asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether tenants holding-leases renewable for over under middlemen to Trinity College, Dublin, can have their rents adjusted by the Irish Land Law Bill when passed, and if such tenants be debarred, as they would seem to be by a recent decision which held them to be perpetuity leaseholders, would the Government amend it for the benefit of those poor people; and, in ease of those Trinity College middlemen who have not given leases to their tenants, but would hold them to specific performance by a promise to take out lease after the passage of the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 28, s. 29, would the Government take care that such tenants should not be deprived of the benefits of the Land Act by the action of Trinity College or their middlemen?

(who replied) said: Persons holding under perpetuity leases could not apply for a fair rent any more than other leaseholders. The Bill now before Parliament does not apply to leases in perpetuity. Where a lease has not been given, but the tenant can be compelled to take one, he is in the same position as if he had a lease in fact.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether printed circulars in unsealed envelopes, with a halfpenny stamp, from the Continent, are passed unchallenged by the Post Office; whether similar circulars in similar envelopes posted in England are charged 1d.; and, whether, if this be the case, he will cause such changes in the postal arrangements as shall place the British trader on an equality with the foreigner in this important manner of advertising?

I understand that the facts are as indicated in the first two Questions of the hon. Member. Printed circulars in unsealed envelopes from the Continent are admitted into this country with a halfpenny stamp, in consequence of the provisions of the Postal Union which make this course obligatory. The question of allowing a similar practice in this country was full considered by my Predecessors, Lord Wolverton and Mr. Fawcett, who were advised that, in the eye of the law, an unclosed envelope having anything in it is, to all intents and purposes, a letter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that it was on 8th July proved, in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, before Mr. Justice Chitty, that by the Articles of Association of the Mineral Water Bottle Exchange Society, with 179 members as manufacturers, the employers agree not to re-engage for two years any servant who has left the employment of any member except with the consent of the late employer; whether he is aware that, at the present time, there are more than 40 persons in London suffering under this rule, and therefore unable to earn their livelihood in the mineral water bottle trade; and, whether the Government can take any stops to put an end to this agreement among the masters?

I have ascertained that the Articles of Association do contain the provision pointed out by the hon. Member in his Question; but I may observe that, according to a report of the proceedings before Mr. Justice Chitty, I find it was held that the rule in question was an unreasonable restraint on trade, and that a motion to enforce it was refused with costs. The case is now pending before the Court of Appeal. I have no information as to the number of persons in London now suffering from the operation of the rule. But in the event of the judgment of the learned Judge being affirmed by the Court of Appeal the agreement in question will be wholly inoperative, and I hope that the hardship which it may have occasioned may disappear.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has communicated with the Lord Chancellor in reference to the charges against Mr. J. E. Barrett, J.P., County Cork; and, if so, with what result?

(who replied) said: As I have already stated to the House, the case in which this matter arises is still sub judice; and the Irish Government have not yet communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the matter.

As this alleged misconduct occurred five years ago, and as it alleges against Mr. Barrett first fraud upon the Treasury, and then fraud upon the tenant, I would ask whether the Irish Government will, at least pending the decision in the case, cause Mr. Barrett to desist from adjudicating?

This is a matter which is before the legal tribunals; and until they have arrived at a decision it is impossible to pronounce any sentence on a question like this.

Do we understand that in a case where perjury and fraud are alleged against a magistrate the Lord Chancellor declines to take any action until any legal proceedings connected with the matter have been disposed of?

said, it was a maxim of the English law that a man should be presumed innocent until found guilty.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, considering the fact that his Predecessor in Office promised to give a liberal reward to any local fishermen who would raise the sunken anchors which are an impediment to the fishing industry in Bantry Bay, he will state the amount that will be given for such services?

Fifty per cent on the value realized, if the anchors are delivered to the Receiver of Wreck, and are not claimed by owners.

asked, would not something be done to save the trouble and loss which was caused to these fishermen by their nets being damaged on account of these obstructions?

I have already stated that a reward of 50 per cent will be paid for all the anchors recovered.

suggested that when the Fleet was in Bantry Bay these anchors might easily be recovered by way of experiment.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that the clerk to the Commissioners of Supply of Orkney has refused to allow a ratepayer, the Reverend John Jamieson, to inspect the public accounts of the county, and especially the account of expenses incurred in the prosecution of the Reverend Mathew Armour, Free Church Minister, Sanday, last year; and, whether the ratepayers of the County of Orkney have not the right to examine the accounts of the Commissioners of Supply when application has been made?

The Rev. Mr. Jamieson is not a ratepayer chargeable with the general county assessment administered by the Commissioners of Supply. Accordingly, the clerk to the Commissioners was instructed to decline to allow him to inspect the accounts.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an order for 150,000 bayonets has recently been placed with Messrs. Wilkinson and Co.; if so, whether that firm have hitherto had any experience in the manufacture of such weapons; whether the time for the delivery of the first instalment of the contract extends into the early part of next year; whether other competing firms were prepared to deliver such instalment at a much earlier date; and, whether a lower tender than that of Messrs. Wilkinson was not received? the hon. Member added another Question—Whether these bayonets would fit the new weapon which it was understood was about to be issued?

An order for sword bayonets has recently been placed with Messrs. Wilkinson, the well - known sword makers; but they have not previously made sword bayonets of this pattern. The time for delivery of the first instalment does extend into next year. Offers were made to deliver at an earlier date and at lower prices; but only one came from an English firm, which has had no experience of sword-making. Others came from German firms; but I decided that preference ought to be given to British manufacturers. With regard to whether these bayonets will fit the new rifle, which I hope will soon be decided upon, in any case all these bayonets will be required for the rifles we have at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Wilkinson are not themselves manufacturers cither of bayonets or swords?

Messrs. Wilkinson are very eminent sword-makers.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had yet received any Report as to the merits of the Lee and Lee Burton rifles, part of which had been published in The Times?

said, that he had received the Report, but had not yet had time fully to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that the 6th Brigade, South West Division of Artillery, called out for preliminary training at Waterford last Easter, under the command of Major Cuffe, mustered only eight recruits at commencement and major portion of training; and, whether the staff in attendance at the said training numbered 16 staff sergeants, one regimental cook and assistant, and eight battery cooks?

The number of recruits at first was 15, which, increased to 45 by the end of the preliminary training. The staff referred to is the permanent staff of the regiment. The number in training of all ranks last year was 355.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the proposed closing, by the Middlesex magistrates, of two foot and bridle paths in Clay-bury Park, near Woodford Bridge, which afford the nearest way between Woodford Bridge and Barking Side; whether the Middlesex magistrates have bought Claybury Park for the erection of a large pauper lunatic asylum, and also a private asylum for paying patients; whether it is a fact that ample grounds could be reserved for the private asylum without interfering with either of the paths referred to; whether the agent of the magistrates called, with insufficient notice, a meeting on 2nd June at Woodford Bridge, to which only a favoured few were admitted; whether, at a full meeting of inhabitants of Woodford and Barking Side parishes, the parishes chiefly interested, on the 16th of June, the proposal to close or divert the paths was unanimously refused; whether an attempt was made in 1864 to close these paths, and at that time the jury in the case gave their verdict that the "paths were necessary;" and, whether, having regard to the circumstances, he will represent to the magistrates the desirability of so modifying their plans as to Claybury Park, as not to close or divert these ancient rights of way?

I have had a Report from the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, from which I collect that there is through the property purchased by the magistrates one path which is a bridlepath and footpath combined, except for a short distance, where the bridlepath and footpath are divided. The magistrates have bought the property for the purpose of a pauper lunatic asylum for 2,000 patients, and of an asylum for paying patients. The path in question intersects the property for a length of 40 chains. For the security of the patients and of the public it will be necessary either to fence in the path on both sides or to divert it. The magistrates have thought it best to take the necessary steps for diverting the path and substituting for it a good road, which will be more convenient to the public. The necessary consents from the Local Authorities have been obtained. The Clerk of the Peace is not aware of the meeting of the 2nd of June. If the inhabitants are aggrieved they have means given them under the Highway Acts of appealing from the order diverting the path. I have no power to interfere with the discretion of magistrates in such matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Constable Austin, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, lately stationed at Coolykerane and Ballyvourney, has been discharged from, that Force; whether his wife, Abina Austin, was the girl upon whom it was alleged the aggravated assault was made by Moonlighters; whether his attention has been called to a letter written by Austin to The Cork Daily Herald, 30th July, stating that he was discharged from the Constabulary because he refused to force his wife to give false evidence against three respectable young men who were arrested at the instance of District Inspector Hill and charged with moonlighting on the occasion referred to; whether Austin has also stated—

"That the officer, District Inspector Hill and the Head Constable went to a field away from the House where the outrage was stated to have taken place in order to frighten the girl and make her swear what they liked,"

I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a letter, signed Abina Austin, to The Cork Daily Herald of the 30th ultimo; whether Abina Austin was the same person for a moonlighting outrage upon whom three young men were arrested near Coolykerane, Millstreet, County Cork; whether it is correct, as stated by her—

"That after she had declared that she did not know any of her assailants, District Inspector Hill went and visited her a second time, and endeavoured to induce her to give evidence against these men after their arrest;"

(who replied) said: Constable Austin has been discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary. His wife is the same person who was assaulted by Moonlighters, who cut off her hair, and then poured tar over her head and neck. Austin was discharged for marrying without leave, he not having served seven years in the Force, and having, therefore, failed to fulfil the marriage conditions. Ten well-known bad characters were arrested on information supplied at the time by the girl. It is not the case that District Inspector Hill and the Head Constable tried to frighten the girl and to make her swear what they liked. In the course of his inquiries into the outrage the District Inspector saw her and all the members of her family on several occasions, and on one occasion he spoke to her in a field near her house. The Inspector General of Constabulary very much regretted that he had to discharge Austin; but he was obliged to do so to maintain a rule which is absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Force. The constable was a promising and well-conducted man; and for this reason the Inspector General suggested to the County Inspector that he should endeavour to obtain his appointment to the Liverpool Police.

Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on how many occasions did this District Inspector Hill interview the girl; and what were the inducements which she states in her letter to The Cork Herald he offered in order to bring about perjury, so that he could convict these men?

Order, order!

If I do not get an answer I must put it again.

I am not aware that she stated any inducements were offered to her to give evidence, and certainly not to commit perjury.

Have you seen the letters in The Herald.

No, Sir; certainly not. I do not read The Cork-Daily Herald.

I shall give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of The Herald, with these two letters purporting to come from these two people; and then, perhaps, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see if he can give me a satisfactory answer to the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State' for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that Her Majesty's Government contemplate allowing Zebehr Pasha to return to Egypt; and, if so, whether any precautions will be taken to prevent his going to the Soudan?

asked, whether it was true that Zebehr Pasha had been made to sign a paper before he was released; and, if so, by what authority, and under what law, these conditions were imposed?

It has been decided to allow Zebehr Pasha to return to Egypt. He has signed an engagement to remain in the place which shall be chosen by the Egyptian Government, to place himself under its surveillance, and to abstain from interference in political or military questions relating to the Soudan or otherwise. These conditions had been imposed by the Government of Egypt; and if the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) requires any further information it would be better that he should put a Question on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government will publish, as soon as possible, the acreage of land now under cultivation for hops, as recently ascertained by the Land Commissioners under the provisions of the Extraordinary Tithe Act of 1886?

