered some years ago, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has recounted, I admit that there was practically an understanding that the Government should not escape from its obligation to allow free scope for discussion to private Members. He has fairly stated that that was the case whenever a division on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply oc- curred early in the evening. But we have now arrived at an hour which implies that a considerable portion of the evening has passed away; and the Government are bound to have more scruples as to the exercise of their discretion in again setting up Supply. We have considered that it would be better to proceed with the other Orders of the Day. It is a question, however, for private Members, and private Members only. The Government were taken to task early in the evening for having put a private Member's Bill next to the Order for Supply; but I believe there is a general concurrence of opinion that the Bill in question should go forward as rapidly as possible. Therefore, I thought that we ought to set up Supply for Monday, and go forward with the Order of the Day which stands next on the Paper.

I confess that we have some reason to be dissatisfied with the decision arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly had understood that it had been almost the invariable practice that the Motion for Supply should be renewed under circumstances such as have happened this evening, and the more so as it is a comparatively early hour in the evening—only 20 minutes to 11. I do not know that the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend stands on the Paper in such a position as would enable the important subject he desires to bring forward to be fully discussed; but there is a Motion in the name of the hon. Baronet opposite the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), whom I see in his place, which is of great interest and importance, and might very properly occupy the attention of the House this evening. What does the right hon. Gentleman compare that subject with? He compares it with a Bill which has no right to occupy its present prominent place on the Paper, and which would not have occupied that place but for the action of Her Majesty's Government, which, although it may, perhaps, be in accordance with precedents at the end of the Session, is, I will venture to say, hardly in accordance with precedents in the month of March. Her Majesty's Government, for their own reasons, have chosen on this occasion to place the Labourers (Ireland) Bill second to Supply—a Bill which they have not thought it necessary to introduce themselves, but which, I suppose, under certain pressure from below the Gangway, they have been induced to place in its present prominent position. But, Sir, it is not merely a question between the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite and the promoters of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, but it is a question between the Orders of the Day and the most pressing Business; and I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the most pressing Business before the House at the present moment is the Business of Supply. Effective Supply has been put down by the Secretary to the Treasury for tonight; and therefore if, for any reason, the hon. Baronet opposite does not choose to avail himself of his precedence on this occasion in order to bring on his Motion to-night, the House ought to proceed with Supply and make progress with the Estimates. That the House should be called upon to postpone Supply until Monday in order that the Labourers (Ireland) Bill may be proceeded with can only be accounted for on one supposition, and that is the very precarious position in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves placed. We have done our best already to save them from defeat by their own followers tonight. We shall be happy to do it again, if we agree with them and if it be necessary; and after that assurance I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position.

I believe that the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name, in reference to the funds of Greenwich Hospital, comes before that of the hon. Baronet opposite.

The Order for Supply has already been passed over. The Order itself was defeated; and, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) having been negatived, unless the Government chose to set up Supply again there is no power on the part of the House to revive it.

I understand that the Question before the House is whether Supply shall be postponed until Monday.

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, if there is any Question before the House?

There is no Question before the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) who addressed the House addressed it on a point of Order. That is the only Question before it.

Surely, Sir, was it not the case that just now the Question was put that the Committee of Supply be postponed until Monday?

The Committee of Supply has already been deferred by the action of the House, and there is no Motion before the House that Supply be postponed until Monday. The question which has arisen now has reference to the custom of setting up Supply after an Amendment has been negatived, and the Order of the Day has been suspended by the action of the House.

I wish to submit, with very great respect, that the Question before the House is whether Supply shall be taken on Monday.

There is no Question before the House at all.

Can Supply be set down for Monday without the Order of the House?

I have already said that it has been set up for Monday. That was put from the Chair, and the House decided to defer the Order for Supply until Monday.

But we object to that. We raised opposition to it. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

I must remind the noble Lord that Supply is fixed for Monday. The Clerk at the Table had already proceeded to read the next Order. No objection was taken to that, and the House proceeded to the next Business after Supply. At this moment there is really no Question before the House.

again rose, amid cries of "Order!" and "Name!"

