asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, What amount of the Greenwich Hospital Funds is now invested in Government Three Per Cent Annuities: and, whether he will take into consideration the question of obtaining a better investment of the money for the benefit of the seamen, who have largely contributed to these funds?

The amount of Greenwich Hospital Funds now invested in the Three Per Cent Stock is £1,005,772. Arrangements have been made for the re-investment of a portion of this sum, and negotiations are in progress for further re-investments.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the further addition to the new Dockyard Staff of the Admiralty, by the appointment, as proposed, of Chief Constructor as assistant to the Director of Dockyards, any proportional reduction is to be made in the Staff?

Yes; it is proposed to reduce the number of Constructors by two.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended to fill up the vacant Secretary ship to the Board of Customs; and, if so, when this appointment may be expected to be made?

the Secretary ship to the Board of Customs will be kept vacant pending the consideration of the question of the amalgamation of the Customs and the Board of Inland Revenue. This consideration has been delayed by the illness of the Chairman of the Board of Customs, with whom the Papers are.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Report of the Director General of Railways for India has been already issued in Calcutta, and how soon it will be presented to Parliament; and whether it will be possible to arrange for the printing and supply to Parliament direct from the Government Press in India of Indian official documents?

The Report of the Director General of Indian Railways for 1886–7 was laid upon the Table of the House on the 22nd. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Treasury, by whom such Papers are now printed for the House of Commons, as to the possibility of arranging for the supply of copies direct from India.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the cost to the public of the police and military lately employed in carrying out evictions at Coolgreaney; and, what was the amount of rent due by the tenants who were evicted?

said, the Inspector General informed him that it would take a long time to ascertain the cost of carrying out these evictions. There was as yet no official knowledge as regarded the rent due.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to tell us the cost, of those evictions before the Constabulary Vote comes on?

said, he could not say when the Constabulary Vote would come on; but he would try and get the information as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in reply to a Question I put to him with regard to the Woodford evictions, was able to state the cost of those evictions a few days after their termination?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What has become of the amount of fines imposed upon the responsible persons in charge of a certain colliery in the County of Durham, at which a serious explosion took place on the 2nd of March, 1885, for neglecting the provisions of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872;" and, if he can arrange for the amount of such fines to be paid over to the treasurer of the fund established for the benefit of the widows and orphans caused by the 32 lives lost by the said explosion?

The fines in this case amounted only to a sum of £40, and were not imposed till the month of March, 1886. In the meanwhile, there had been a fund raised by voluntary effort for the widows and orphans of the men who were killed by the explosion: and the Inspectors did not, therefore, suggest that the fines should be distributed among them. Under these circumstances, the fines were, according to the Statute, paid into the Exchequer and carried to the Consolidated Fund. I am advised that they cannot now be paid out for the benefit of the sufferers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the pay of Paymasters in India, holding the rank of f Major?

A decision was arrived at in March, 1886, to adhere to the consolidated rates of pay laid down in October, 1885. There is no intention of increasing these rates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, before the closing of several County gaols in Ireland, and the consolidation of several such gaols in one central gaol, the salaries of the external officers (such as chaplains and medical officers) were fixed, having regard to the extent of the work involved, and the average number of prisoners; whether, owing to such consolidation, and the largely increased number of prisoners, a great deal more work has been thrown on the officers of the continued gaols; whether the Government has received Memorials calling attention to the subject, and asking for an increase of pay in respect of the permanent extra work involved; and, whether they are prepared to give a favourable consideration and reply to such Memorials?

said: I have to answer the first three paragraphs of this Question in the affirmative. The Irish Government have favourably considered the matter; but some difficulties have arisen. It is, however, confidently anticipated that a final decision will be come to before the Estimates for the ensuing financial year are prepared.

asked the Secretary of State for War, The grounds for stopping the promotion of Majors of the Royal Artillery on the Home Establishment, without any corresponding reduction in the promotions on the Indian Establishment; if there is precedent for effecting so large a change by Army Circular in place of a Royal Warrant, or Parliamentary Estimate, and for making such Army Circular retrospective; and, if it is proposed to absorb the officers affected so as to avoid supercession and extensive compulsory retirement?

Promotion on the Home Establishment of the Royal Artillery has been temporarily suspended in consequence of reductions in the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel and Major. Promotion in the Indian cadres is held to be protected by the Parliamentary guarantee known as the Henley Clause, and cannot be curtailed. A Royal Warrant may determine the conditions for promoting; but except in the case of time promotion the actual steps can only follow vacancies, which depend upon establishment. Every establishment is sanctioned by Parliament. The mode of carrying out the present reduction is still under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state whether an attack was made by a member of a "Loyalist" band party on a Protestant Home Ruler named Mr. James H. Johnstone, of Larne, at Ballyclare Junction Railway Station on the 13th July; whether Mr. Johnston, when carrying some parcels on the platform of the station, was asked by this member of the "Loyalist" band if he were a Home Ruler; whether, on hearing Mr. Johnstone's reply that he was a Home Ruler, this Loyalist thereupon attacked Mr. Johnston, struck him on the face, and seriously injured him; whether the authorities of the Railway Company have taken any action in the matter; and, whether the Government will use its influence with its supporters at Ulster to try and prevent a repetition of such conduct towards Protestant Home Rulers there?

put a Question, which was inaudible, and which was understood to refer to Mr. Johnston's religious belief.

said, he had no information as to Mr. Johnston's political or religious opinions. The District Inspector reported that when Mr. Johnston was crossing the station at Ballyclare Junction he was met by a young man belonging to a flute band, who asked him if he was a home Ruler, He replied in the affirmative, and was thereupon struck by the young man. The station master then interfered. The assault was of a trifling description, and both appeared to be under the influence of drink. Mr. Johnston did not complain to the police; but he understood that the matter would be investigated at Petty Sessions.

asked whether the county was not proclaimed; and, whether this offence did not come within the Intimidation Clause of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?

said, he hardly thought that a transaction arising out of a drunken row of this kind would come within the Intimidation Clause.

Does it make any difference in the offence if the man who commits the offence happens to be a tipsy flute player?

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the long continued offensive and insanitary state of the River Lea in the midst of a densely crowded population, he can state with whom the blame lies; and, what action has been already taken, and what action it is proposed to take, to remedy the serious evil universally complained of in the district?

The Local Government Board have received complaints from the Poplar District Board of Works with reference to the alleged wholesale discharge of sewage into the river from the works of the borough of West Ham without deodorization. The Board have communicated with the Town Council of West Ham and the Conservators of the Lea on the subject; and one of the Board's Inspectors has recently visited the works without previous notice. The Board consider that there should be further inquiry; and it has been arranged that one of the Inspectors of the Board should attend at West Ham for that purpose on Thurs- day next. The Town Council and the Lea Conservators have been informed of this arrangement.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Streeter, junior, received assurances of a permit and arranged for a staff to work the Ruby Mines before he left England; whether a third member of the Syndicate is a Sheriff's officer; whether the inquiry to be instituted by the Secretary of State will include an investigation so as to arrive at the truth, or otherwise, of the allegation that certain Government officials were interested in the Syndicate; and, whether he is now prepared to state to the House the nature of recent despatches?

The Secretary of State can, after careful inquiry, find no trace of any assurances being given to Mr. Streeter, junior, before he left London that he would get a permit to work the Ruby Mines. He has no information about Mr. Streeter's arrangement for a staff. The Secretary of State has no information as to the third member of the Syndicate. The inquiry now instituted by the Secretary of State has reference solely to the best mode of disposing of the Ruby Mines. The allegation that certain Government officials were interested in the Syndicate is now heard of by the Secretary of State for the first time. If any such allegation is made by a responsible person, and supported by primâ facie evidence, the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made. I could not state to the House, in answer to a Question, the nature of recent despatches without unduly trespassing upon the time of the House; but I have reason to think that Papers will be laid upon the Table relating to the Ruby Mines in the course of next week.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether at the Westmeath Assizes, held last March, the Judge directed that a considerable number of jurors should be fined for non-attendance; whether several of the fines have not been levied; and, whether there is any objection to grant a Return, giving the names of the jurors fined at that Assizes, also the names of the jurors in whose cases the fines have been remitted?