As the survey and computation of areas is proceeding, but cannot be completed for some time to come, the Land Commissioners are not at present in a position to state the acreage of land under cultivation for hops. I presume there will be no objection to publish the information as soon as it is obtained.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Corporation of Dublin have to pay in the first instance, on the order of the Clerk of the Peace, to any prosecutor or other person named in the order, such costs as the Judge or Recorder might award in cases of felony tried in Dublin; whether the Treasury in 1860 undertook to repay the costs of those prosecutions, and did they, in fact, do so down to 1885; if in that year, and frequently since, considerable portions of the costs awarded by the Judges and paid by the Corporation have been disallowed by the Treasury as being in excess of the "Treasury scale," although the Courts do not recognize this scale; were some of the prosecutions, in respect of which disallowances have been made, against fraudulent bankrupts from other parts of Ireland; by what authority, statutable or otherwise, do the Treasury; prescribe their scale of costs, or apply it to those repayments; and, will the Treasury simplify this matter in future by paying the costs direct to the person named in the Judge's order, or will they at least refund the full amounts paid by the Corporation?

I think, Sir, this information will have to be obtained from the Irish Office; and I must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone it.

said, he must respectfully ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he could give him an answer to the Question, because he had already postponed a similar Question about a fortnight ago.

(who replied) said, the Government had sent for information to the Irish Office, and they hoped to be in a position to answer the Question on Monday next.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, What circumstances, in the condition of Ireland the Government rely upon in support of their proclamation of 18 Irish counties, under the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether any intimidation, relating to boycotting, police protection, or otherwise, alleged to exist in those counties, can be dealt with by Courts of Stipendiary Magistrates under Section 2 of the Act; whether the Government assert the existence, in any of those 18 counties, of such a degree of crime as calls for the enforcement of exceptional law; and, what evidence the Government offer, out of the records of the Summer Assizes, that, in any of those 18 counties, proof of crime is so withheld, or common juries have so failed in the vindication of justice as to render necessary the application of provisions for the establishment of Courts of Private Inquiry, and for the empannelling of special juries, and the removal of criminal trials, at the will of the Attorney General, to any other part of Ireland?

Sir, I have already given, in answer to various Questions, a general account of the circumstances which, in the opinion f the Government, justify the proclamation of 18 counties under the first four sections of the Crimes Act. According to the promise I made to the hon. Member, I am having prepared a Return which will give him further details of the facts relating to these offences, and which he is desirous to have. He asks me in second paragraph—

"Whether any intimidation, relating to Boycotting, police protection, or otherwise, alleged to exist in those counties, can be dealt with under Section 2 of the Act?"

"Whether the Government assert the existence, in any of those 18 counties, of such a degree of crime as calls for the enforcement of exceptional law?"

I mean crime as distinguished from intimidation.

It varies very much in these counties. In some of thorn, if you take crime only apart from intimidation, there might not be necessity for the application of these subheads of the Act to the whole of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman asks me—

"What evidence the Government offer, out of the record of the Summer Assizes, that, in any of those 18 counties, proof of crime is so withheld or common juries have so failed in the vindication of justice as to render necessary the application of provisions for the establishment of Courts of Private inquiry, and for the empannelling of special juries."

I think it is very important we should have before us specific details; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will lay before the House specific details, occurring at the Summer Assizes, in which justice has not been vindicated, either because of the paucity of evidence or the unwillingness of juries to perform, their duties? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the application to so many counties in Ireland of the provisions of the change of venue and the empannelling of special juries may be regarded as due to the apprehension in the mind of the Government that juries may not be trusted? I would also ask, what grounds the Government have for thinking that Section 2 of the Act, under which parties guilty of intimidation may be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, will not be sufficient to meet the case of such offences; and, finally, I would ask what day we may expect to have before us the Return showing the number of parties Boycotted and under police protection?

There have been some cases of failure of justice at the recent Summer Assizes in some of these counties. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down on the Paper I will give him some cases next week. I do not think it is a subject for a Return.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered one portion of my Question. I asked him, did the Government not think that the powers under the 2nd section were sufficient?

I rely greatly on the 2nd section; but where intimidation prevails in any district you can have no security whatever that witnesses would come forward, or juries do their duty, and we are bound to take such powers as are necessary for the change of venue should we find intimidation.

pointed out that under this 2nd section the Government had summary power of imposing six months' imprisonment without having any juries at all.

A good many of them would not be adequately punished by six months' imprisonment—murder, for example, or a serious outrage on the person, would not be adequately punished by six months' imprisonment, and in that case the offence would have to be tried before a jury.

What day shall we have the Return?

It is being prepared in Dublin, and it will be laid before the House as soon as possible. A good many of the facts the hon. Gentleman asks for will be laid before the House in the ordinary course.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, according to the Civil Service Regulations, 12 days' leave of absence with pay are annually allowed to Civil Service writers; whether it has been the practice of the Civil Service Commissioners, where holidays have not been taken by writers at the termination of certain periods of employment, to compensate them by payments in respect of such holidays; whether Mr. J. C. Woods, lately employed in the Public Record Office, Ireland, had before his resignation completed a year within which he has had no holidays; whether, on Mr. Woods' application to the Civil Service Commissioners for payment for the holidays due but not taken by him, he was refused on the technical ground—

"That the payment of his gratuity terminated his connection with the service;"

Under the Regulations as to copyists the Civil Service Commissioners may allow holidays with pay to copyists who are not serving in any other Department; but they do not compensate copyists by payments in respect of holidays not taken. Mr. Woods applied for a gratuity, under the Treasury Minute of December last, on the termination of his services as a copyist; it was paid to him on the 1st of July. He did not apply for pay in respect of holidays not taken till July 8. There was no precedent for complying with such a request, and the Civil Service Commissioners rightly declined it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government has arrived at any determination with respect to putting in force the clauses relating to "Dangerous Associations" in "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?"

I have no information to give to the House on the subject. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is impossible for the Executive to take any action in this matter without Parliament being made cognizant of it.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to communicate this information to the House?

Information will be laid before the House as a statutory necessity if anything is done. The House must be made cognizant of any Proclamation under the Act.

I am perfectly well aware of that; but what I want to know is, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make any communication on the subject?

I should in no case expect to make any communica- tion to the House, as that is provided for by the Statute.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Yolk's Electric Railway in Brighton, carrying passengers over a distance of one mile, from the Aquarium to Kemp Town, is assessed to the Railway Passenger Duty; and, if not, whether it is the use of electric power, or the smallness of the gauge, or the shortness of! the distance travelled, that forms the ground of exemption?

Voile's Electric Railway is not assessed to Railway Passenger Duty, the ground of exemption being that it runs upon a public way, and not on private property. Carriage Licence Duty, however, is paid in respect of the cars used by the Company.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In what manner he proposes to carry out the undertaking given in Committee on the Irish Land Law Bill, that quarterly Returns of notices issued under Clause 4 shall be laid before Parliament?

, in reply, said, he had promised to deal with this question on Report. He had put down Amendments on the Paper showing the method in which the Government proposed to do this work.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the unanimous Report of the Committee for Saving Life at Sea, the Government can introduce now a short Bill embodying the principal recommendations of said Report, or give facilities for the enactment of the Shipwreck Bill already introduced?

The Board of Trade have not yet received a copy of the Report of the Committee referred to by the hon. Member. AJ recommendations which they may make shall receive careful attention. I do not apprehend it will be practicable to undertake any legislation during the present Session; but on that point, and also with regard to facilities for the discussion of the Shipwreck Bill, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Postmaster General, When he will be in a position to give a favourable response to the Memorial addressed to him some time past by the inhabitants of the town of Urlingford, in the County of Kilkenny, requesting direct telegraphic communication as therein, and for the reasons therein set forth?

In October, 1885, my Predecessor considered the question of opening a telegraph office at Urlingford; and, after full inquiries, caused the Memorialists to be informed through the hon. Member that, as it was estimated that the revenue of the office would apparently fall very far short of the working expenses, it was out of his power to establish the office, unless a guarantee was forthcoming. The amount of the guarantee was fixed at £43 per annum for seven years.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether it is true, as stated in United Ireland of the 4th instant, that a Circular Letter has been addressed from Dublin Castle to tire Divisional Magistrates throughout Ireland, which asks for—

"Information ocncerning any particular portion of a sub-district which may be more disturbed, or in a more disaffected state than the rest, or in which there may be more marked improvement; any serious outrage deserving of special mention; evictions or oilier matters bearing upon the relations of landlord and tenant, and their bearing upon outrages and disturbances; boycotting and intimidation, National League, Labour League, or any organization for agitation;"

I do not think it would be consistent with public policy to give an answer to any Question about what is reported to be a revelation of something alleged to be a confidential document issued to the police.

asked, if the results of these inquiries were to be reported to those Resident Magistrates who had power to hold a secret Court of Inquiry and Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and who might thus have to sit on cases about which they had already received Reports?

said, the Executive would take no action whatever which could by any possibility leave ground to think that Resident Magistrates would so act.

May we understand that the Executive in Ireland will not induce any magistrate to commit himself by a Report to the Government on any matters in regard to which he may have to act judicially?

asked, would the Resident Magistrates be sent from one district to another, in. order that they might get information beforehand regarding the characters of persons they had to try.

The Resident Magistrates are never required to give Reports of cases which they have to try.

They never get any Report.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade. Whether his attention has been called to the advertisement of the Midland Railway Company for engine drivers and firemen to till the places of their men, who threaten, to strike in consequence of a pending wage dispute; whether it is a recognised rule among Railway Companies to require their engine drivers to spend a sufficient time on the road as firemen, under competent engine drivers, in order that they should be thoroughly acquainted with the signals, junctions, crossings, &c, before they are allowed to take charge of a locomotive; whether a similar probation is required in the case of firemen; whether the Board of Trade exercises any control over public carrying Companies in such matters as the selection of servants charged with such serious responsibility as the safety of the lives of the public; and, if so, whether he will take step a to see that no danger may result to the public who may require to travel by the Midland Railway, from being placed in the hands of engine drivers and firemen hastily drawn from other railways, and consequently unacquainted with the signals and crossings of the Midland road?

also asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that it was reported that at a meeting of the engine drivers and firemen of the Midland Railway Company it was stated that the Company were now taking on men who wore incompetent and physically disqualified for performing the duties entrusted to them; and, whether he would take such steps as would adequately ensure the safety of the travelling public?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, I have to say that I have not received any information of the nature which he has described; but I venture to hope and believe that the Railway Company will not entrust important duties to persons who are not fully able to discharge them. But, perhaps, if I answer the first Question put to me, it may give some of the information which is desired. The working of the traffic on railways is entirely in the hands of the Companies, and the Board of Trade have no power to interfere in such matters as the selection of servants. They have, therefore, no legal authority to take any such stop as is suggested by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have, however, addressed a letter to the Midland Company expressing a hope that every precaution has been taken for the safety of the travelling public.

inquired whether it was within the competence of the Board of Trade to interfere with a Railway Company in a case whore a Director, anxious to obtain for his footman the post of station master—to obtain which it was necessary that he should qualify as a guard—got him appointed as guard, without any previous experience, in order to qualify him for the post?