If the noble Lord desires to put a question upon a point of Order he is entitled to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did put a question of Order, and he was therefore allowed to speak. But there is no Question before the House, and I must remind the noble Lord that he is not entitled to speak except upon a question of Order.

Then I will ask you, Sir, whether the House has agreed to the Motion of the Government that Supply should be set down for Monday? because I understood my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to make an appeal to you in order to dispute that Motion. That is the point which I wish to place before you clearly—namely, whether the time had gone by, when my right hon. and learned Friend rose, for disagreeing with the proposition of the Government that Supply should be put down for Monday? I want to know, Sir, whether my right hon. and learned Friend was not in sufficient time to object to the Motion of the Government?

I put the Question in the ordinary way, that Supply should be postponed until Monday, and the Clerk then proceeded to read the next Order of the Day. The Order of the Day was read from the Table, and there is now no Question before the House except the Orders of the Day.

May I ask a Question for information? I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and myself, all spoke on the Question that Supply be postponed until Monday.

I have expressly stated that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven spoke upon a point of Order, and a point of Order takes precedence of any other Question. No Question can be raised now as to the setting up of Supply. The Question of Supply has been passed, and the Clerk proceeded to read the Orders of the Day.

I rise, Sir, for the purpose of putting a question to you; and it is whether, supposing that Her Majesty's Government should change their minds and allow Supply again to be set up, it is not competent for them to do so?

We have passed the stage in which that could be done.

I beg to move the Amendment in this clause of which I have given Notice—namely, to insert in page 4, line 20, after the word "sanction," the words—

"Subject to the provisions of section six of 'The Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883,' as to the nature of the lands to be taken."

I do not intend to detain the Committee at any length while I explain my reasons for setting down an Amendment to this clause. It appears to me that there has been an omission in the drafting of the clause. The clause contemplates the disturbance of agricultural tenants in regard to their holdings in the event of the Sanitary Authority exercising its powers of compulsory purchase, and the provisions of the Act of 1885 are specifically referred to in the clause; but no such precautions are taken in regard to the Act of 1883. I therefore propose the Amendment with the view of supplying the omission, and to provide that the Provisional Order sanctioning the compulsory purchase shall be subject to the 6th section of the Act of 1883. My object is to protect the rights of the owners, as well as those of the occupiers, with regard to the maintenance of the residence and of the land immediately adjoining which are occupied with such residence. I do not suppose, for one moment, that those who drafted the Bill desired to introduce a principle which is totally novel to preceding legislation; and I confidently expect that hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway, who are responsible for the Bill, will consent to accept the Amendment, which simply places the provisions of this Bill in accord with the principles of the two previous Acts, and proposes to extend to the owner the benefits which the Bill intends to confer in the case of compensation upon the agricultural labourer whose occupation is disturbed.

I understand that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) proposes to provide that in this Act the same exceptions in regard to mesne lands as exist in the original Act of 1883 should be continued. This provision was, if I remember rightly, carried at the time the Act of 1883 was passing through this House. The Amendment was moved by the ex-Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then Solicitor General, and agreed to by Members sitting on these Benches as a fair compromise. As a matter of fact, it was one of the Amendments agreed to on the strength of which the original Act of 1883 was passed. If, then, the Amendment now proposed by the hon. Member does not go any further than the proposition contained in the original Act I should not be disposed to object to it. But it is a matter upon which I think the hon. and learned Attorney General for England (Sir Charles Russell), who sits on the Front Bench, will be able to give us a decided opinion. Certainly, I should like to hear what the view of the Government is before accepting the Amendment, especially upon the point of law whether the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman does carry the matter any further than the Act of 1883.

In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I am strongly of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) makes no extension of the very reasonable and fair reservation contained in the Act of 1883. Believing the Amendment to be a very reasonable one I shall certainly support it.

I did not quite catch the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the Committee, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Law Officers of the Crown, to whom we look for information in regard to points of law, have given it as their opinion that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) is carried it will not make any further extension of the provisions of the present measure as to compulsory purchase?

What I said was that it makes no extension of the reservation contained in the original Act of 1883 in regard to mesne lands, and so forth. We are of opinion that the same reservation, containing the same powers, should be included in Clause 9 of the present Bill which is now before the Committee.