, in reply, said, the fines were not made by the discretion of the Judge; but by automatic process, under the Juries' Act. Eight persons were fined under the Act—three paid, four appealed, one of whom died, and one was unable to pay.

asked, whether, in the case of those whose fines were remitted, they were anti-Nationalists and supporters of the Loyal and Patriotic Union?

I do not think such a question ought to be asked. I have no doubt whatever that, such a consideration in no way entered into it.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, and how, it is proposed to extend to the Metropolis the provisions of the Technical Instruction Bill, from the operation of which it is expressly excluded?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the Bill, he will see that the Metropolis is only excluded from the operation of the 3rd clause, concerning which I shall have something to say on a future stage of the measure.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the Annual Return, styled "Bank of England (Annual Accounts of Exchequer Bills, &c.)," which is usually presented to the House of Commons in February, pursuant to 59 Geo. III., c. 76, s. 5, and 24 Vict., c. 3, s. 9, has not yet been ordered to be printed and circulated; and, whether the names, addresses, and descriptions of the stockholders, with the amounts unclaimed in each case, could be given in a Schedule to the Return, and thus enable the representatives of such stockholders to put in their claims?

said: the Return referred to was presented to the House last February. It rests with the House to order it to be printed and circulated. Such a Schedule as the hon. Member suggests would involve enormous labour, and, when complete, it would probably be already out of date. Moreover, the Bank Authorities fear that the publication of the names of persons who have not claimed their dividends might conduce to fraudulent practices. I may say, however, that every reasonable assistance is already given to the public to enable them to claim dividends, the notice being sent to the last known address in case of all dividends unclaimed for 10 years, or for any considerable time less than 10 years, when the stock has been disposed of. The amounts unclaimed are yearly diminishing.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can give the House authoritative information in regard to the circumstances under which the accident occurred on. board the gunboat Kite, at Spithead, on Saturday; and, whether there is reason to suppose there was any defect in the gun or its mechanism?

We are waiting for the evidence of the men who were injured; but they are not yet sufficiently recovered to be able to give any information as to the cause of the accident. But, so far as we know, there is no reason to believe that the accident was in any way attributable to a defect in the gun or its mechanism.?

asked whether, having regard to the special circumstances under which the man was killed, any provision would be made for his widow and family?

said, he could not answer that at the present moment without Notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in The Pall Mall Gazette of the 25th, in which it is stated that men are being discharged from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, some of whom had been working overtime up to the time of their discharge; that there are probably 1,000 men either discharged or "standing off;" that the factory is at a standstill, no rifles being made, &c.; and, whether he can state why work has been stopped at the factory?

It is true that some men are to be discharged from Enfield Factory. The work is not at a standstill, and there will be work, I am glad to say, for a considerable proportion of those now standing out. I hope the House will allow me to say that, difficult as it is at all times to manage the work of Government manufacturing establishments, it will become absolutely impossible if hon. Members by their Questions attempt to force upon the Government expenditure which is not necessary in the interests of the Public Service.

inquired, whether these periodical discharges could not he avoided by doing away with the practice of excessive overtime during certain seasons of the year and then discharging men in times of slackness?

That is not at all the practice, and I think it ought to be avoided.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Henry Alfred Mann, the clerk of Cookstown Union, be also clerk of Mr. Gunning Moore's Estate Office, and if he holds both appointments with the sanction of the Local Government Board; whether the Guardians twice increased his salary, upon his representation that his work was heavy and required his entire time and attention; whether the Local Government Board will re-consider his salary, since, in addition to his duties as clerk, he can now find time to keep the accounts in the largest estate in the Union; whether Mr. John Fleming, the Petty Sessions Clerk at Cookstown, County Tyrone, be also a clerk to the Cookstown Loan Funds, Cookstown Town Commissioners, and toll collector of Cookstown Market, and if he be also a coal merchant and farmer; whether any person wishing to see him on Petty Sessions business must attend at the loan fund office for that purpose; whether these situations be held with the consent of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks; and, if he will extend the same permission to other clerks throughout Ireland?

said, the clerk of the Cookstown Union kept the books of Mr. Gunning's agent, but this work was done in the evening. The Local Government Board were not aware that he was so engaged. No complaints had been recorded against him in that Department. The Board of Guardians had increased his salary on two occasions; and the Local Government Board, having regard to the favourable Report of their Inspector and to the fact that the salary was not excessive, saw no reason to interfere. In the absence of any complaint as to the way in which the clerk s duties to the union were discharged the Board saw no reason to interfere. As regards the case of the Petty Sessions Clerk, he was manager of the Discount Company, clerk of the Town Commissioners, and lessee, not Director, of the market tolls, in connection with which he employed other persons. He also dealt in coals, and was a farmer. The Petty Sessions business was done at the Petty Sessions Office, and not at his private house. A Clerk of Petty Sessions was allowed to follow as many callings as he pleased, provided they were not callings prohibited by statute or by the Lord Lieutenant, and provided that they did not interfere with the discharge of his duty or the convenience of the public.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have expressed any approval of the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris acting as agents for British exhibitors in the Paris Exhibition of 1889, and Directors of the British section there?

Her Majesty's Government cannot express officially an approval of the Chamber acting in the capacity referred to without undertaking to sumo extent an undefined responsibility in connection with their proceedings. But they are glad that a Body so suitable is likely to supply any want that may be felt of local organization and direction.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Lionel Grover, late a Midshipman of the Bacchante, flagship in the East Indies, who has been discharged from the Navy, disabled with heart disease, consequent upon an attack of rheumatic fever contracted through exposure for 16 days during exceptionally bad weather in the wet season whilst cruising in an open boat for slavers on the East Coast of Africa, which arduous duty he perforned in a manner to call for the highest commendation from his Commanding Officer; whether, in view of the fact that the Regulations contain no provision for pension to officers of that rank, and having regard to the professional prospects in life of so promising a young officer being destroyed by the exceptional hardships of the Service in which he was employed, the Admiralty will consider whether some employment on shore could be given to young Grover; and, whether the Civil Service Commissioners could be asked, under Order in Council (Clause 7) of June l870, to appoint him to some clerkship in the Naval Offices where his nautical experience might be of service?

The case is now under investigation. The Medical Reports at present before the Admiralty do not show that the officer's disease is directly duo to the exposure in question. A further Report on this head has been called for from the Bacchante, the ship in which he served. The Regulations do contain provision for pension to officers of Mr. Grover's rank. Pensions of from 1s. to 2s. 6d. a-day may be awarded to subordinate officers invalided out of the Service for permanent disability not due to carelessness or constitutional causes; but whether he is eligible or not for such a pension depends upon the Report from the Bacchante. The clause in question was only intended for application to very exceptional cases, under which category Mr. Grover's case cannot be classed.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, and other Civil servants, I are paid a proportion of their salary monthly, whether, owing to the present month ending on a Sunday, and the next day being a Bank Holiday, the Exchequer has deferred this payment until Tuesday, the 2nd August; whether he is aware that it would be a great convenience to the clerks, who are to be sent for their holidays next month, that they should be paid on Saturday the 30th July, when their money is properly due; and, whether, in the circumstances, he will direct the Sasine Office clerks, and others similarly situated, to be paid on that day?

I will inquire whether arrangements can be made to obviate the inconvenience referred to by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, The result of his inquiries into the case of James Smith Buckbury, aged seven years, of Ilkeston, who was sentenced, on 11th July, at Ripley Petty Sessions, to receive four strokes of a birch rod for stealing a watch; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police officer or officers who inflicted the punishment, and take steps to prevent the administration of such punishment for the future to delicate children; and, whether the instrument used for birching children of seven years is the same as for older offenders?

in reply, said, the officer who, in pursuance of a magisterial order, whipped the boy referred to, did so in the presence of the Inspector, his wife, and a Mrs. Knight, who attended at the request of the boy's mother. Mrs. Knight did not consider the punishment severe, and saw the boy well, and walking about half-an-hour afterwards. On the 25th instant he was examined by the Senior Surgeon of the County Infirmary, who reported him to be quite well. He (Mr. Matthews) proposed to issue a Circular, directing that before children were whipped, if there was any reason to suppose they were in delicate health, a medical man should be consulted as to the propriety of administering the punishment, and that the rod should be lighter for children than that used for other offenders.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Standard, to the effect that—

"An enterprising Englishman, named Tweedy, who is engaged in the Black Sea coasting trade, has been ordered by the Minister of Finance to discontinue his operations or become a Russian subject;"

No Report on the subject has been received at the Foreign Office. Any complaint from a British subject would be at once inquired into.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any information as to the appearance of the Hessian fly in Essex, Hertfordshire, and other parts of Great Britain; whether the attack is of a more serious nature than that reported last year; and, what steps have been taken in the matter by the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council?

said: According to the information received at the Agricultural Department, the Hessian fly has appeared at Errol, N.B., in Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, and Suffolk. It appears, therefore, to be more widely spread than last year. The Agricultural Department have been advised by Mr. Charles Whitehead, the eminent entomologist who advises the Department in these matters, that a careful investigation should be made on the spot in each case, for which arrangements are being made.

I asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to remove the admitted anomaly whereby a Lieutenant of the Infantry after seven years' service is entitled to an increase of pay of 1s. per diem, and a Lieutenant of the Cavalry is not, either by a reduction of pay in the one case or by a; rise of pay in the other?

If it be an anomaly that Infantry Lieu-I tenants should have an increase of pay I after seven years in the ranks while Cavalry Lieutenants do not, the anomaly has subsisted since 1806; but I would point out that, even after the increase, the Infantry rate of pay is less than the Cavalry minimum. To increase the pay of all Cavalry Lieutenants of seven years' service might cause expense, for which there is no apparent necessity, while it is hard to see how they would benefit by the pay of Infantry Lieutenants being reduced, as suggested by my hon. Friend.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that on Sunday the 10th of July a number of Orangemen from Portadown proceeded to Drumcree Church, near the town; whether they marched, through the Catholic quarter of the town protected by police; whether, during the service, a portion of the congregation who came out attacked the orchard of a respectable Catholic farmer, named Patrick O'Connor; whether he was subsequently attacked by the mob and severely injured; and, why was it that the police escort did not interfere to preserve law and order, and prevent the attack?

said: The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that on Sunday, July 10, the Orangemen from Portadown attended Drumcree Church, in accordance with their annual custom. They marched, without music, through O'Bin Street, as being the most direct route. There was no police escort; some constables were placed on duty in the street. The service was held in the open air at the church. Patrick O'Connor has an orchard adjoining the church, and he states that some small boys threw stones at the apple trees, and that he was struck by one of the stones on the side. He was not attacked. The police, on the following day, on hearing of the occurrence through his daughter, proceeded to the residence of O'Connor, and found him at work as usual. He states he does not intend to prosecute the boys.

asked, what was the name of the District Inspector who supplied the information?

said, he had not got it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact, as stated in a recent communication from the War Office, that the 5th Lancashire are as well supplied with suitable guns as the other Artillery Volunteers; and, whether, out of their nine guns at Fleetwood, where as many as nine batteries practise, four are obsolete 32-pounder smooth-bore guns, the others being 64-poundor R.M.L. and 40-pouuder R.B.L. guns; and, if so, what is the proportion of 32-pounder smooth-bore guns in the hands of the Artillery Volunteers generally?

Yes, Sir. It is the fact that the 5th. Lancashire Artillery Volunteers are as well supplied with suitable guns as the Artillery Volunteers generally. Of the nine guns at Flftotwood—where, however, seven and not nine batteries practice—three are 64-pouuder rifled muzzle-loaders, two 40-pounder rifled breech-loaders, and four smooth bore 32-pounders. The proportion borne by the 32-pounder smooth bore guns to the rifled guns in the hands of Volunteers generally is about as 2 to 1; but issues now in progress will shortly reduce the proportion into about 1·5 to 1.

asked the Postmaster General, If it is true that the Post Office pays £2,500 a-year for running a special train from Aberdeen to Keith, at 3·35 a.m. out of the down London day mail, carrying a few local bags, and persists in sending the mails from Perth to the North, which are 100 per cent heavier, by a slow goods train, which is almost overtaken by the London night mail before it reaches Wick and Thurso, although it leaves London 10 hours earlier; and, when the Highland District, embracing as it does no less than seven counties, is to be put on a footing of equality with the district from Aberdeen to Keith, which has two fast mails each way daily for mails of far less weight and importance?

It is quite true the Post Office pays £2,500 a-year for an early morning mail service from Aberdeen. This service includes trains not to Keith alone, but also to Banff, and carries mails not only from Aberdeen, London, and the South generally for towns in this locality, but also through mails from Aberdeen and other Scotch towns for Inverness and the North. The whole Highland district north of Perth is abundantly provided with mail trains at a very heavy cost; and, having regard to the outlay already incurred, I am quite unable to see my way to agreeing to any further expenditure.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the following cities and towns have been proclaimed under this clause—namely, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Galway, Carrickfergus, Waterford, Drogheda, and Londonderry; and, whether the Government have any reason to apprehend that the offences specified in in Clause C of the 3rd sub-section of Section 2 will be committed in these cities and towns?

I think I indicated in the answers I gave yesterday the grounds which induced the Government to apply Clause C to the cities and towns referred to. As I stated then, this sub-section only assimilates the law in Ireland with the law which already exists in England.

I would like the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to some doubt which, has arisen with regard to the answer given yesterday with regard to those cities and towns. The report in The Times says that the cities and towns are only proclaimed under paragraph c of Sub-section B of Section 2. But the answer given to the House says that six cities have been generally proclaimed. What is the extent and force of the Proclamation?

If I was reported to have stated that these cities and towns were proclaimed generally it was an error of the Press. They have only been proclaimed under one subhead of one sub-section of one clause.

With respect to the second paragraph, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the offences specified in the clause applied to these cities—namely, assault or wilful and unlawful resistance or obstruction to Sheriff, bailiff, or process-server in the discharge of his duties have already been committed, or any of them, in these towns under circumstances necessitating a special law, or exceptional administration of it?

As I stated yesterday, I do not regard the power of summary conviction in the case of assault upon, or resistance to, the police as in any way a provision which ought to be regarded as exceptional. It is not so in England; and I see no reason why it should be so in Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is correct, as stated in The Freeman's Journal, that the Queen's County has been proclaimed under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act, and is thereby made subject to the provisions for secret inquiry, summary jurisdiction, special juries, and a change of venue; and, whether, according to Constabulary Returns, the agrarian outrages in the Queen's County for the three months ending 30th June amounted to only three, all of which were threatening letters?

This is the first of a series of Questions relating to the grounds on which the Government have thought it necessary to proclaim certain districts in Ireland under the main provisions of the Crimes Act. Therefore, the answer I give to this Question may, I hope, be taken as explaining the general policy of the Government, and as giving an answer in part to the other Questions which follow on the Paper. We have resolved to proclaim no area of smaller extent than a county; not because there are not many instances in which a considerable part of a county is comparatively quiet, but because a county appears to be the most convenient unit for administrative purposes. It may, therefore, happen, and it has happened, that while the statistics of crime for a county generally seem satis- factory, or fairly satisfactory, they are not so for the purposes of this argument, since they really indicate a very serious state of things in a relatively small area which specially calls for increased stringency in the machinery of the law. [Home Rule Laughter.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who laughs understands that point. [VOICES: Thoroughly.] In the second place, the; Government have not been guided; merely by statistics of agrarian outrage, or even by the number of persons Boycotted, or under police protection. We have been also guided by the reports and opinions as to the social condition of the counties which we have received from responsible officers. With regard to the particular Question asked by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the Queen's County, the number of persons reported to be Boycotted is 113, and 36 persons are receiving police protection. The incidents attending the Luggacurren evictions are a further indication of the condition of the district.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, as he alleges that nothing more grave than intimidation exists in Queen's County, and as in the contemplation of the Crimes Act intimidation is to be dealt with by Sub-Section 2 of Section 2, why the Government have applied to the Queen's County, which would be sufficiently dealt with by that section, the provision for private inquiry, change of venue, and special juries?

The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that intimidation affects the whole provisions of the Bill. Intimidation is one of the chief reasons why change of venue is necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if a particular, or small area of a county, is disturbed, that affords a sufficient ground for depriving the inhabitants of the whole county of their Constitutional rights?

Of course, Sir, these questions are always questions of more or less. But, undoubtedly, when a very serious state of things occurs in one district of a county, we have thought that sufficient justification for proclaiming the whole county.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state specifically the reasons why counties Louth, Meath, Wicklow, and Dublin have been proclaimed under Clauses B and C of sub-section 3 of section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act; and, whether any agrarian offences have been reported to the Constabulary in the counties of Louth, Meath, Wicklow, or Dublin during the last nine months?