I do not think that the Board of Trade would have any power to interfere in such a case, which I understand to he purely hypothetical.

It is a fact.

asked whether, in case of an accident resulting to these trains, the Government would have power to investigate it; and if they had, would it not be better to prevent an accident than to inquire into it after it had occurred?

I have already stated that the Board of Trade has no power to interfere with the appointment or the discharge of their servants by Railway Companies. Its only control consists in seeing that the line is constructed according to the Regulations laid down, by the Board of Trade.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that every class of telegraph clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, except the second and lowest-paid class, have received considerable benefit under the Fawcett Scheme; whether the superintendents and assistant superintendents have had their maximum salaries increased on two occasions since 1881; whether, owing to the additional work imposed upon them by the introduction of the 6d. tariff, a further increases was under consideration; whether he can state if the clerks eligible for promotion into the first class haves longer service now than those who were previously promoted to the first class had when they were promoted; whether a margin to meet future requirements exists with regard to the senior class; and, whether, considering he treatment recently given to the Dublin clerks, he will see that the London clerks are similarly treated with regard promotion to the vacancies in the higher class?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that under the Fawcett Scheme alluded to the second class of telegraph clerks at the Central Telegraph Office receive equal benefit with the class above it. The scales of the superintendents and the assistant superintendents have not been raised on two occasions since 1881, and no further increase of scale is in contemplation over that given this year. The clerks highest in the second class have not longer service than those last promoted to the first last had at the time of their promotion. The class of senior clerks is now full. As stated on Monday, in reply to the hon. Member, the practice in London is some what different from that in Dublin, and it is not intended to fill all the places on he first class at once.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will cause to be circulated a statement of any further Proclamations under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," similar to that ordered to be printed 29th July, 1887?

Of course, if any further Proclamations are issued, I shall be glad to give any information.

My Question is, whether we shall have circulated a similar form of Return?

I shall have on objection. I suppose if any further counties are proclaimed under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, the same information will be given to the House as I have promised to give of these Proclamations.

How will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of any further Proclamations under the first four sections of the Act, seeing that he has proclaimed all the counties in Ireland under them already?

asked the Postmaster General, Under what circumstances it would be necessary, in creating the Post Office in Smith-borough, County Monaghan, a Telegraph Office, to run a wire from Clones to Smithborough; whether, in view of the fact that the wire which connects Belfast with Clones and Enniskillen passes within about 25 perches of the Smithborough Post Office, and that the carrying capacity of this wire is five times its present daily average, he will consider the advisability of taking Smith-borough into circuit upon this wire; whether by such an arrangement the £30, which was proposed as a guarantee for a year to cover the cost of extension and any possible loss to the Post Office Revenue arising from working Smith-borough Post Office as a Telegraph Office for that period, will not be more than sufficient to cover the cost of construction in bringing Smithborough into circuit on the Belfast, Clones, and Enniskillen wire, the cost of working for one year, and still leave a moderate balance to the credit of the Post Office, exclusive of the profits arising from the messages originating at and delivered from Smithborough; and, when will he be able to state the result of his inquiries?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that to place the Smithborough Office upon the Belfast, Clones, and Enniskillen wire would cause delay in the transmission of the messages passing over that circuit, and consequent complaint from the public. Even if the suggestion were desirable, but little saving, if any, would be effected in the amount of the guarantee required, as it would be necessary to increase the allowance to the Sub-postmaster, in order that he might be in a position to obtain the services of an assistant, competent to work the more difficult instrument which would be placed upon the circuit. I hope to be able to state the result of the further inquiries I promised, one day next week.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the tidal wave, of a very dangerous character, reported to have been met with in the Atlantic; and, whether they will obtain as much information as possible in reference to its origin and effect?

The Board of Trade have at present no further information beyond that in the newspapers; but they are making inquiries, and any information they may receive shall be laid before the House.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury to reconsider the terms of their Minute of December last relating to Civil Service Writers, with a view of giving higher bonuses than those awarded under such Minute; and, if so, whether, in the interests of the Public Service, and with a view to giving contentment to a large class of Government employés, he will consider whether such increased bonuses could be given after a less service than eight years and a-half?

The Treasury Minute was the result of a prolonged and most careful consideration of the whole question; and I cannot hold out any hope of reconsidering the terms of the Minute.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the recent Reports of the Royal Commission on Ordnance Stores, and the Report of Lord Morley's Committee, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Committee at once to investigate the present organization of the Ordnance Store Department of the Army, the War Office having long since de- cided that such a Committee was necessary, and that grievances exist in that Department which demand inquiry?

I do not think that another Committee would add anything substantial to the information we now have. I have already stated that the whole organization of these Departments is under ray consideration, and that I hope shortly to make known my proposals.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the will state specifically the reasons for the summary dismissal of Mr. John Meux from the postmastership of Hayward's Heath, which he had held for 19 years; whether Mr. Meux was found guilty of any, and what, irregularity in the performance of his duties between the 21st December, 1886, and the 13th February, 1887; if so, upon what evidence; whether it is the fact that Mr. Meux has emphatically denied the truth of allegations made against him of carelessness and irregularities, and asked to have an opportunity of explaining his conduct personally to the Secretary; why such request was refused; what are the sums expended by Mr. Meux on his office for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the surveyor as to accommodation; and, whether such outlay does not entitle him to some compensation?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that prior to December, 1886, Mr. Meux had been repeatedly cautioned as to the manner in which he performed his duties as Postmaster; and that in the course of an official investigation about the time mentioned it transpired that he had deliberately disregarded the Rules which provide security for registered letters. It was, nevertheless, decided, on the 21st December, to allow him one more chance; but shortly afterwards serious irregularities came to light, and while it is true they had actually occurred before the 21st of December, they showed so clearly that he was unfit for his post that felt bound, in the public interest, to take the office out of his hands. Mr. Meux's denial could not, of course, affect what are proved and actual facts. He has, moreover, made statements, both verbally and in writing, which are tantamount to a full admission of the charges against him; and I, therefore, considered it desirable to refuse his request for a personal interview, which could not possibly alter the facts on which my decision was based. Mr. Meux did expend certain sums in providing office accommodation for his duties; but he was well aware of the terms on which he held his appointment, and that he was in no respect entitled to compensation for such outlay in the event of his dismissal for misconduct.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have decided what process of precipitation is to be applied at their sewage outfall works; and, if so, what guarantee they have that the selected process will prove effective?

, in reply, said, the Metropolitan Board of Works believed that the process of precipitation to be applied would prove effective, as it was founded on the results of long and careful experiments made for the purpose.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state the name of the medical officer who certified that Prince Louis of Battenberg was physically fit for the Naval Service of this country?

Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated the other day, joined the Navy in 1868. The Board of the Admiralty of the day ordered him to be entered without the production of the usual medical certificate. Their decision has amply been justified by the result; insomuch that Prince Louis has always enjoyed exceptional health during the 19 years he has been in the Service, and has carried out his duties wherever he has been called upon to serve with zeal and energy.

Arising out of the reply of the noble Lord, I wish to ask him whether it is the fact that Prince Louis of Battenberg was submitted, in the ordinary course, to medical examination by Dr. Buckle, of Her Majesty's ship Britannia; that, as he was only known by a number by Dr. Buckle, Dr. Buckle rejected him; that subsequently two other medical officers of Tier Majesty's Service also examined Prince Louis of Battenberg, and that they also rejected him; and that, subsequently, the Prince was appointed by the direct intervention of Her Majesty?

Sir, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as I stated, failed to obtain the usual certificate——

May I point out that the noble Lord did not say that?

I said that Prince Louis of Battenberg was admitted by the Board of Admiralty of the day without the production of the usual medical certificate——

That is quite a different thing.

And that they ordered him to be entered without the production of such certificate. I can only add that the result has been very satisfactory—[An hon. MEMBER: To Prince Louis.]—inasmuch as in the record of his 19 years' service he has performed duties in different parts of the world with better health and with fewer appearances on the sick list than many other officers who obtained health certificates in the ordinary way.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which it seems impossible to pass by. The hon. Member opposite asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, at the conclusion of his second Question, whether Prince Louis of Battenberg was not appointed "by the direct intervention of Her Majesty." I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Question of that kind is not grossly out of Order, and utterly at variance with all the Constitutional practice and all the immemorial traditions of the House of Commons, in introducing the name of Her Majesty into debate?

Undoubtedly, the latter part of the hon. Member's Ques- tion was contrary to the established traditions of this House by bringing the name of Her Majesty and the Crown directly into the proceedings of the House in the way he did.

Sir, perhaps I may be permitted to express my great regret for having transgressed what is undoubtedly a Constitutional usage of the House; and I may say that I did not contravene the Rule of this House advisedly, but that I simply spoke on the spur of the moment.

inquired, whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would furnish to the House the Return of those officers who had been admitted to the Navy without medical certificates being granted?

It would be contrary to the usual Regulation to admit any candidate without a certificate.

Are only Royal personages permitted to enter the Service without medical certificates?

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table all the Papers relative to the Grimsby smack Lady Godiva?

There will be no objection to the presentation of the Papers as soon as the Report of the trial has been received.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will undertake, on the receipt of the judgment in the case of Funnell, skipper of the Lady Godiva, not only to consider his claim for compensation for false imprisonment and loss in connection therewith, as well as for the injuries sustained by the vessel, but also to consider and enter into communication at the earliest possible moment with the German Govern- ment in regard to the treatment of Funnell in prison whilst awaiting trial, and during both the preliminary inquiry and the trial; and, whether they will in quire into the alleged breaches of the North Sea Fisheries Convention by the German cruiser, which were not brought forward at the trial owing to the fact that no notice was given either to the British Consul or to Dr. Israel, who had been retained for the defence, but which are of the greatest and most urgent importance to the whole fishing trade of the United Kingdom?

I can only repeat the answer given on the 2nd instant by the Secretary to the Board of Trade to a similar Question. The Report of the British Consul at Hamburg on the whole case has not yet reached us; and until we receive it I am unable to say what steps Her Majesty's Government may think fit to take in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a letter from the Clerk to the Board of Works for the Wandsworth District, advising him that the following Resolution was agreed to, nem. diss., at the last meeting of the Board—namely,

"That the Government he requested to appoint a Commission to inquire into the past and present system of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in reference to its dealings with surplus or any other lands, and other matters collateral thereto;"

inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Metropolitan Board had appointed a Commission to investigate matters, and that the proceedings of the Commission would be public?

, in reply, said, that the Government had received a Resolution from the Wandsworth District Board of Works on the subject referred to in the Question. He understood that the whole subject was under investigation by a Committee.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can give any information relating to the reported accidents on some of Her Majesty's ships in the naval manœuvres; and, whether he can furnish any additional information as to the progress and result of these naval manœuvres?