I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 2, which provides that "where a sanitary authority proposes to acquire lands on lease in execution of the Acts of 1883 & 1885, such lease shall be prepared by the sanitary authority."

On the second reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman opposite objected to that part of the clause which provides that no Income Tax should be payable out of any lands, buildings, or premises acquired or built by a Sanitary Authority in execution of the Act; but I did not understand him to raise a similar objection in regard to Grand Jury cess; I would suggest, therefore, that the words "Income Tax" should be struck out of line 34, and that the rest of the clause should be allowed to stand. It is absurd to suppose that a tenant who pays, perhaps, 1s. a-week, or a rent as low as £1 or 30s. a-year, would be liable to the Income Tax.

The Question that the clause stand part of the Bill has already been put, and the hon. Member is too late in proposing any amendment of the clause itself.

In moving the insertion of the Amendment which stands in my name, it is necessary that I should explain the object with which I propose it. The clause provides that the Sanitary Authority, or any person who has contracted with the Sanitary Authority for the carrying out of works provided for in an improvement scheme, shall have power to dig for and carry away gravel, stone, sand, and other materials which may be required for such works, subject to certain conditions, one of which is that the section "shall not apply in the case of any lands being an orchard, bleach-green, walled garden, haggard, or yard, or planted walk, lawn, or avenue to a mansion-house." My Amendment is to insert "demesne" after the word "lawn," in order expressly to except a demesne, as well as the other grounds specified in the sub-section. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will have no objection to accept this Amendment, which is in accordance with the spirit in which the clause has been drawn.

I do not object to the Amendment. On the contrary, I think it is a fair reservation to make.

I have now to move, in the next subsection, the insertion of the words, "or owner," after occupier. The subsection provides that the clause shall not apply in case the occupier of the lands shall not give his consent, unless and until the Sanitary Authority or contractor shall have obtained an order granting the power from a Justice of the Peace, sitting in Petty Sessions, for the Petty Sessions district within which the lands are situate. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the consent of the owner, as well as of the occupier, shall be necessary. I think the Committee will agree with me that the owner is fully as entitled to be considered, both in regard to compensation or in any arrangement that may be made, as the occupier.

I think that where the occupier of a house, or land, agrees to have his premises damaged, and materials for works or building purpose carried away, the owner might be reasonably expected to give his consent also. I believe that this is the provision which is inserted in the Land Act, the question considered being that the matter was one which more immediately affected the occupier than the owner. Surely there is every necessary safeguard if we insist upon the consent of the occupier and also the consent of the Local Authority being obtained. Precautions of that nature render the consent of the owner superfluous. I hope the hon. Member will see that the safeguards he wishes to obtain are altogether unnecessary.

I certainly do not think that the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend is an unnecessary provision, at any rate until the law is greatly changed, and the owner, at some future period, becomes dispossessed of the land. The Amendment makes the matter perfectly clear; and in the event of the land being disturbed or injured the owner will be entitled to a certain amount of compensation as well as the occupier.

I see no reason why the owner should not have the right of refusing his consent as well as the occupier.

I wish to point out that the Amendment, if inserted as it stands on the Paper, will not read grammatically. It requires the insertion of the word "or" before "owner."

It cannot be disputed that both owner and occupier will have an interest in the property; and in some instances the interest of the owner may be very considerable, whereas that of the occupier is very inconsiderable. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment.

Of course, it is necessary to add the word "or" to make the Amendment intelligible.

I have already accepted that Amendment.

The next Amendment is one which stands in my name, and it is similar to the one which has just been adopted. The sub-section provides that the Sanitary Authority or contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier for waste or injury committed by entering thereupon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the land. My proposal is to include in the provision both the owner and occupier, according to their respective interests in the property.

Does the hon. Member desire to leave out the word "but," in line 23?

Yes, Sir; and to add the words, "and to the owner and occupier, according to their respective interests therein."

I do not see how, if we are to make sense of it, the sentence will run.

The sub-section will run in this way—

"The sanitary authority or such contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier of said lands for the waste or injury committed by entering thereon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the lands, and to the owner and occupier according to their respective interests therein."