I do not think, Sir, that I can add anything to the answer I gave to a similar Question to-day and to one yesterday upon this point.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have in our hands the official documents promised yesterday, showing the precise scope and extent of the various Proclamations?

I do not know. These things take some time to prepare and print; but I will hurry it on as fast as I can.

Shall we have it by Thursday?

Well, it has to be printed in Dublin; but I will try what I can do.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether County Kilkenny has been proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act (all save the dangerous association sections being declared in force therein); and, whether one alleged threatening letter is the sole agrarian offence reported to have occurred in that county during I the quarter ending 30th June last? I wish to supplement the Question by asking, whether the one threatening letter referred to in the Question is the sole statistical evidence of a serious state of things in the relatively small area of which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken; and, whether, if he possesses any further evidence whatsoever, he will lay it before the House?

I think the Question of the hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently answered if I say that 278 persons suffer more or less from Boycotting, and that 15 persons are under police protection in the county?

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the second paragraph of the Question, relating to the one alleged threatening letter?

I confess I have not referred very particularly to this point; but I have no reason to doubt the statement of the hon. Gentleman.

And will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he will lay on the Table any further information or evidence, if any, bearing on the alleged necessity for proclaiming the county?

I thought that I had given the hon. Gentleman evidence which, in the opinion of the House, was sufficient.

Will the Chief Secretary state on whose authority he makes the statement as to the number of persons Boycotted?

The ordinary sources of information from which all the statistics of crime are obtained.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the County Donegal is among the counties proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act; and, if so, whether he will state specifically the grounds for such Proclamation? May I be allowed to add to the Question, whethes he is aware that, while the Constitutional liberties of the people of Donegal are suspended under the Proclamation, it is not possible even to obtain a copy of the Act under which it is done?

Sir, I cannot admit that the Constitutional liberties of any body are suspended. If, however, any information with regard to the provisions of the Act is required, I shall be glad to consider any means by which those provisions may be published in a convenient and general form. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: Give them a presentation copy.] It is quite true that Donegal is included among the counties that have been generally proclaimed. Donegal is especially one of those counties to which I referred in which the area of disturbance is relatively small, though serious. In the barony of Kilmacrennan there is disturbance. Sixty-one persons were Boycotted; violent resistance has been experienced by officers of the law in enforcing legal processes; police-con-stables have been badly injured; and gross attempts have been made to intimidate the Bench and witnesses in a Court of Justice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the County of Monaghan has been fully proclaimed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act; and, if he would state the grounds on which the county was proclaimed, seeing that there have been in the last 18 months, commencing January, 1886, and ending June, 1887, 14 offences, four of which are threaten-letters? I wish to add to the Question, I whether, within the last four months, Mr. Shirley, Mr. Dacre, Mr. Hamilton, Colonel Forster, and Mr. Roe, landlords of Monaghan, have instituted ejectment proceedings against a number of tenants who represented nearly 12,000 persons; and, whether it is in consequence of the ejectments and evictions which have taken place and which are pending, and in consequence of the crime reported in the statistics, that he has proclaimed the County Monaghan; and, what is the particular area of the county which induced the right hon. Gentleman to proclaim it?

In addition to the general ground I have already stated to the House, I may inform the hon. Gentleman that there are 163 persons more or less Boycotted; five are under constant police protection; and four others are under partial protection by patrols.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether 19 men of the Legacy Duty Office with considerable service have received notice that they will be retired on the 30th September next, if a scheme for the re-organization of that Office, which has been long under consideration and is now before the Treasury, should be adopted; whether their services could be utilized in any other branch of the Public Service: and, whether, in the interest of the efficiency of the Department, he will take steps to secure the immediate publication of the scheme in question?

Yes, Sir; such notice has been given. With regard to utilizing the services of the gentlemen to be retired, I may say generally that I am very anxious to establish, in concert with my Colleagues, a register of all retired men who are still more or less fit for service, with a view to their being re-employed, should opportunity offer, in other branches of public work. The difficulty, however, is that in most offices the numbers of men employed are already redundant, and extremely few new appointments are being made. In many Departments no new entries at all are made in the Upper Division. The details of the scheme cannot be made known until it has received the assent of the Treasury. I may say, however, that if adopted it will effect an immediate saving of about £6,500; and, even allowing for the difference between the pensions to be paid to the gentlemen compulsorily retired and those actually earned by them, there is still a net saving of more than £5,500.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table and circulate, before the Vote for Learned Societies is taken, the Correspondence that has recently passed between the Treasury, the Secretary for Scotland, and Sir William Thomson, on the subject of the allocation to Scotland of a separate grant for purposes of scientific investigation?

, in reply, said, he did not see that any public advantage would arise from the publication of the Correspondence. He should be glad to show it to the hon. Member, or give him any information. The letter from the Treasury was only a short one, and contained nothing of importance

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, early in July, Sergeant Joyce of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Kilmacoliver Barracks, and other policemen, tore down placards posted in and about Windgap, County Kilkenny, convening a meeting of the Windgap Branch of the National League; whether the police acted under orders; whether it is alleged that the said poster is illegal; and, if so, what part of the contents is objected to; whether any person has been prosecuted for posting the same; and, whether the police will be punished for tearing down the said poster? I wish to add that my Question as handed in contained the contents of the placard, and that that portion has been expunged at the Table.

Sergeant Joyce tore down two placards of the kind described. He acted in the discharge of his duty. The language used was calculated to disturb the public peace. The action of Serjeant Joyce was approved by his superiors. No person is to be prosecuted for posting the placard.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has a copy of the placard in his hand, be good enough to state to the House what the objectionable contents of the placard are? [Cries of "Read !"] I do not know whether I would be in Order in stating the contents of the placard in the form of a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman.

The reason why I refused to allow that placard to appear is, that of late a very large number of Questions have been given in containing a very large quantity of matter to be printed; and it was so overloading the Paper that I thought it right to stop the insertion of anonymous extracts from papers, and not to trouble the House with them.

Well, Sir; I would ask you whether I would be in Order now in stating the contents of the placard, in a Question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether I am truly stating the contents?

It would be quite sufficient if the right hon. Gentleman asks the right hon. Gentleman whether there was anything in the placard which he considers contrary to the law.

then, Sir, I would ask whether there was anything in the placard which the right hon. Gentleman considers contrary to the law; and, if so, whether he will read to the House that portion of the placard?

Sir, I consider that the placard, under the circumstances under which it was posted, was inflammatory.

What part of it does the right hon. Gentleman hold was contrary to the law?

Order, order ! The right hon. Gentleman has said that he considers the placard to be contrary to the law.

Perhaps it would be convenient, if the hon. Gentleman thinks any illegality has been committed, that he would put a Question on the Paper on that subject to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

In reply to that observation, I do not consider there was anything illegal in the placard; and I now ask whether, if I lay on the Table a copy of it, the Chief Secretary will take any step to enable this House to test the accuracy and the candour of the reply which I have just received?

I would like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, in whose hand I see a copy of the placard, whether it is an illegal placard; and whether the most inflammatory portion of it is the request to persons to take out their cards of membership in the Windgap branch of the National League; and, whether this is a class of placard which the Government are now authorizing the police to destroy?

I had not the advantage of reading the placard; but if the hon. Member would renew his question tomorrow I will be happy to answer it.

I observe that the Chief Secretary did not answer one portion of the Question; whether any person is to be prosecuted for publishing this inflammatory placard?

I have answered the question. Nobody is to be prosecuted.

As the Attorney General for Ireland said that he did not advise the Chief Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman state who did advise him as to the illegality of this placard, and what is the point of illegality specified by the adviser?

The right hon. Gentleman mistook what I said. I did not give a legal decision at all upon the point.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman say the placard was illegal?

I particularly and carefully said that it was inflammatory; and I asked anybody who wished to know about the legal aspect of the case to address a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether instructions were given to the police to pull down anything which, not being illegal, they might think to be inflammatory; and what is the inflammatory character and the inflammatory point of this placard which was ordered to be pulled down?

The right hon. Gentleman asks mo about the instructions that have been given to the police. I have no reason to believe that these have been altered since he was in Office.