I regret to say that there have been two accidents, one on board the Curlew and the other on board the Black Prince. I have received no detailed information; but I understand that there has been an accident to a Nordenfelt gun, six men having been injured, one seriously, and that the remaining five are progressing well. Two men, I am afraid, have lost the sight of an eye. One of the Squadrons—the D Squadron—has been placed to the North of the Irish Channel; the B Squadron to the South of the Irish Channel; and the third, or A Squadron, off the French Coast. There is no news of the C Squadron; hut as regards the B Squadron, we have received a telegram that it has captured all the Squadron of the enemy and frustrated his objects. Admiral Fremantle reports that, after having taken Falmouth, he forced the entrance to the Thames at daylight and anchored off the Nore. He claims to have sunk the I torpedo-boats, while the torpedo-boats j claim to have sunk half his Squadron. Finally, he has been pursued in the Thames by Admiral Hewett's Squadron,; and I believe that the whole of his Squadron has been captured. I have not yet received the Report of the umpires.

May I ask the noble Lord if he can give us an estimate of what will be the cost to the country of these tomfooleries?

The cost, Sir, will not entail a Supplementary Estimate. I should say that no part of the expenditure incurred in connection with the Navy will be more useful to the men in teaching them how to perform their duty and handle their ships.

Can the noble Lord state where the guns were manufactured?

I said I one Nordenfelt. I did not say that the accidents were due to any defect in the gun; but I have no detailed information.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is true that a Birmingham firm has the monopoly of supplying lenticular apparatus for lighthouses in England and the Colonies, and that competitive; tenders for that description of lighthouse apparatus are never sought for by public advertisement, or otherwise, by the Board of Trade or the Trinity House; whether, very recently, efforts, have not been made to extend this monopoly to Ireland and Scotland; and whether it would not be for the interest of the Public Service that this monopoly should cease, and that, in future, the Board of Trade should insist upon fair competition being instituted hi all cases where lenticular or dioptric apparatus may be required for lighthouses in any part of the United Kingdom or the Colonies?

Messrs. Chance Brothers, of Birmingham, supply the Trinity House with lenticular apparatus for English lighthouses on a three years' agreement at prices 'which, the Board of Trade understand are lower than those of any other firm. Lenticular apparatus required by the Board of Trade for lighthouses erected by them abroad is also obtained under this arrangement. The Board of Trade are not aware how the Colonial Governments obtain lenticular apparatus for lighthouses erected by thorn. In Ireland and Scotland such an arrangement as that with Messrs. Chance Brothers does not exist; and the Board of Trade are nut aware of any efforts having been made to extend it to lighthouses in Ireland and Scotland. Messrs. Chance Brothers have recently pointed out that they car, supply for two lighthouses in Ireland apparatus at terms lower than those named in the Parliamentary Paper of the Present Session now on the Table of the House. On the termination of the agreement with Messrs. Chance Brothers it will be considered what arrangements can best be made in the interest of the Public Service.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has yet reached the Foreign Office as to the important commercial concessions alleged to have been made by the Chinese Government to an American Syndicate?

No information on the subject has been received at the Foreign Office.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session to re-constitute the Scottish Fishery Board; or, if not, when will the Board be re-constituted?

, in reply, said, it was not intended to introduce a Bill this Session. Under the existing Act six members of the Board went out of Office in October nest, and their places could be filled up either by re-appointment or by new members.

asked, what would be the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland?

said, he could not predict that.

said, he could not allow the Lord Advocate to ride off in that way.

Order, order!

said, they wanted to know the future constitution of the Board.

said, the Board had been appointed for five years, and the five years were about to expire; and, seeing that the strongest dissatisfaction had been expressed on all sides as to the constitution of the Board, he thought the question was most pertinent. Were the present Commissioners to be re-appointed?

said, that it was not in his power to re-appoint them.

asked, whether a promise would be given not to fill the appointments up till October—that was, until they had an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Board on the Estimates?

I hope we shall get to the Estimate for the Scottish Fishery Board before October.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Conveyancing (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill will be taken on Wednesday next?

, in reply, said, the Bill would have been put down for Wednesday if the Government had had the slightest hope of being able to carry it; but it was threatened with such serious opposition on both sides of the House that he was afraid they should be obliged to withdraw the Bill.

said, that he had no information as to the renewal of the tithe riots in Wales.

said, he had received a vast number of reports relative to the birching a boy at Ilkeston, who was alleged to have been seriously injured. Allegations of misconduct were made against the police, who were not, however, under his jurisdiction. He had referred the matter to the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, who informed him that the Police Committee had been directed to investigate the matter.

asked, What course would be taken as to the Allotments Bill, so as to allow adequate discussion of the Bill?

I am not able to indicate the precise day on which it is proposed to take the Allotments Bill; but, having regard to the views expressed by the light hon. Gentleman yesterday, I hope arrangements will be made to take the Bill in the course of next week at an early hour.

Certainly not taken on Monday?

Certainly not on Monday.

consented to postpone the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill until Monday, and to give Metropolitan Members an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable hour, either on that day or on some later one.

presumed it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Report on the Irish Land Law Bill that night, and, if it should be necessary, to-morrow? It would be desirable to know, however, what Business would be taken next, in the event of the Irish Land Law Bill finishing that night, or at an early hour to-morrow?

said, that, if the Irish Land Law Bill were disposed of that night, it was not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit on Saturday, as the labours of the House had been very severe lately, although he was afraid that the state of Supply and other urgent Business would render it necessary for the House to sit on the remaining Saturdays of the Session.

said, that on Monday the House would go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates in the order in which they stood. He could not come to any ar- rangement to take the Irish Estimates in regular succession, and not mixed up as they were with, the English Estimates. He hoped the Irish Land Law Bill would he read a third time at the conclusion of the Report stage; it would be a reasonable, and not an unusual, course with a measure of that kind. The Post Office Savings Banks Bill would not be taken to-night. He was sorry he could not name a day for the Indian Budget. The taking of the Navy Estimates would depend upon the progress made with the Civil Service Estimates. He could not say whoa the Education Vote would be reached, looking to the progress required to be made with the Votes in the preceding Class.

asked, when the Government intended to introduce the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

In a few days. It is not usual to introduce the Bill until there is reasonable hope that the end of the Session is in sight.

promised that he would try and arrange that the Irish Estimates should be brought on at a time which would suit the convenience of Irish Members.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the following Question, of which I have given him private Notice:—Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Daily News of this day of a meeting of the landlords of Tyrone, held in Omagh yesterday, at which a letter was read from the Duke of Abercorn, in which the following paragraph occurred:—

"The Irish landlords are to be sacrificed on the base excuse of maintaining the Union, and the whole of Ireland is to suffer for a few disturbed counties;"

Order, order! That is not the usual form of a Question. The hon. Gentleman is asking the opinion of the Goverment.

Then, perhaps, I may put the Question in the following way:—Whether, in deference to the opinion of the Duke of Abercorn, the Government will cancel the application of the Coercion Act to the whole of the Irish counties, and apply its operation to portions of the disturbed counties referred to?

I have received no application of that character from the Duke.

I will repeat the Question on Monday.

I wish, Sir, to ask a Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) which concerns the order and regularity of our proceedings in this House. It is, whether a statement attributed to him has any sort of correctness about it. It is stated in The St. Stephen's Review of last week that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated to an interviewer——

Order, order! I think this is exceeding the usual limits of a Question so ask an hon. Member of this House what he stated outside the House.

Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling immediately; but the Question relates to a statement alleged to have been made by the hon. and gallant Member as to what he would do in this House. Of course, if you say I am out of Order, I will sit down. I only wish to explain the purport of my Question.

Am I in Order, Sir, in answering the Question?

The Question of the hon. Baronet is as to a statement of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman would do in a certain case. I think it would be better to wait until the hon. and gallant Gentleman has done something.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has received a letter in the terms of one stated to have been sent to him by the hon. and galland Member?

I have not the Slightest idea to what the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know what the latter is; what the terms are; and I have not seen The St. Stephen's Review, and I do not know anything about it. I must appeal to hon. Gentlemen to exercise a little more control, and not to ask Questions which are absolutely trivial.

I wish, Sir, respectfully, to put a Question to you on a matter of Privilege. I would ask you whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, if he desires to bring before the notice of the House a report as to a Member of this House threatening the infliction of physical violence on hon. Members opposite, and in the precincts of the House, he is not entitled to bring it before you as a matter of Privilege?

I did not know what the hon. Baronet was going to refer to; but I would make an appeal to the House not to allow the time of the House to be occupied with Questions of this nature. There would be no end to them.

said, the Motion just made ought to have been accompanied by some statement from the Government. He had that morning examined the Amendment Paper, with great anxiety, to see whether the Government placed on the Paper any Amendment which would raise again the question of arrears. He confessed that he was deeply' disappointed to find that no such Notice to that effect appeared in the Paper. He did not suppose that any Bill had ever passed through Committee which had been so radically altered in its passage as this Bill. It was. in fact, so altered that it was difficult to recognize it as the same Bill. While he was perfectly prepared to admit that the Bill was valuable in some important particulars, it was true that in one vital point it had been altered in a very extraordinary fashion. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government said that the chief object of it was to abolish harsh and unjust evictions. The condition of things with which they were now face to face was that, while the Government had yielded to urgent pressure to reduce the judicial rents, all those provisions in the Bill which were originally shaped with the intention of preventing harsh and unjust evictions in the immediate future were completely struck out, and nothing appeared in their place. He had always maintained that the original provisions known as the Bankruptcy Clauses, which were intended by the Government to prevent evictions, would fail in their object. It had been always put forward on behalf of the Government, that it was to this portion of the Bill they looked to put an effectual check to those evictions, Now, the Bankruptcy Clauses in Committee went by the Board without a single voice being raised in their favour except from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). Nothing had been put in their place; and now they found that a Bill which was said to have been introduced for the purpose of preventing evictions would fail to do so, Thus, a most important grievance was not dealt with at all. They had urged on the Government that the question of harsh evictions would be best dealt with by the extension of Clause 22 (now Clause 26). He could not understand how the Government were prepared to defend their position. If no machinery was provided in the Bill for the prevention of harsh evictions, the result would be that an immense number of people—probably between 20,000 and 30,000 families—who were under ejectment decrees for arrears which they could not pay would derive no benefit from the Bill. So far as he could judge, this Bill, on which so many hopes were founded, would bring no relief to a large class of tenants during the coming winter—in fact, not before the 31st of March next. It certainly would not bring great relief to anybody now in danger of eviction, or to any of those tenants for whom the Bankruptcy Clauses were intended. The only hope for those tenants was in the extension of Clause 26.

said, that the Motion before the House was the re-committal of the Bill for a specific purpose in respect of Clauses 10 and 24, and the remarks of the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in referring to other Clauses.