I would propose to omit all the words after "lands," in line 23, down to "same," in line 27; namely—

"But the value of any gravel, stones, sand, or materials, shall not be included in the amount of such compensation, unless same shall have been taken from any quarry or gravel-pit, bonâ fide demised to such occupier with liberty to work same."

In the first place, we must make sense of the sub-section, as it is proposed to amend it.

There is an Amendment upon the same point in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who proposes to leave out "but," and to insert "and to the owner and occupier for." I think that that Amendment, taken in connection with a second Amendment in the same sub-section in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, will make the matter clear.

The Amendments which stand in my name will make the sub-section read thus—

"The sanitary authority or such contractor shall make reasonable compensation to the occupier of said lands for the waste or injury committed by entering thereon, or by breaking the surface or making a passage through the lands, and to the owner and occupier for the value of any gravel, stone, sand, or materials taken."

I beg to move the next Amendment in my name.

I beg to move the insertion of a new clause, after Clause 2, to provide a definition of the term "agricultural labourer." The clause proposes, in the first place, to repeal that part of the 23rd section of the Act of 1885 which defines an agricultural labourer, and goes on to specify that the expression "agricultural labourer" shall mean a man or woman who does agricultural work at any season of the year on the land of some other person or persons, and the term shall also include a herdsman and a fisherman. I would remind the Committee that in the original Act of 1883 an agricultural labourer was defined to be a person who habitually works in agricultural work on the land of some other person; but it has been found that under that definition many persons whom it was undoubtedly the object of the Legislature to include have been excluded from the benefits of the Act. In regard to a considerable number of agricultural labourers employed in the agricultural work of some other person, it could not be proved that they worked habitually at agricultural labour, although that was their principal means of living. The definition was therefore amended in the Act of 1885, and it was made to run that the term agricultural labourer should mean "a man or woman who in ordinary seasons worked on the land of some other person or persons." Upon making inquiry, he found that even this definition still excluded a large number of persons who were virtually agricultural labourers. A good many women, and especially the widows of agricultural labourers, at certain times of the year have to accept housework; and in considering the case of Ireland hon. Members must not regard it from an English point of view, even in reference to the male sex. In England an agricultural labourer is able to find a sufficiency of agricultural work all the year round; but in Ireland the labour market is poor, and although there are many men in that country who would be glad to do agricultural work they are unable to get it to do. They find themselves compelled to resort to the quarries, or to the mending of roads, or driving cars, or any other work they can get to do; and what I want is to have the definition of an agricultural labourer so amended as to include all these persons. I hope, from the expressions which fell from several Gentlemen from the North of Ireland on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, that they will be prepared to support the clause I move, and that there will be no opposition to it. If the object of hon. Members is to put an end to the wretched hovels which now exist in Ireland, so much to the discomfort of the inhabitants, and to prevent these persons from becoming a burden upon the ratepayers for medical relief and as inmates of the workhouse wards, they will certainly accept my clause. I have received a memorial from 52 persons in the Lurgan Union who work sometimes as agricultural labourers, but at others are not able to find that kind of work, strongly in favour of the proposal I make; and on the occasion of the second reading the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) spoke in the sense of this Amendment on behalf of the inclusion of fishermen. I think the hon. Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) did so also; but I do not quite recollect that the memorialists say they have been told in reply to their repeated applications that the law is not intended to apply to them at all. Their houses are wretched and unfit for habitation. They add that the Board of Guardians, of which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Waring) is the Vice Chairman, had refused to include them in the Act as agricultural labourers in consequence of their having engaged in weaving work when the farmers did not require their aid in farming operations. I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, if he had been present at the meeting of the Board, would have attempted to modify the decision of the Board in favour of these poor hand-loom weavers. As a matter of fact, they are poor farm labourers who have been driven to go to the loom because they cannot get agricultural work. Why, then, should they not have the benefit of the Act? The principle which I desire to lay down is that the man who does agricultural work when he can get it, and any other kind of work when he cannot get agricultural work, is fully entitled to the benefit of this Act as an agricultural labourer for the 12 months of the year. I hope that it will not be necessary to prolong the debate upon the clause, but that there will be a general consensus of opinion in its favour.