I hardly think that that is a pertinent—I was going to say it is an impertinent answer. The question is not as to the instructions to the police; but how those instructions are carried out; and the question is whether, if the police pull down placards which are not illegal, what is the justification for so doing when it is brought to the notice of the Government, or what course they will adopt upon it? The right hon. Gentleman can answer a very simple question. What is the nature of this placard which, in his opinion, justifies the police in pulling it down?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I respectfully make him a suggestion. Is it not a fact that he has a copy of the placard; and, if not, I will be glad to place a copy at his disposal. As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the placard contains inflammatory language, what reason has he for not reading to the House the language he considers inflammatory, and enabling the House therefrom to form something like an informal judgment on the action of the Government?

I need hardly say, Sir, that this is not an action for which I am directly responsible. The right hon. Gentleman has said that I did not answer his question. Now, one part of his Question undoubtedly was as to the nature of the instructions given to the police; and I was perfectly correct and perfectly relevant in informing him that those instructions had suffered no alteration since his own Administration. I do not wish to be dragged into a legal discussion, being a layman, in these matters; but I believe the law to be this—and I say it subject to correction by high legal authorities—that the police have power, and it is their duty, to pull down any placard which they think, on account of its being of an inflammatory character, may lead to a breach of the peace. Now, Sir, whether they were right or wrong obviously does not depend upon the mere character of the placard taken simply by itself; it depends on the character of the placard taken in connection with the circumstances of the district in which it was posted; and those who were responsible for the peace of the district were of opinion that it was not a placard which should be allowed to remain on the walls.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the circumstances of the district, as shown by the Return of Agrarian Offences, consist in one threatening letter in three months?

The right hon. Gentleman, in his earlier answer, said that he regarded the placard as inflammatory, and one which ought to be torn down. Why should he decline to tell the House what is the passage or passages in the placard which he regards as inflammatory; and what are the peculiar circumstances of the district which rendered it inflammatory there?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that any advantage is to be gained by carrying on a debate upon this subject across the Table of this House in the form of Question and answer. [Cries of "Read the placard."] But I may state to the right hon. Gentleman that I certainly think I should not be doing my duty as Chief Secretary for Ireland if I required special and elaborate Reports of the special local circumstances of each district before I refused to censure a police officer for doing that which his superiors said he was right in doing.

On a question of Order, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has asked mo to put upon the Paper for to-morrow a Question as to this placard. I want to know now. Sir, whether I should be justified in putting the contents of this placard upon the Paper; or how I am to raise before the House the question, or to challenge the legal judgment of the Attorney General for Ireland?

If the hon. Gentleman will put upon the Paper a Question to the Attorney General for Ireland, as was proposed to be done, asking what specific and particular passages in the placard he considers to be of an illegal character to justify the action taken, I think that would meet the circumstances of the case.

I would ask the Chief Secretary, who has declared that the circumstances under which the posting took place might render the placard inflammatory, which would not otherwise be so, are there any other circumstances than an invitation to the inhabitants of Windgap to come forward and take out their cards of membership of the Windgap Branch of the Irish National League; and, whether that could, under any circumstances, be one of the inflammatory matters which, under the present Act, is to he put down?

I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that that should form part of the legal Question which he is anxious to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

I would not have put the Question to the Chief Secretary but that he has already pronounced judgment himself.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether the placard is couched in the following terms——

Order, order !

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will grant a Committee of this House, early next Session, to take into consideration the position of the pilots of the United Kingdom?

In view of the representations made by the pilots and their representatives, Her Majesty's Government are willing to grant the Committee next Session. The question raised by the Bill of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King), dealing with pilotage certificates, must be referred to such Committee when appointed.

said, that, under the circumstances, he would not proceed further with his Bill, but re-introduce it next Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of business in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, dated 7th August, 1885, which states that the number of Judges attached to this Division was unequal to cope with the business, and recommends the appointment of an additional Judge as absolutely essential, in order to clear off arrears; whether he is aware that the number of causes standing for hearing is on the increase; and, whether any, and what, steps will be taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee, and thus prevent the injury and additional costs caused to suitors by the present state of things?

My attention has been drawn to the subject. I am aware that the number of cases standing for hearing is on the increase; but I am sorry to say that, having regard to the state of Public Business, I cannot enter into any engagement with the House to move an Address to the Crown for the appointment of an additional Judge in the course of the present Session.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further information had been received at the Foreign Office with regard to the shooting of an Englishman, Martin Parker, at Bilbao last week; whether the English Government had asked satisfaction of the Spanish Government; and, whether anything would be done to obtain compensation for the poor man's family?

, in reply, said, that on Thursday a telegraphic account of this occurrence appeared in the newspapers, and he was asked a Question upon it, and immediately directed that telegrams should be sent to Spain for a Report of the facts. He had no doubt that a Report would be made; but he thought that the hon. Member would see that it could hardly yet have been received. A matter of such importance could not be reported upon only by telegraph. It would require a searching inquiry by the Consul at Bilbao, to begin with, and, no doubt, by the Ministers at Madrid; and it would be altogether premature to say what Her Majesty's Government would do until such Report was received. He could assure the hon. Member that the matter would not be lost sight of.

said, Her Majesty's Consul had reported that he had at once opened an inquiry, and was taking the depositions in the case; while the Military Commander had promised that the strictest inquiry should he made, and that the sworn Consular depositions should be joined to his proceedings.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was true, as stated in The Standard of that morning, that—

"It had been decided to retire a number of the senior Resident Magistrates, and to fill then-places with younger men, who will be bettor able to discharge the onerous duties involved by the operation of the Crimes Act;"

asked, Whether it was intended to subject to retirement, compulsory or otherwise, a number of these magistrates; how many new appointments to the post of Resident Magistrate the Government in tended to make; were Resident Magistrates in Ireland appointed by the war rant of the Lord Lieutenant; did they hold their offices, not for a stated period, but during the pleasure of the Government; and were they liable to instant dismissal, without cause assigned, and without pension or other compensation? Having regard to the fact that the circumstances attending the appointment to the post of Resident Magistrate in Ireland, and the character and qualifications of the persons who were usually placed in that position had been frequently exposed in that House and else where, would the right hon. Gentleman have any——

Order, order! the hon. Gentleman is exceeding the fair limits of a Question.

continuing, asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House a list of the gentlemen who were to fill the appointments, with their ages, their antecedent occupations, and their qualifications, if any, for exercising judicial functions?

I am afraid I must ask for Notice of both those Questions.

asked, Whether the First Lord of the Treatury would order copies of this Statute and of The Gazette containing the Proclamations issued under it to be supplied to the Library of the House; and, whether he was aware that while Donegal and other counties of Ireland had been proclaimed it was not possible for the Representatives of the Irish people to obtain, here or anywhere else that they knew of, copies of the Statute or of The Gazette containing the Proclamations?

said, he was not aware of the circumstances stated by the hon. Gentleman, and no Notice had been given him of the Question till he entered the House; but he apprehended that the officers of the House were responsible for providing the Library of the House with such information as hon. Members desired.

asked, whether when the recent Proclamations were issued the authorities had before them a copy of the Statute under which they acted, seeing that it was not printed?

Yes, Sir—that is, I believe so. I beg pardon; the copy we had before us was not a copy in the form which one is familiar with in this House; but it was one of those quarto forms which I believe are printed by the Queen's printers.

asked how it was that, though Dublin was practically 14 hours from London, they could have the Statute in Dublin on Saturday, when it was not obtainable in London oven on Tuesday?

I have no jurisdiction over the Queen's printers.

said, that some years ago it was the custom to deliver to Members, within two or three days of its passing, copies of each Act. This custom had been discontinued. He therefore wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the great importance of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act he would not arrange that copies of it should be delivered at; once?

said, he did not think that the present Government were at all responsible for the change which had been made in that arrangement; but the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a very reasonable one, and he would see if it could be complied with so far as that Act was concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he could now give his decision with regard to the four men who had been imprisoned for an alleged complicity in disturbances at Hyde Park?