said, that under those circumstances he would move the re-committal of the Bill with respect to Clauses 7 and 26, if that were in Order. He did not desire to prolong debate. His only object was to enable the Government to give such information as might shorten discussion. The Government having admitted the most important principle that the judicial rents had become unjust and should be reduced, how could they hope to introduce law and order by enforcing those rents, when, by doing so, they would be brought face to face with an enormous number of people evicted for unjust rents? He must say that if the Government were prepared to do that they were rushing on their own ruin. The leaseholders, who were now admitted to the benefits of the Bill, had been placed in a most cruel position, for, having paid enormous sums to get leases, they had been held all these years to the old rents. After six years, it was now admitted by the Government that it would be unjust to hold those men to excessive rents, and therefore, instead of denying the tenants, of whom there were hundreds and thousands in arrears, any remedy, the Government should endeavour to open some read by which they would be enabled to get out of this impasse. There was nothing which had surprised him (Mr. Dillon) more than the action of the Liberal Unionists in this matter. That Party based their existence in politics on this theory—that they were determined, to do justice to Ireland. They had a meeting all to themselves, and with the approval of the Leaders of the Party, certain Amendments were put on the Paper. The Irish Party thereupon adopted a tone of conciliation, for they saw that the Amend ments of the Liberal Unionists to Clause 22 would go a long way to remove a very serious defect in the Bill. But the Liberal Unionist Party, in every instance in which they put down an important Amendment, ran away when it came to the scratch, and left the Irish Party in the lurch. They withdrew the Amendments, and supported the Government in the Division Lobby, whilst they sent the two Ulster Liberal Unionists (Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Lea) to support them in the company of the Irish Party. If that was to be the basis of Liberal Unionism, it would be a very long time before Irishmen would become reconciled to the Union, and he (Mr. Dillon) would take particular care during the coming autumn that the action of the Liberal Unionist Party, as compared with their professions, should be understood. The Irish Members had now placed on the Paper the Liberal Unionists Amendments on Clause 22, and he asked would they now support those Amendments? The Unionists taunted the Irish Members with the assurance that, in doing justice to Ireland, the National Party would be extinguished. Now, here was their opportunity to crush the National Party, and ensure their own success by doing this act of justice to the Irish tenants. The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) said on Wednesday that it was most important that the Bill should pass at once, and that 48 hours' delay in doing that would be dangerous to the interests of Ireland. Would the First Lord of the Treasury explain what he meant by that statement, for he (Mr. Dillon) could not understand it? There was no clause in the Bill as it stood which could substantially alter the position of the Irish tenant for many months to come, except the 7th clause, and that altered it for the worse. If, by that, the right hon. Gentleman intended that there should be a vast number of evictions carried out under Clause 7, he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that his plea for urgency would have an effect the reverse of what he contemplated. When the First Lord of the Treasury begged the House not to delay the Bill for 48 hours, he was probably thinking of the coming election in the Northwich Division of Cheshire, and of others that had just taken place which threatened to be the ruin of the Party, rather than of any immediate good which would he done to the Irish tenant by the Bill. His only regret was that he had not mot the clause with greater resistance, and that the Irish Representatives had not pressed more Amendments upon thin clause which was now Clause 7 of the Bill, which was all the worse because the evil it would work was insidious, and because, while avoiding the open scandal of evictions which had done so much to damage the Government, it would make them easy and bring them about in the dark, by moans of a printed paper, and would deprive the evicted tenant of the comfort which the presence of a crowd of sympathizing neighbours afforded to those who were evicted by force. The opposition of the Irish Representatives to the clause in Committee had been diminished by two considerations—one being the rather cruel threat of the Government that pressing Amendments would lead to the loss of the Bill, and the other being the promise on the part of the Government that the operation of Clause 22 would be largely extended, so as to afford ample protection to the Irish tenant. The intention of Clause 7 was evidently to make evictions easy, while the scandal of putting them openly in force was avoided in view of approaching elections. In conclusion, he would demand, for the last time, that the tenants now so much in arrears should not be deprived of the benefits of this Bill. He begged to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clauses 7 and 26.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down appeared to have founded his ideas upon a total misapprehension of what the Bill did and what it did not do, and there never was an imputation less warranted than that the Government were thinking of elections in their desire to pass the Bill. The greater part of the hon. Member's speech had been directed against Clause 7, and he accused the Government of having introduced that clause, with the view of tiding over the next few months in order to facilitate the elections which might be held during that time in England and Ireland. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might at once say that the Government had not introduced the clause into the Bill with that object. Their object in framing the clause had been to avoid the wholly superfluous and unnecessary sufferings which were caused at present by evictions, in eases where agreements were ultimately entered into between the landlord and the tenant. The hon. Member then went on to make the astonishing observation that no relief would be given to the tenant under this Bill until some nine or 10 months had elapsed. [Mr. DILLON: No substantial relief.] The hon. Member had said that no part of the Bill, except Clause 7, would come into operation until the lapse of nine or 10 months. Let the House consider for a moment what the Bill did at present for the relief of the Irish tenants. In the first place, every leaseholder who chose, and every tenant who had not had his judicial rent fixed, in the course of the next three months could apply to have a judicial rent fixed, which would operate as regarded the rent, which would become due next September. [Cries of "No!"] There was no doubt whatever upon that point. ["Hear, hear!"and an hon. MEMBER: What about the hanging gales?] The hanging gales affected only a very small part of Ireland. The Bill further made a provision for the revision, of judicial rents, which would also affect the rents due next September. Then, with regard to Clause 26, it would come into operation at once, not only as regarded every ejectment after the passing of the Act, but as regarded all ejectment decrees which had been obtained for months past, whether they were 10,000, 15,000, or 30,000 in number. Other parts of the Bill would give the tenants immediate relief, and the criticism of the hon. Member was the very height of injustice. Indeed, it was impossible to conceive how, in the face of these facts, any hon. Member could make the statement that the Bill would not come into operation until after the lapse of nine or 10 months. With regard to the bankruptcy provisions of the Bill, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had never concealed Ms regret that the action of the Committee had compelled the Government to drop them, as he believed that, oven as they had been modified by the House of Lords, they had formed a very valuable part of the measure. He was glad to find that his regret at the absence of those provisions was now shared by hon. Members opposite, although they had not taken the opportunity of expressing a favourable opinion with regard to them while the Bill was in Committee. Objections had been taken to those clauses on the ground that the word "bankruptcy" was an invidious one; but the Government had been prepared to pledge themselves to drop that word, and to adopt any form of clause which would bring in all creditors of the tenant on an equal footing. Was it fair to reproach the Government, after they had shown their readiness to drop the Bankruptcy Clauses or to modify them, with having brought forward a Bill without provisions which they had dropped in obedience to the wishes of hon. Members opposite? The Government had done their best to relieve the Irish tenant from the load of debt from which, according to the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Irish tenant was suffering, and if they had been defeated in this object it was owing to no fault of their own, but to the action of hon. Members on that side of the House. While saying that, he did not wish to be thought to imply that the Bill, even as at present without those provisions, was a useless measure for the tenants of Ireland. He thought that it was very much the reverse, and he believed that under the operation of Clause 22 or 26, whichever they chose to call it, as a matter of fact, a settlement would be come to over the whole of Ireland. They had been told that this Bill gave no relief with regard to arrears. But the Government had done a great deal with regard to arrears; they had given the County Court Judge absolute power to spread the payment over an indefinite period. He assorted that, though the Bill had been so far maimed by the action of hon. Members from Ireland, yet it did give immense relief in regard to arrears. What relief had been 'given in this direction by their Act of 1881? The hon. Member for East Mayo told the Government they had admitted that the judicial rents were unjust, and that therefore they were logically bound to make the action of the clause retrospective over the period during which the alleged injustice had existed. What were the rents now alleged to be unjust? They were rents fixed by the Courts. In 1881 the rents were what hon. Members opposite asserted had been exacted by harsh and unjust landlords out of their tenants by working on their affection for their homes, and by threatening them with the loss of all improvements on their holdings, unless they consented to these rents; and yet the relief given by Clause 26 had never been dreamt of in 1881. He denied the premisses upon which the hon. Member proceeded. He did not admit that the rents which they proposed to reconsider were unjust in that sense which alone would allow of the argument that any action taken with regard to them ought to be retrospective. A rent might be too high without being unjust. A contract might be too bard without being inequitable, and he would not say that those rents were unjust until hon. Members conceded to him that a contract solemnly entered into between the two parties, which the progress of time had caused to bear hardly on one of the parties, could be described as being an unjust one, and that any action taken with regard to it ought to be retrospective. He maintained that they had no right to use any other words with regard to these rents than they were prepared to use with regard to any other contract, fairly and honestly entered into, which the lapse of time or any other circumstances might have rendered difficult of fulfilment by either of the parties. The Government were not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo; they could not withdraw from the position which they had taken up with regard to this point in Committee. They were not prepared to start from the admission that the judicial rents were unjust, and acting upon that to apply a procedure to the diminishing of the debts from the tenant to the landlord different from that which was to be applied to the debts of the tenant to the shopkeeper and the gombeen man. The responsibility for the loss of the Bankruptcy Clauses must rest with the Irish Members; but the Bill gave considerable protection with regard to arrears; and he thought that the hon. Member for East Mayo would admit that the Government were trying to do their best for the good of Ireland, and that the measure in its present form was one of the largest measures of relief ever given by that House to any class of the community cither in Ireland or in England.

said, that the most important point was that they should understand in what position they were placed with regard to Clauses 7 and 26. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, in his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion not at all accurately, the position in which the Irish tenants was placed under the 26th clause as it now stood. The pressing question which they had to consider, was, what the situation of the tenants, whether leaseholders or holders under judicial rents, would be in the course of the autumn and winter in respect to arrears, which he feared were very general, and almost universal in consequence of the bad times. That was the real point, and the question was, what did this Bill do for these people? If it did nothing for them, what would be the situation in Ireland under the Bill in the course of the next sis months? What were the Government going to do? This clause affected, to a certain degree probably the larger proportion of some 300,000 tenants—200,000 under judicial rents and 100,000 leaseholders—who owed one or two years' amount of a rent which was admitted to be too high. He was not going into the metaphysical discussion between a rent which was too high and a rent which was unjust; they might depend upon it, though the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was very acute and metaphysical, that that was not the point of view from which the Irish tenant would regard the question. What the tenant would say to himself would be, "Can I pay this rent, and, if not, what will happen to me under the 7th clause?" he could not see why a distinction should be made between the relief in futurum which the Bill was to give, and the relief from the rent which had been too high previously. He thought that the boasted Equity Clause of the Government did no equity at all and was not worth the paper it was written upon, for this reason. A man was called upon to pay two years' rent; he was allowed to pay this by instalments, but each instalment was a fraction of an exorbitant rent, and he did not think that anyone would ha gulled by the clause. This clause was an inequitable clause, and the Government were trying to palm it off on the country and on the Irish people as an Equity Clause. What was the result of it? They ordered a man in distress and paying an exorbitant rent to pay successive instalments of this unjust rent. That would involve the payment of exorbitant instalments, and it was plain that the time would come when he could not pay the instalments. It was possible that the man might pay the first and second instalments; but if he could not pay the third, the moment must arrive when he would be evicted. The clause, in effect, said that without benefit of clergy, without power to the Court, he was to be instantly evicted, and the Court was to give him no relief whatever. A more unjust, a more inequitable, he was almost going to say a more iniquitous, clause, it was impossible to conceive. Then a provision was introduced in Clause 26, with reference to fieri facias. But they confined fieri facias to the sale of the tenant's interest; the landlord was left to do as he liked with reference to the whole plant and stock of the tenant The landlord could sweep the farm bare. He was told that they were doing that most extensively in Ireland now. Suppose a landlord wished to get rid of a tenant. It was not necessary for him to sell the tenant's interest—he could go to the farm and sweep away the little stock left to the tenant everything by which the family could live The clause gave no protection whatever, it left the tenant absolutely at the mercy of the landlord in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition proposed no alternative to the Bankruptcy Clauses. They had done so. There was an alternative proposed in the Amendments on Clause 22. They were now reproduced on the Taper, and if the Government would only accept them now, then the treaty of peace would be signed at once. They were the Amendments of the Liberal Unionist Party. Where was the Liberal Unionist Party that evening when this matter was being discussed? They were away enjoying themselves; but they had got to consider whether the tenants of Ireland, whose cause the Liberal Unionists had undertaken, were also enjoying themselves. He thought the tenants of Ireland would remember the line of Pope—

"Wretches hang that jurymen may dine."

What I said was, that any provision of relief bearing the marks and subject to the conditions which I explained were absolutely necessary—that all creditors should be treated alike—we should be glad to consider, and possibly accept.

said, the proposal seemed to him to involve a profound fallacy. The right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) pointed out that the Bill only made the Irish landlords do what the English landlords did voluntarily. That was the basis of this legislation from 1881 onwards. It was an attempt, difficult, arduous, and generally unsuccessful, to make the Irish landlord do what the English landlord had done voluntarily. When the English landlord found prices had fallen and that rents were too high he reduced his rent in the proportion which he thought fair to his tenants. But he did not commit such an absurdity as to go to the tenant and say—"I will not reduce your rent unless your butcher, your baker, and all the rest of your creditors, reduce their bills." The tenant would think he was a fool to propound such an argument as that; but yet that was the fundamental principle of the Government, which they insisted on. It would not bear examination for a moment. The Liberal Unionists, after all, were more intellegent men than the Government they supported. They made no proposal of that kind. They put their Amendments down dealing with rent alone. But the Liberal Unionists had run away from their colours, and loft only the hon. Member for South Tyrone——

And the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea).

Oh, well, there are two of them then; but "where are the seven?" He supposed the fact was that the Government had adopted the doctrine of the Duke of Abercorn, and demanded that "the Irish landlords are not be sacrificed to the base excuse of maintaining the Union." That was the description of the policy of the hon. Member for South Tyrone by the Duke of Abercorn. He entreated the Government not to listen to the Duke of Abercorn, not to listen to the landlords of Ireland, who, after all, thought uncommonly little of the Union, but a great deal of the rent. The question was, whether by the Bill the Government were going to send a message of peace to Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that they did not wish to prolong this agrarian quarrel, but that the urgent question in Ireland was that of the arrears of exorbitant rents. More or less—probably more—of these 300,000 tenants were in arrear, and for that the Bill offered no remedy, except to enforce, by a new and insidious process, the payment of exorbitant rents by spreading the instalments over a period of time; but that did not remove the taint of injustice which attached to the exorbitant rents What was proposed by the Opposition was the simplest of all remedies. It was to substitute for the Government Bankruptcy Clauses, that the County Court should in settling this question of arrears and instalments have an equitable jurisdiction to deal with the amount due. Could there be a more simple, or more fair and reasonable proposal than that? The hon. Member for East Mayo promised them peace in Ireland if they did that. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman opposite smiled at that; but, surely, he wished for peace in Ireland as much as anyone did. Their Bill, however, gave no remedy except the combination of the tenants against their unjust law. The Irish Members said they did not desire that; but wished them by law to give a just and an equitable relief, and they proposed to leave the Court to say on those arrears what reduction should be made. It was said they had shut the back door against eviction; but that door was still left ajar, because the landlord could go and sweep off the whole of the tenant's stock under the Bill, and thus eviction would come about, he hoped that even at the eleventh hour the Government would see their way to making a composition on the 26th clause. If they did so, they would make the Bill a just and reasonable Bill, and one that would give satisfaction to the tenants in Ireland. That was a result to which every man, to whatever Party he belonged, ought to do his best to contribute. When the Court gave judgment it should give judgment on the arrears and on the whole matter, and should pronounce what was fair and equitable between the parties. He hoped therefore that the Government would not be induced to stand out in that matter, for if they did they would unquestionably be deprived of all the advantages which they expected from that Bill, and their measure would not be accepted in Ireland in the spirit in which everybody desired that it should be.

said, he did not think that the right hon. Member for Derby would be able to persuade the British elector that a Bill which remitted rents to the extent of 20 per cent was a measure which gave no relief whatever to Irish tenants. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said in the next six months.] Between allowing a remission in future and allowing a remission of arrears there seemed to be a very large distinction to be drawn. If the Government were to agree to remit the arrears of the judicial rents, they would have to deal with the very difficult case of the tenants who had already paid, for it would, at any rate, be unjust to remit in the case of those who had been lax in payment, and not to give any remedy to those who had paid up to the time. He was glad that the Government had announced that they would not make a concession in that respect. If they did, he considered it would be another stop in that very dangerous and disastrous path on which the Government, he regretted to say, had already entered. On a former occasion the right hon. Member for Derby had referred to him (Viscount Cranborne), and spoke of the sancta simplicitas of the noble Lord who hoped that the Government would not give way, and the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government immediately afterwards did give way. Now, he (Viscount Cranborne) admitted that the Government did act in direct antagonism to a speech which he had previously made; but the sancta simplicitas to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was shared by a very large number of the hon. Members who sat around him. He regretted more than he could say the concession which had been made. No doubt, if prices rose they had reason to hope that the rent of the landlord would rise under the proposal of the Government. But he feared that if they established a sliding scale for rent, they would establish a scale under which rent would slide down, but would not slide up again, and it would, to a large extent, affect the credit of the tenants of Ireland when the Purchase Bill came before them. He had hoped that they had reached the limit of concessions in this respect, and that the Irish tenants, recognizing that the Act of 1881 was a final settlement, would have looked no more to Parliament for a further relief from their contracts. Some hon. Members did not seem to recognize the fact that Irish tenants must go through some tribulation before they again learned the inevitable lesson of economic laws and the necessity of adhering to their contracts. The time must come when those economic laws would assert themselves, and the tenants would have to bear the brunt of it. Why had those concessions been made? [Laughter ] They need not laugh; he was going to answer the question. The concessions had been made not, he believed, with the advice of many hon. Members who sat around him, but in the teeth of the declarations of the Unionist Leaders on both sides of the House, and a large number of Members on that (the Ministerial) side did not agree with them. But the reason for them was this—The Government was not a Government in a majority; and whilst he would not say a word against the Liberal Unionist Party, whose I patriotism and consistency he fully recognized, and to whom he felt that the Government owed a great deal, yet, undoubtedly, they had the power to turn out the Government. He could not for a moment blame Her Majesty's Government if—when they considered the terrible confusion into which all affairs, both at home and abroad, would be plunged by a defeat of the Government in this House—they shrank from those consequences. But though he did not blame them, he could not agree with them, and he could not think that the course they had taken was most conducive either to the prosperity of Ireland or to the good of the public life of this country. These were sentiments which were largely held by hon. Members sitting around him, and he had waited to see whether someone of greater weight than himself would rise and say words to this effect; but as no one had risen he thought it right to say this much. Great changes had been made in the Bill; but he was only anxious that it should be fully understood that many Members on his side of the House would not be held responsible for the 26th clause, and that the country would put the saddle on the right horse.

said, he was decidedly of opinion that unless something was placed in the Bill in lieu of the Bankruptcy Clauses the Bill would not be effective. He could not see what good any Land Bill would effect in Ireland which did not provide, in a satisfactory manner, for the liquidation of arrears. He, therefore, still hoped the Government would consent to make the necessary alterations in their measure, and he would ask them, at the eleventh hour, whether they would not consider the question of allowing the County Courts equitable jurisdiction, and thus make the Bill a really healing measure. The majority of the House desired it should be done, and the Government would have been defeated if the Liberal Unionists had voted according to their opinion, instead of abstaining in view of other concessions.

said, the first object of the speeches he had listened to of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) and of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) seemed to be to discount the value of the Bill, as much, as possible, before it went to the country; and, in the second place, to misrepresent and injure the Liberal Unionist Party. It was quite true the Liberal Unionists were absent that night, and he was not sure that, for all the good done up to the present, they were not quite as well where they were. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear! and loud Opposition laughter.] He was speaking of the proceedings of that evening. He would venture to state what was really the action of the Liberal Unionist Party in the matter; but, at the same time, he was not responsible for the action of the whole Party. He had taken a line of his own, and what he had said in that House he had said at Devonshire House. The Government had made great concessions, and he was not afraid that the action of the Liberal Unionists should be judged by Irishmen of any Party. He had been bantered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby because the Liberal Unionists did not follow him into the Lobby. He had done his best to carry the Party with him on all the main considerations. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: How many voted?] He thought something like 15, and they were about equally divided. He bad done what he thought to be his duty to his constituents, and he did not think he ought to be bantered for that by the right hon. Member for Derby, or any other Member of the House. He had ventured to lay before the Liberal Unionist Party, clearly and distinctly, what were the Amendments he thought necessary in regard to the Bill. Before the meeting of the Liberal Unionist Party, he had spoken on the second reading of the Bill perfectly plainly, and nobody could say that his advice to the Liberal Unionist Party was not advice that was given in the House. He had held from the first that with respect to Clause 1 the option should be given to leaseholders, and that no restriction should be put on the clause. He held that the judicial rents, in view of the facts and the evidence placed before the Cowper Commission, were impossible rents, and would have to be reduced; and he stated that more was in peril than the landlord's rent if that course were not adopted, and he recommended that the back door should be closed. All those points Lad been conceded, and more, because they had got relief from the town parks, which had been swept away in South Tyrone and many other parts of Ireland, and they had the Equity Clause made retrospective. Under those circumstances, he was not afraid to have the action of the Liberal Unionists judged by hon. Members of either side. The right hon. Member for Derby said that all the Party did not vote with the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Friday). Was the right hon. Gentleman never a Member of a Party which did not vote in its entirety? The hon. and learned Member for Inverness did what he thought was right, and he (Mr. T. W. Russell) supported him, as he should do again; but they were not responsible for the whole Party. With regard to the Equity Clauses, he read Clauses 7 and 26 together; and it appeared to him that this was what would take place. No tenant in Ireland could suffer eviction, which was what they wished to avoid, until the matter had come before the County Court. The landlord could not take those notices and scatter them broadcast on his own motion. He must go to the Court and get an order, and the moment he went there for the order the tenant went for protection, and the 26th clause would be put into operation. He was desirous, in common with the hon. Member for East Mayo, that the clause should go further. The County Court Judge had the right to give time to the tenant to pay, and to arrange the instalments, and he also had the power, if he could bring the parties to terms, to arrange a composition. He (Mr. Russell) believed that in 80 per cent, of the cases composition would actually take place. ["Hear, hear!"] They believed it? If they did believe it, they were bound to enact it. He did not say that all Irish landlords were unreasonable; but it was for the 20 per cent of cases, where the composition was not made, that legislation was wanted. It was required to force the Clanricardes and the O'Callaghans to come to terms. There was a percentage of Irish landlords—tho Clanricardes and O'Callaghans—who would take their pound of flesh, and therefore he (Mr. T. W. Russell) wished for a provision, authorizing the Chairman to compel these Clanricardes and O'Callaghans to come to terms. He would say that these people had no right to throw the whole country into a state of seething excitement in order to get their unjust rents. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that he (Mr. T. W. Russell) and his Friends proposed no substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses; but in his speech on the second reading, while he condemned the Bankruptcy Clauses, in the case of small tenants, and hold them, in the demoralized state of Ireland, to be positively dangerous, he also stated that if they were to be abandoned it would be necessary to put something in their place, and he hold that an extension of the Equity Clauses was necessary. The noble Viscount the Member for the Darken Division of Lancashire, had raised a point against any further concessions being made on account of those tenants who had paid their rent, and were not in arrears. There was, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) would admit, some force in that; but he did not think it was a good reason why this small boon should be refused in the present state of Ireland. It would only affect about 20 per cent of the cases; but it would bring contentment and peace; it would enable this measure to work freely, fully, and fairly. He believed that the whole peace of the country depended oil the Bill. He hoped it would have the desired effect, and he now pleaded at the last moment, even although he was a Liberal Unionist, and in the absence of his Party, who would be there when the Division Bell rang, that the Government would reconsider the question, and see if they could not give way on the most reasonable proposal that was submitted to them.