, in reply, said, that taking into consideration the reduction of the sentences on appeal, both in the case of Edward Pole and of Stafford, it was his intention to offer to Her Majesty a recommendation to release the others in custody.

asked, whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed to-night with the consideration of the Lords' Reasons for disagreeing with the Commons' Amendment to this Bill; and, if so, at what time?

said, he hoped the Bill might be taken to-night; but he could not say at what time it would be taken.

said, it was a very pressing measure, and unless it was passed soon it was of no use whatever.

said, he was well aware of the importance of the measure, and he wished to see it passed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as reported, that a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, and another in the King's County, have resigned in consequence of the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Act?

I have no information on the subject.

asked, when the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill would be taken?

, in reply, said, he had no hope that the Bill would be taken this week; but hoped that it would be proceeded with very soon after the Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill closed, having regard, of course, to the exigencies of Supply.

asked, whether, having regard to the circumstances under which the debate on the second reading of the Marriages Confirmation Bill had been adjourned that morning on the casting vote of the Speaker, the First Lord of the Treasury would be prepared to arrange that the Bill would come on before half-past 12 that evening?

said, he was sorry to say that, looking at the very great importance of the measure now under the consideration of the House, he should not feel justified in asking the House to report Progress before half-past 12.

said, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to his statement that the Government desired to receive practical suggestions respecting the terrible amount of land now out of cultivation, whether he would give facilities during the present Session for the consideration of those suggestions and remedies contained in the provisions of the Small Holdings Bill?

said, that the Government would be exceedingly glad if an opportunity could be found for the discussion of the measure in which the hon. Member took an interest; but he was afraid it was not in his power to make any engagement with the hon. Gentleman to provide facilities, for there were, unfortunately, too many measures I which they desired to forward, some of I which they could not pass into law this Session.

inquired when Supply would be taken?

I hope we may get through the Irish. Land Law Bill in the course of this week, and Supply will follow.

reported from the Select Committee on Army and Navy Estimates that they had agreed to the following Special Report:— Your Committee report that, in their opinion, it would be highly beneficial and advisable for the pm poses of their inquiry, that the House should authorise them to take such steps as they deem necessary to secure an independent professional examination and audit of the Expense Accounts of the Army Manufacturing Departments, and of the books on which those Accounts have been based. Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to he printed. [No. 239.]

asked, whether that Motion would take precedence of the Irish Land Law Bill on Thursday?

I think there would not be a single moment of delay in agreeing with the Report, and that the recommendation of the Committee would be accepted at once by the House unanimously.

I rise for the purpose of moving the omission, in page 2, of the Proviso at the end of the clause, which says—

"Provided also, that when under the provisions of this section an application is made to the Court to fix a judicial rent for a holding held under a lease, the Court shall disallow such application if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessors in title has or have made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which improvements is at the time of the making of such application not loss than four times the yearly rent of tin holding."

Upon a point of Order, I wish to ask whether, if the Government refuse to accept the Amendment, the whole of this sub-section will be affirmed?

I propose to put the Amendment down to the word "improvements," where the first Amendment is proposed to be inserted in line 9.

May I ask you to put it down to the word "lease?"

In what line?

In line 6.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Londonderry says that this sub-section is contrary to all the pledges the Government have given. I cannot quite accept that statement; but I am ready to admit that the Government have no desire to exclude any class of leaseholders who ought to be included within the benefits of the section; and, therefore, as this sub-section would no doubt have the effect of excluding some leaseholders, although not nearly so many as the hon. Gentleman thinks, we shall not attempt to carry out the object we had in framing the Proviso in the manner in which it stands in the Bill at present. In other words, we shall not make any attempt to protect the interests of the landlord who holds what is called an English-managed estate by excluding his leasehold tenants from the benefits of the clause. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this provision is entirely contrary to the spirit of the Land Act of 1881. Well, I cannot quite accept that statement either. In the Land Act of 1881 there was an attempt made to exclude borrowing operations on what are called English-managed estates, on which the improvements, to a large extent, are carried out by the landlord. But owing to certain technical objections that clause did not succeed in excluding, even from the operation of the Act of 1881, those few estates in Ireland which are managed on the English system. But Parliament had recognized before, and may still be asked to recognize again, that where the landlord has done a good deal towards carrying out the permanent improvements on his estate such estate shall be treated in a different manner from an estate managed purely upon the Irish principle. The distinction between the two is that the Irish landlord is simply the owner of his land on which the tenant has done the greater part of the improvements, and for the use of which land the tenant pays him a certain annual sum. The English landlord does all that, and something besides. He is a man who has not only given his land for a certain length of time to be cultivated, but he is a man who actually lends capital upon it in the same way as if he were a money-lender, and the capital which he lends is utilized by the tenant in effective improvements. Therefore, there does seem to be a primâ facie case of justice for saying that inasmuch as the landlord is not only the owner of the land, but lends capital to enable the tenant to cultivate the land, he shall not be treated on the same principle as the landlord pure and simple. It is in order to carry out that object—an object the Legislature in 1881 considered to be -worthy of being carried out by the section known as the Heneage Clause, that we have put down this Proviso. I am now talking about the broad principle of the matter, and do not propose to enter into details. I feel that although that principle is a just and sound one, it is not a principle which we can carry out by this Proviso, because the Proviso would have the effect of excluding those tenants altogether from the benefits of the Act. I therefore fall back upon the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in the speech which he made on the second reading of the Bill, in which he proposed that that part of the landlord's interest in the holding which represents his outlay should be put on one side by the Land Court, and that he should be allowed a fixed rate of interest, apart from any variation of reasons, or fall of prices, just as if the money had been lent, and that the Land Commissioners should fix a fair rent merely for the holding.

That is already done.

NO doubt, under the Act of 1881, the Sub-Commissioners could take into consideration not merely the rent of the holding, but the interest upon the money, which, properly speaking, has been laid out upon it. Therefore, if the Committee take that view, I shall be prepared, in lieu of this Proviso, to propose a form of words for carrying out the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The words would run in this way—

"Provided that when an application is made to the Court to fix a fair rent of a holding held by a lessee under this section, if the Court is satisfied that the landlord or his predecessor in title has made permanent improvements on the holding, the unexhausted value of which at the date of the application is ascertained to he not less than twice the yearly rent of the holding, the Court shall fix a fair rent for the holding, subject to the landlord's interest, at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in respect of the unexhausted improvements."

I hope the Government will not take their stand on this matter now, and I will tell the Committee the reason why. The English-managed estates are so few that they are not worth considering in dealing with the question, and even where they exist the Court would be bound to take all the circumstances of the case into account. Even supposing that the landlord has done all this and made all the improvements with his own money, and not out of money borrowed from the Board of Works, what is the use of a Court if it is not to take such a fact into consideration, and fix the rent accordingly? I hold that the Court in bound to take everything into consideration, and I hope that the Government will omit this Proviso from the Bill, and allow us to get on with the remaining provisions.

the Government are perfectly ready to accept the Amendment in the terms proposed by the hon. Gentleman; but in that case they will propose the words I have just read to the Committee. I think that is the most convenient course to take.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Londonderry, who moved the omission of the Proviso, referred to English-managed estates. In justice to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), I may say that when he moved the English-managed estates clause to the first clause of the Act of 1881, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) intimated that his Government would throw up the Bill if that clause was inserted. The Bill went up to the House of Lords, and there the Peers did an insidious and dangerous thing; they put in a worse clause than that of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby. English managed estates in Ireland are very much like snakes in Norway—they are not to be found anywhere. I would ask hon. Members to read the statement of Lord Cowper. He says that all the improvements in Ireland have been made by the tenant, and not by the landlord. Some noble Lord—whose name I have forgotten—got up when that statement was made in the House of Lords and challenged it, but Lard Cowper, in the face of the challenge, maintained the proposition that no improvements axe made in Ireland except by the tenants. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland is paying close attention to this point. He will probably toll mo that he has made improvements; but how has he made them? Simply by borrowing money from the Irish taxpayers out of the Church Surplus Fund, and then putting the repayment in the shape of rent upon his tenants, which is practically to last for ever. I do not know whether that is absolutely the case, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances, but I do know that the Irish landlords have made no improvements except by means of money borrowed from the Board of Works, and if you exclude that money which the tenants have to repay, and if you take away the improvements which the Irish tenants have made themselves, you will leave the soil as bare and naked as an American prairie. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be ill-advised if he did not take the entire circumstances into consideration, because he would only be adding an additional element of aggravation. Let me read the English-managed estates clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that it has failed in Ireland on account of a technicality in the clause itself. Now, no clause ever failed in Ireland owing to technicalities which were in favour of the landlords, but everyone has been worked up to the hilt. The English - managed estate clause says where application is made to the Court under this section in respect of any tenants the Court may, if it thinks fit, disallow the application if satisfied that permanent improvements have been made by the tenant, and that the tenant is entitled to compensation; but not if the improvements have been made by the landlord or his predecessor in title, and substantially maintained by him, and not made or acquired by the tenant or his predecessor in title. That was the language of the House of Lords, and let me assure the Committee that when the House of Lords frames language to benefit the landlords it knows very well what it is about. In this case it threw out a net with the very widest meshes, and it succeeded in reaching some 200,000 Irish tenants, although there is not a single estate which can be regarded as an English-managed estate. The matter has been brought to the test by legal inquiry and cross-examination, and it has been established as an incontrovertible fact that out of nearly 250,000 of tenants not one is proved to hold his tenantry in accordance with the principles of an English-managed estate. Under these circumstances, I warn the Government not to add an additional principle of difficulty and irritation which is certain to produce delay and inconvenience in the passing of the Bill.