said, he had not intervened before in the discussions upon that Bill, but he had followed them with great interest; he had seen that the discussion was in excellent hands, and that the question wag moving in the right direction, and he had been desirous to see the proceedings expedited. The position, however, was now so peculiar that he felt it necessary to say a few words. They might safely go to a Division on the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who, however, had directed a part of his speech to the justification of the Party with which he was connected, and which had assumed the name of "Liberal Unionists." The hon. Member, he thought, had not had a difficult task in reviewing the conduct of that Party during the last week, so far as he was himself concerned. But, when he said that on a matter which he deemed vital to the interests of the Irish tenantry, he was not, on a sanguine estimate, supported by more than one-tenth of that Party, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not think that his vindication, of the Party, as a whole, would inspire in the minds of critics a vehement desire to retort upon, or to object to, what had been said by the hon. Gentleman. When the action of that Party came to be a matter for serious consideration, it appear d to him that their difficulty would not lie in the details of what had taken place within the last few weeks. Their difficulty would he to answer this question—How came it that, in the months of August and September of last year, with full warning of what was coming, when moderate proposals were made with respect to judicial rents, which would at least have given time to tenants unable to pay, until their cases had been examined by the Land Commission, how came it that the whole body of Members calling themselves Liberal Unionists deliberately joined the Government in refusing a reasonable concession? That was a stiff and difficult question, and if anyone could answer it in a satisfactory manner, it was the hon. Member for South Tyrone; while as to the question more immediately before the House, the answer supplied to the speech of the Chief Secretary by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was absolutely conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he greatly regretted the omission of the Bankruptcy Clauses, and he attributed their omission to the squeamishness or fastidiousness of hon. Gentleman on that side of the House with regard to the term "Bankruptcy." But speaking for all for whom he could presume to speak, and tie thought also for the last speaker, he would say it was not a question of a word, or of a form. It was that, in their judgment, the relief given by the Bankruptcy Clauses, valuable as it was in itself, was rejected because it was given on a condition which was absolutely dishonouring and demoralizing to the tenantry of Ireland. This was not a ques tion of a legal term, or even of legal I status, but it was an objection of substance. The proper substitute for the Bankruptcy Clauses was indicated in Committee by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, when they were objected to; it was now again before them upon the Notice Paper, in a form as to which he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) still entertained the hope that the Government would give it a favourable consideration. The Chief Secretary said he was ready to give any relief in respect of arrears to tenants who came before the Court under judgment in ejectment, provided that the relief was proportionately shared by all their other creditors. But could that ground be held as a solid and substantial ground for legislation? Were the cases parallel in the view of the public, and in view of legislation'? it was going to be declared, on the invitation of the Government, that a number of rents which were to be examined in Court were excessive, exorbitant, and unjust; was it proposed to make such a declaration with respect to the other debts of the occupier? Was Parliament going to declare that the tradesman who supplied tools, or any other creditor of the tenant, was in the relation to him of a creditor exacting an excessive and exorbitant price for what he had supplied? Nothing of the kind. It was only landlords' rent that Parliament proposed to declare excessive. What, then, became of the principle, on which they were invited to take their stand, of the absolute equality of the landlord and the ordinary creditor? On what imaginable ground could they be invited to place other creditors on an equality with the landlords, when the fundamental inequality was that the tenant was to be invited to go into Court to obtain a judgment that his rent was excessive, while other creditors were untouched by the action of the Legislature? Let them consider a case that was certain to happen. There could be no question that, after the heavy fall in agricultural valuation and the way it had operated in Ireland, a large number of occupiers, both leaseholders and judicial renters, after the passing of the Act would go before the Court to obtain a revision of rent; and, in the case of leaseholders, it was possible it might be declared that their rents were not only excessive, but unjust and exorbitant in an extraordi nary degree. Nothing was more remarkable than the number of instances which, had been disclosed by the examination of particular estates, in which rents had been paid for a long series of years enormously above what any impartial tribunal would declare to be fair arid just. When the Land Act was passed, one landlord of good repute, who had no idea that his rents were excessive, went into the matter with his agent, and found cases in which rents that were excessive by 10 per cent had been regularly paid for 64 years. Such cases occurred in Ireland, but were not to be found in any other country. There would probably be such cases among leaseholders. Suppose a leaseholder went into Court and obtained a large reduction? A half-year's rent might be coming due; but he might, at the same time, be in arrear for the previous half-year. A judgment in ejectment might be obtained against him, and this Bill would greatly facilitate his being deprived of his status as a tenant by eviction, notwithstanding that a public authority, under the direction of that House, had declared to be exorbitant the rent in respect of which he was going to be evicted. That was to say, an occupier was to be deprived of his status for non-payment of rent that had been declared to be excessive, and which was just as excessive two years before. Was is not likely that there would be many such cases declared by the Court, and that the arrears would be impossible for the tenant to liquidate? It was their interest, and they were all anxious, to send a message of peace to Ireland; but, in order to do that, there ought to be some consistency in the proceedings of Parliament; and it would be a proceeding clearly inconsistent if, while abating the rent, in consequence of a strong necessity—which never ought to be done, except in circumstances which admitted no other alternative—we were to shrink from the legitimate consequences of such a proceeding. It was perfectly intelligible, as the Bill was introduced especially with respect to the judicial renters, that the Government should say—" We will have no dealing with arrears in respect of the Equity Clauses, except as to the time to be allowed for their repayment;" because the ground which the Government took up at that time was that the rent was a sacred thing. But now that ground was cut away; the rent was no longer a sacred thing; it was to be judged by its adaptation to the circumstances of the holding, and to what a solvent tenant could make out of the holding. In that ease, how was it possible to say that the tenant was to receive an immediate relief to enable him to remain in the holding, and, at the same time, that he was to be subjected to an excessive rent in the shape of the arrears to be added on to the rent which he had to pay? Why, then, did not the Government accede to the moderate and reasonable demand which was made in this matter? The Bill as it stood was in most respects a Bill of great value and importance. There was the 7th clause, which in the main might be justly called the landlord's clause, as it enormously improved the position of the landlord with respect to the exaction of his rent. Now, he (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) did not object to improving the landlord's position with respect to the exaction of his rent, provided they took reasonable securities that it should be a just rent. The Government had admitted by their deliberate action that it was their duty to take such securities; how, then, was it possible for them to say they would keep alive the old obligations, which, by the voice of the Legislature, all men had solemnly condemned, by adding to the fair rent those old obligations in the shape of instalments, and thus placing the tenant under a joint weight of two heterogeneous burdens, which, taken together, must crush him, and destroy the beneficial results which otherwise might have been experienced from this Bill? It was sometimes said that they had adopted principles and rules in regard to Ireland which they would not think of adopting in England or Scotland. Well, the principle on which the Chief Secretary for Ireland took his stand was the necessity for dealing alike with the creditors and the occupiers. Was that the view of legislation on this side of the Channel? No; he hold in his hand an Act of last year, entitled, "An Act to amend the Tenure of Land by Crofters," and the 4th sub-section of Clause 5 of that Act contained the very principle for which they on that side of the House were contending, and it showed that Parliament a year ago denied it, and refused to pro- ceed on the ground on which they were now asked to proceed. The sub-section directed the Commissioners to take into consideration all the circumstances which had led to such arrears, and to decide whether the whole or what part of such arrears should be paid. The principle which they were asserting, that of giving relief solely against arrears of rent, thus had the solemn and deliberate sanction of Parliament within the last 12 months and that not on behalf of Ireland, but on behalf of Scotland, the very last country that would ask them to depart from sound principles to meet a temporary emergency. He hoped that the Government would not, when they came to the Amendments on the Notice Paper, refuse to complete the good work that they had taken in hand, and thus, by one of the greatest errors in politics, commit the fault of marring a great work by unworthily grudging and refusing some minor, but, from circumstances connected with it, some vital and important concession which was necessary to give it completeness and security.

said, that what the right hon. Gentleman asked them to do was to give away something which belonged to other people, and to do so in no grudging spirit; he asked them to surrender principles which that House had uniformly asserted and maintained with great advantage to the State up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Let this legislation be retrospective; let a special formal composition be applied to one particular form of debt which shall not be applied to other kinds of debt." Those were new principles which Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept. The right hon. Gentleman had only referred to one exception in the whole course of our legislation up to the present time. But what was the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in fixing a fair rent in 1881? That rent was not to run from the year 1881, nor from the date of the application to the Court; it was to date from the period at which judgment was given by the Commissioners. Were principles which were held to be just in 1881, and which had regulated hitherto the trade and commerce of the United Kingdom, to be safely violated in 1887? The Government had been consistent in what they proposed. They offered to put every creditor in the same position before the law, and that if any composition was to be effected, it should equally apply to the debts duo to the landlord and to every other creditor. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Bankruptcy Clauses as dishonourable and demoralizing. Was it not dishonourable and demoralizing to relieve a man from a contract into which he had deliberately entered, and which had been judged to be a just contract by a Court of Law, simply because there had been a change of circumstances since the contract was entered into which made it more onerous to one of the parties. No system of commerce, no system of trade, no system of justice could be maintained under a principle of that kind—a principle the assertion of which would strike at the root of the trade and credit of the country, where articles continually changed in value. But it was now assumed that if there had been a change in value, it was right to relieve a man of his liabilities with respect to those articles in which a change of value had taken place. The proposal of hon. Members opposite was that an exception should be made with regard to one particular class of contracts, and that the change in the law, which was to apply to one particular class of debts, should not apply to all classes of debts equally. It was attempted to support that proposal by asserting that the debts which should alone be affected by this change in the law were those which arose from arrears, and which were the result of unjust rents; but he could not assume that those rents were altogether unjust when they had been fixed by a competent authority appointed by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the case of the leaseholders, it was argued that they were suffering from excessive, exorbitant, and unjust rents; but those leaseholders were expressly excluded from the legislation of 1881 by the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who held that these were contracts entered into by the parties with their eyes open, and were of so sacred a nature that, under no circumstances, were they to be disturbed. It was a most dangerous doctrine to lay down that a man who was in arrears was to receive a benefit that they denied to another man, simply because he was not in arrears. If the principle contended I for by hon. Members opposite was maintained in Parliament, that any contract; might be interfered with when a change of circumstances had supervened from the period when it was entered into, it; would be impossible to resist the demand for the rescinding of any kind of contract. The Government had made a fair and reasonable offer in this matter, They had no desire to affix the stigma I of bankruptcy upon the tenant seeking relief, neither did they desire to compel him to do anything dishonourable, or that was inconsistent with the position of an honest man. All that they said to him was, that if he was unable, to pay; his debts, he must avail himself of the facilities which were offered to him for fairly distributing his property among his creditors. This was a principle well known and established by the English law, and it was one from which the Government could not depart.

Sir, every argument that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has used against the proposals of my hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) might be used with equal effect against there-adjustment of rents, which the Government, under the pressure of circumstances, at the eleventh hour adopted. The reason why Parliament has interfered in the case of dealing between landlords and their tenants is, that admittedly there is not freedom of contract in Ireland in respect of land; but with respect to other things there is freedom of contract. In respect of everything which the tenant buys from a shopkeeper, there is perfect freedom of contract. If he cannot get his agricultural implements or his food upon satisfactory terms from one shopkeeper, he can go to another. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will not deal with this question, the only question left likely to interfere with a satisfactory settlement of a temporary character during the coming three years in Ireland. This question of arrears of rent was one of the questions which I took trio liberty to point out to him in the debate on going into Committee. I spoke of the date at which re-adjustment of rent should take effect, of the question of arrears, and of the question of evicted tenants. The Government have partially met us re- garding the date at which re-adjustment of rent is to take effect, but they have not met us at all upon the question of arrears, or upon the question of evicted tenants. The question of evicted tenants is not such a large matter as this question of arrears, for that question is undoubtedly a large matter, which may very seriously disturb the settlement proposed to be effected by the Bill. Now, I would ask the Government whether it is worth their while to take their stand upon what they consider to be a principle, but which nobody else in the House can discover to be a principle—the question as between landlord and shopkeeper. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has told us that he would accept any plan which would place all creditors on an equal footing. His meaning is, that if a landlord presses his debtor, the tenant, and drives that tenant into Court, that all the other creditors shall be also compelled to come into Court also and press the tenant in. the same fashion. Now, Sir, we are at issue as to the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman gives the words; but as to what he lays down, we are not at issue with him. We are not at issue with him as regards the words which he has used. So far as we read his words, we are as one with him, and we are willing to make him an offer. We say that, though we greatly prefer that the appeals should only be dealt with by the Court of Equitable Jurisdiction, still we should be willing, in order to close the question of arrears, and prevent it from impeding a settlement and creating trouble during the winter and summer, to allow the Court to deal with all debts, whether duo to the shopkeeper or to the landlord. We only take issue with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the adoption of bankruptcy provisions. We assert that bankruptcy provisions are not necessary to deal with the crisis, and that we have gone as far as we can be expected to go when we say—" As; creditors bring their debtor into Court, deal with the claim of each as it arises." If the Government will agree to that I principle, there need not be a particle of difference between us on the point; but if the Government insist upon driving I all the tenants into bankruptcy proceedings, then, Sir, there is a chasm which it; would be impossible to bridge over. Sir, I trust that this question of arrears may be settled when it is readied by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo to-night or to-morrow, and that we may have, as the issue of this Bill, a settlement worthy of this question, which will really promote the peace of the country, and which will not take away with the one hand that which is given by the other. It would he impossible for this House to claim consistency in its conduct if, while admitting that these rents are unjust and have been unjust for the past twelve months or two years, they compel the tenant to pay the old unjust rents, while they go through the mockery of offering him the chance of going into Court to got the unjust rent reduced. Unless there be some satisfactory provision in regard to this question of arrears, you will undoubtedly have the landlords in multitudes in Ireland taking advantage of the 7th clause to destroy the titles of the tenants, and the equitable jurisdiction which you have given under the 26th clause will break like a reed in the hands of the tenants. I would earnestly entreat the Government to reconsider this question before it is too late. The question is one that cannot really hurt the landlords as a body, because those arrears are absolutely irrecoverable. It can only give rise, if you leave the position as it is, to further confusion and trouble, necessitating next year the passing another Arrears Act, just as the failure in the Act of 1881 to legislate on the question of arrears necessitated action by Parliament, after a winter of confusion and trouble, crime and outrage, to pass the Arrears Act of 1882. I do trust that the Government will be warned by what has gone before. I speak in no threatening sense, and I think also that the necessity and justice of the position require that you should make a clean settlement of the business, and that you should not leave these tenants to be crushed down by the weight of arrears which will reader for many of them your pro posed legislation a mockery and a delusion.

said, he hoped the Government would seriously consider the proposals made to them, seeing the great; necessity that existed for accepting the compromise which had been offered by the hon. Member for Cork.

I am sorry that the Government, in carrying out their promise, have adopted the form of this Amendment. What we complained of was that the tenants, under the Act of 1870 and under the Act of 1881, were treated in a different way from the glebe purchasers under the Laud Purchase Act of last year. I quite admit that, so far as the substance is concerned, the Amendment does carry out the promise of the Government; but what I complain of is that, instead of dealing with the matter as they dealt with glebe purchasers, they require the tenant to obtain two different orders, whereas the globe purchasers made one application and obtained an order. Under this clause the Land Commissioners first make an order in one sense, and if the tenant or purchaser wishes to be put on the same footing with glebe purchasers, then he has to make a subsequent application to get an order of the Court for it, and the term is extended. I would ask the Government to reconsider this point between now and our reaching this clause on Report. It is not open to me now to move Amendments—at least, I could only move to amend the Government Amendment, not other parts of the clause, and I will only ask the Government to consider the desirability of putting the two classes of tenants on exactly the same footing. It really is a great waste of energy, and will involve extra expenditure to the tenant, if this second order is made necessary. Why not do as you did in the case of the glebe purchasers, and let the Land Commissioners make an order once for all and conclude the matter? I acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has met us in a fair way, and with the most liberal spirit; but I would ask him, when he is making a concession at all, to go the whole length, and place all purchasers on the same footing.

In reply to the hon. Member, I must say I do not see how we could meet the point in better language. Though the second order might be necessary——

It is absolutely.

NO; the Commissioners, in the first instance, might give an order that would be satisfactory. The hon. Member will remember that I said a discretion must rest with them. If the hon. Member will be content to leave the matter as it is now, I will, in the interval, before the Bill is sent back to "another place," consider the matter, though I must say I think that the clause can hardly be improved, and that the form in which the discretion is given is scarcely liable to objection.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely mistaken in the matter. The clause leaves the Commissioners no discretion; it enacts specifically that the annuity shall be a 4 per cent annuity, and there is no discretion whatever in the matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter between this and Report, and he will find that the Land Commissioners have no such discretion. Two orders are absolutely necessary.

I could not accept an alteration without a very careful consideration of the language, such as I do not think I could give on the Report stage; but the hon. Member evidently did not hear my remark that it shall be considered with a view to seeing whether, in "another place," a re-arrangement can be made.

The same engagement holds good as regards this Amendment.

in rising to move, in page 1, to insert the following New Clause before Clause 1:—

"On the passing of this Act there shall he substituted for the statutory term of fifteen years provided by 'The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' a term of five years; and in all provisions regarding the said statutory term the word 'five' shall be read instead of the word 'fifteen.' When the fair rent of any holding has been fixed for a statutory term, such rent shall not be afterwards altered, except on the ground that either (1) the value of the produce; or (2) the productive powers of the land have been increased or decreased otherwise than by the agency or at the expense of the tenant or by his default,"

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into the question of an Irish purchase scheme, or into that of the land tenure of India. The hon. Gentleman proposed to adopt the suggestions of the Cowper Commission; but he had not provided any machinery by which they were to be carried into effect.

said, that would follow, and he was quite ready to put the necessary provisions on the Paper.

said, it was now really too late for that, and, moreover, it would interfere with the whole structure of the Bill. It was out of the question for the Government to think of adopting a clause without seeing how it was to be brought into operation, and he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press the clause to a Division.

in moving, in page 2, after Clause 1, to insert the following New Clause:—

"This Act shall apply to all leases and grants of land in perpetuity made to any person previous to the passing hereof, and under which, or under the provisions of any Act of Parliament by virtue of which the same was made, the grantor or the grantee is entitled from time to time and at the expiration of certain periods of time to require the variation and revision of the variable rent payable under such leases or grants; and in every such case the following provisions shall be in force and have effect with respect to the variation and revision of such variable rent, and shall supersede and be in substitution for all and every the provisions in that behalf contained in such leases or grants, and in any Act of Parliament with reference thereto:—

"(a.) The grantor or grantee shall be entitled, six months before the expiration of any prescribed period, to require a revision of such variable rents, and to apply to the Court to fix the same, and, in such case, the party desiring the revision shall serve a revision notice upon the other party;

"(b.) In every case where, before the passing of this Act, any revision of such variable rent has taken place in pursuance of the leases or grants, or of any Act of Parliament with reference thereto, the grantor or grantee may, at any time within the prescribed period, serve a revision notice upon the grantee or grantor, as the case may be, and in such case the prescribed period then current shall be deemed to have expired at the gale day next after the end of six months from the service of such notice;

"(c.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties agree within three months after service of such notice as to what shall be the amount of variable rent to be payable during the prescribed period next following, they may fix the amount of the variable rent to be payable during such prescribed period;

"(d.) Whenever the grantor or grantee has served a revision notice and the parties do not within three months after the service of such notice agree as to what shall be the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variables rent nest following, then and in every such case the amount of the variable rent to be payable until the variation and revision of such variable rent shall be fixed by the Court in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act;

"(e.) In all cases where one Or more under grants in perpetuity have been made of any lands, the service of a revision notice shall have the effect of also bringing before the Court the interests of the under grantors and grantees in perpetuity; and, if any variation of the variable rent should be made, the variation shall simultaneously apply to and affect the variable rent of all such grantors and grantees according to their respective interests under their grants or under any Act of Parliament having reference to or regulating the same:

"(f.) Before fixing the variable rent of any such lands the Court shall take evidence as to the then letting value of such lands, and such value is hereinafter referred to as 'the present letting value,' and shall take evidence as to the letting value of such lands at or about the time when the grant was made, and such letting value is hereinafter referred to as 'the former letting value.' and shall preserve the same proportion between the present letting value and the variable rent to be paid by the grantee until the variation and revision of such variable rent next following as existed between the former letting value and the variable rent payable by the grantee immediately after the making of the grant: Provided always, that the grantor shall not be awarded any increase of variable rent by reason of any increase in the value of such land which is due to any buildings or improvements except in so far as the grantor has contributed to the same. The variable rent fixed by the Court under this Act shall be the variable rent payable under the leases or grants until the same shall be again varied and revised;

"(g.) In this section the words following shall have the meanings respectively attached to them, namely, 'person,' includes corporation whether aggregate or sole; 'variable rent,' means a rent subject to variation and revision; 'prescribed period,' means the period at the expiration of which a variation and revision of the variable rent payable in respect of any lands leased or granted in perpetuity may be required, in pursuance of any lease or grant of the same, or of any Act of Parliament, or this Act; 'revision notice,' means a notice in writing, signed by the person giving such notice, and requiring a variation or revision of any variable rent; 'grantor,' means the person to whom such rent is payable; 'grantee,' means the person by whom such rent is payable,"