With regard to the expenditure of money by landlords on their property, although Lord Cowper was unable in the House of Lords to state a case, and maintained that in every instance the money was borrowed from the Board of Works, I am able to give an instance, which is much bettor than arguments upon the point. In the case of my own property, my father expended £400 on a house which he let to a tenant upon a contract of this kind, which sum would be confiscated if the Committee agree to the proposal that has been made. I do not attach much value to the point myself, because I am satisfied that the Land Court would do justice to me, and take that circumstance into consideration; and I do not think the Court has, in any previous case, been anxious to commit an act of positive injustice. I only rose, however, to say that I do know of a case where the landlord's own money was spent.

I can say of ray own knowledge that I never knew a single sixpence spent by a landlord which was not allowed whenever it was brought before a Court, especially in the case of houses. The great grievance has been that houses have been valued far too high, and at a larger sum than the tenant could pay. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his £100 will not be in the slightest danger if the 8th section of the Act is applied in the ordinary way. What the hon. Member for North Longford has mentioned is, I think, well worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He has said that money has been borrowed by the landlords from the Board of Works, and repaid by the tenant at a rate of four or five per cent interest with the intention that the charge should be terminated at a certain time, but at the end of 20 years it has been frequently found that it was included in the rent. As an instance of this, I may mention the estate of Lord Templemore, a few miles from Derry. This is a burning question so far as the unexhausted value of improvements is concerned. What the Government say is that those improvements belong to the landlord, but if the tenant has paid for them that is manifestly an injustice. If the Government are not satisfied with the 8th section of the Act, I would suggest another means of dealing with the question. There should be a proviso by which the Court should take into consideration any substantial portion of the money paid to the landlord by an increase of the rent charged to the tenant, with leave to appeal all round, so that the matter may be right and fair for all sides.

I quite agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) that the Government have made such Liberal concessions with regard to the Bill, that we ought not to press them too hard. I quite recognize the fair and equitable spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has met the demand that has been made on this side of the House in this matter; but I think there may be some practical difficulty in the working of the clause. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested, as I understand, that the landlord should have a first charge. In some cases the landlord may have made improvements similar to those which have been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) in building a house. He may, however, have built a house that was inappropriate to the holding, and which the tenant doss not appreciate, and it would be unfair to ask the tenant to pay four per cent on the actual value of the house from the builder's point of view if that house has no letting value from an Irish point of view. That is the real difficulty, and I would ask the Government to consider whether the Land Courts are not independent enough to take a sufficiently wide and open view of the matter. I am afraid that considerable difficulties will be involved if the right hon. Gentleman insists on the clause as it stands.

I do not think that any additional value can be given to the clause by clogging it with this incumbrance, even from the point of view taken by the Government. As I understand the clause, it is open to this objection—that, in the first place, it makes a distinction between a yearly tenant and a leaseholder. The landlord may make some improvement upon the holding of a yearly tenant, but the same state of things which is to apply in the case of a yearly tenant is not to apply to the ease of a leaseholder. I think that is unfortunate, because there is no difference of principle between the two cases, and no reason why the Government should propose to make a distinction between the two classes of cases. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) has mentioned a particular case in which he was concerned in which large improvements were made by the landlord. If all these cases were oases in which the hon. and gallant Member was concerned, there would be no reason to believe that the tenant would not be properly treated. But a solitary case of that kind is not of the smallest value in furnishing the Committee with any light or guidance upon the question. I have not the misfortune to be an Irish landlord, but I have had a large experience in the Land Court of applications to fix a fair rent, and so notorious is it that the landlord makes no improvement, that it is a regular formula to ask whether the landlord makes any claim for improvements, and the invariable answer is that he does not. It is invariably the case that the improvements are made by the tenant. So common is that, that the landlord is generally invited to get up at the beginning of the case in order to spare the tenant the necessity of formal proof that all the improvements which have been made upon the land have been made by him. Certainly, that has happened in nine out of ten eases, and in the tenth the rule may not apply, not because the landlord made the improvements himself, but because he has evicted a tenant who had made them, and then sub-let the holding to somebody who took it with these improvements upon it; and, therefore, technically, the improvements were held to be the landlords, although they might have been made by some previous tenant. I cannot see what the Government expect to gain by an Amendment of this kind—an Amendment which is vicious in principle, and which, in the case of the tenants' improvements, has been over and over again acknowledged by the Land Court. It is constantly the case that when the tenant has proved his outlay in regard to improvements, and claims to have them allowed, the landlords have come into Court to admit that the tenants made the outlay, but that the improvements have been of such a character that they are of no value. That has been the universal rule in the Land Court, and I do not see why any different rule should be made in regard to landlords' improvements. I It may turn out that a landlord has spent £200 or £300 in drainage; but one of the most common experiences in the Land Court has been to find that the money expended by the landlord has been so misspent and so mismanaged that drainage works executed 10 or 12 years ago were absolutely worthless at the date upon which the holding came into Court. Then why should the tenant be charged with a fixed rent for improvements which, whatever value they originally possessed, have, by deterioration, been rendered worthless. The proposition now made is vicious in principle, and I trust that the Government will make up their minds to grant concessions to the tenant, and not insist upon burdening him with some mischievous principle of this kind, which will take away one-half of the value of the Bill, and induce the Irish, tenants, and those who represent them, to entertain a very uncharitable feeling in regard to the concessions the Government have made,

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has read to the Committee the words he proposes to substitute for the present Amendment. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in his place, because I cannot quite understand the proposal he made the other day. Let me suppose that the rent of a holding amounts to £20, and that the landlord has spent £500 upon it in improvements. That sum at 4 per cent will represent another £20 a-year, making the rent £40, which it is proposed to set aside as the full rent of the holding as it exists. If you take the holding without interest upon the improvements it would only be £20, and if you increase the sum the tenant has to pay to £40, it is obvious that the tenant is paying 4 per cent upon the capital spent in improvements in addition to his rent, whatever the cost to the landlord may be.

I think I have already very clearly explained to the Committee that the Government do not intend to adhere to the Proviso contained in the clause, and I have recommended the Committee to assent to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, opposite, and then to allow us to discuss our Amendment. I made that suggestion some time ago.

I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should do this. We have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman on paper. Will he now consent to strike out the Proviso as it stands on the clause, and on the Report bring up his proposal, which we will then have it in our power to discuss?

I do not think the Report would be a convenient stage. I should think the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is the best—namely, that we should at once negative the Proviso as it stands.

In Ireland in a great number of cases—in fact, the majority of the cases—it is admitted that the improvements referred to in this Amendment are made by money borrowed from the Board of Works, with re-payments in such a way that the entire sum is re-paid in 25 years. Now, what is the course adopted by a considerable number of Irish landlords, I do not say all of them. They borrow the money; they execute these improvements; they charge five per cent on the money so borrowed upon the tenant, and in many instances they make that charge a permanent addition to the rent. What is proposed by the Government is this—to deprive the Court of this discretion to consider whether all or part of the money which has been borrowed has been repaid by the tenant. It may be, and no doubt in most instances it will turn out, that the tenants made improvements themselves, the unexhausted value of which is more or less considerable. It may be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a tenant has paid 5 per cent interest to the landlord on the money which he originally expended, and that the landlord has received more than all the capital expended. By this Amendment the Government deliberately propose to remove from the Court the power it now exorcises in the case of yearly tenants, of taking all these facts into consideration, and making an allowance to the tenant accordingly. I am at a loss to conceive noon what reasonable grounds the Government can defend such a proposition. That is the first point I wish to call attention to. In the next place, I would ask the Government to consider that at the present moment every Court in Ireland, when fixing the judicial rent, takes into consideration the question of the unexhausted improvements of the tenants, and makes a liberal allowance when fixing the rent to be paid to the landlords, if the money the landlords have expended has not already been repaid. Why, then, should we interfere with the discretion of the Court? Another question also arises. As the Amendment is at present worded, there is an extraordinary ambiguity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that in fixing a fair rent it must be fixed subject to the allowance to the landlord of 4 per cent on the value of his unexhausted improvements. It is considered important that the landlord is to get a fair rent for the holding, and this 4 per cent in addition. In that case, I maintain that he would be paid twice over.

That is not so. A fair rent is to be fixed for the holding apart from the improvements.

Then, what is the object of this Proviso, which proposes to tie the hands of the Court—first, in fixing the value of the holding, and then in charging 4 per cent interest on unexhausted improvements, which is to be added to the rent? The Court is engaged daily in the consideration of these matters; and why should it not be the duty of the Court to consider what would be an equitable allowance to the landlord as the owner? The whole question resolves itself into one of equitable jurisdiction. As you leave all other matters to be settled by the Court, I cannot see that the Government have given a single valid reason for tying the hands of the Court in this respect.

I have no doubt the intention of the Proviso proposed by the Government is perfectly equitable; but it seems to me extremely doubtful whether any real advantages can be gained by attempting to make a distinction, in settling a fair rent, between that portion of the rent which is interest on the money expended by the landlord and that portion of the rent which is the rent of the holding itself. What is really desired—and I believe the Committee are agreed on that point—is that in exceptional cases which certainly do exist, though I think they are not numerous, where the landlord has laid out money of his own in the improvement of his estate, that that fact should be taken into consideration by the Court in fixing a fair rent in case of permanent improvements having been made by the landlord and not by the tenant. Hon. Members say that that is already sufficiently provided for by a clause in the Land Act that was inserted by the House of Lords. What I have understood is that that clause in the Act of 1881 has been rendered inoperative, owing to the legal construction placed upon it, that a landlord, to come within the benefit of the clause, must be shown to have "maintained" as well as "made" the improvements. It is possible, although I cannot speak from experience on the subject, that that distinction may have the effect of excluding the landlord's expenditure from being considered in the Land Court. I know that on an occasion of this sort it is impossible for us to undertake the revision of every defect which may come to light in the Land Act; but it does appear to me that it would be better if, instead of an elaborate proposal such as that which has been read from the Chair, words were inserted on the Report if it should be found necessary, almost in the terms laid down in the Act of 1881, to omit the words which have been found to be objectionable. As the leaseholders are now going to have the same benefits as the yearly tenants, I cannot myself see any strong argument for treating leaseholders differently from yearly tenants. Therefore, I would recommend the Government to introduce a Proviso to this effect—that if it is necessary to protect them against some provisions of the Act of 1881 which are found to be inequitable, to insert a Proviso amending the Act of 1881, so as to escape the extremely limited construction which has been placed upon the clause. That, I think, would be preferable to the elaborate proposal which has now been made, and which I do not think would be found to be of any advantage to the landlords.

Of course, I am fully conversant of the difficulties which surround the question. I admit that we have resisted several Amendments to this clause on the ground that they would give the leaseholders privileges which they would not get if they were tenants from year to year; and, on the whole, it is, perhaps, desirable that leaseholders under the clause should not be placed in a different position from ordinary tenants under the Act of 1881. Unfortunately, this proposal does draw a distinction of that kind, and therefore I admit the force of the noble Marquess's remarks, and, further, that the argument we have employed may be turned against us. The suggestion of the noble Marquess to leave the matter over until the Report stage is one which I consider the Committee would be well-advised to accept. I think the question is not one, as far as I understand it, which can possibly affect the interests either of the landlords or the tenants of Ireland. It is rather an attempt, in my opinion, and an advantageous and desirable attempt, to stop, if possible, what has now become a practice in Parliament—namely, that of interfering with contracts, whether they relate to the land or not, and of subjecting them to the review of the Court. The Government do not desire to interfere with contracts more than can be avoided, and they regard this extra payment in respect of improvements made by the landlord more in the nature of a pecuniary arrangement made between a debtor and creditor than a contract between landlord and tenant. I do not think I need further labour the question. I think I have made clear what the motives of the Government are; and, in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Marquess, the Proviso I have proposed will be withdrawn, in order to see whether some words cannot be brought up on the Report to meet the objections which have been raised.

I would warn the Government against any attempt to deal with the question of tenants' improvements.

This Proviso relates to landlords' improvements.

No; it is really the tenants' improvements that are dealt with, and I warn the Government that if they go any further in that direction they may find that they are putting their hands into a hornet's nest. As to the proposal that the question should be re-opened on the Report stage, I shall certainly have to move, if the question is brought up in that way, that the Bill be re-committed, for we can never consent to discuss this question on the Report stage. In discussing the Act of 1881 there was nothing which caused so much friction as this question of the tenants' improvements. In regard to the tenants' improvements, the intentions of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in passing the Act of 1881 have been shown to have been grossly and cruelly betrayed by what occurred in the Court of Appeal in the case of "Adams v. Dun-seath."

The Act of 1881 clearly lays down that the Land Court should consider the representative interests of the landlord and tenant in the holding, and it was further laid down what the Court ought to take into consideration in regard to a yearly tenant. I do not think the Government ought to introduce any special provision with regard to leaseholders which does not prevail in the case of tenants from year to year. They ought to show that some injustice has been done by the Court before introducing any fresh provision into the matter.

I think the Court, in fixing the fair rent of the tenant, ought to take into account the improvements he may have ejected, and when they come to fix the fair rent of a leaseholder they should also take into account the improvements effected by such leaseholder. No one would wish to confiscate the property of another person; but I do not think the leaseholder or the tenant should be placed in a worse position than the landlord.

I am quite willing that the Court should consider the landlords' improvements; but, as a rule, they have made none. Some of them have borrowed money from the Board of Works; but they have charged every penny of the outlay upon the tenants, and this is simply an attempt to swindle further the unfortunate tenant.

I have now to move to insert the Proviso which stands on the Paper in my name, and is numbered 37. It is as follows:—

"Always provided that leases made since the passing of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to take effect from a period subsequent to the passing of the said Act, shall be deemed to be leases existing at the passing of the said Act, in which the premises demised by the said leases so made after the passing of the said Act shall, before the making of the said leases, have been held by the lessees thereof, or their representatives, under leases which expired before the passing of the said Act, in which the said lessees or their representatives remained in the actual occupation of the premises from the expiration of the said leases, so made before the passing of the said Act, until the making of the said leases thereof, after the passing of the said Act."

If I understand rightly, the intention of the hon. Gentleman, in moving this Amendment, is that he proposes to deal with a particular class of cases of hardship which is alleged to have occurred under the operation of the Act of 1881. The hardship was of this character—that if a lease had expired in the year 1881, or at the very end of 1880, when it was known that the Land Act of 1881 was going to be introduced, the landlords, in some cases, instead of making the farmer lessee a tenant, kept him on as a caretaker on his own holding until that period had lapsed after which it became possible for the landlord to re-instate him as a future instead of a present tenant. When re-instated in that position, the tenant could not claim the benefit of the Act of 1881. Now, that, no doubt, is a grievance, and is inequitable. I quite admit the grievance, and we are bound by the general principles of the Bill to apply a remedy. We have put down a clause on the Paper to meet anything like cases of fraud or violence, or pressure on the part of the landlord, and we give power to the Court to break down leases entered into under such circumstances. I would hope, and, indeed, I believe, that the number of such cases are extremely few; but, be they few or many, I acknowledge that it is our duty, if we can, to remedy them. I am bound to say that I so far agree with the hon. Gentleman; but I think that the particular form of words he has put down on the Paper is unnecessarily obscured. If any hon. Member will read the words I think he will appreciate what I say.